The American Speed Myth
Discussion
It all started in a discussion about the relative values about Amercian Speed engines VS other builders...here > http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Apparently we got off topic by discussing the relation between real HP and dyno numbers
So, being the ever helpful and obedient netizen that I am, Ive done as requested and started this thread.
BACKGROUND
Just to clear up my personal position on this, I really dont give a monkeys either way. This discussion is mainly about small block chev engines. I dont have a small block, and I live in Hong Kong, where the car will never be compared to another car if and when I sell it anyway.
The only reason I post this is that when I was looking to buy my car, I looked to this forum as source of information. During my search for information I came across the issue of dyno correction figures. I found dyno charts posted in people's build diaries It was only when researching these figures that I found that the Correction Factor used on AS engines Dyno charts was higher than other companies.
So, when I was comparing the prices, I downgraded the AS numbers so that I could make a proper comparison.
Recently there has been some heated debate over whether an AS engine makes a car more valuable than one with an engine from another builder. The logic of this discussion is therefore whether an AS engine is more valuable than an engine from another engine builder.
I think really most of the discussion is based around UK cars, so we’ll assume for the purposes of discussion that we are talking about UK cars. After all in the USA you can get parts on every street corner (so parts are not an issue), and in places like Hong Kong you have to ship everything in anyway…..
To me, this is a myth which seems to be in two parts
THE SERVICING MYTH
The myth that is sometimes propagated on this forum is that an AS engine is easier to service than a non-AS engine because it has factory support. That’s really two issues isn’t it… is it easier to service, and is it because of factory support.
“EASIER TO SERVICE”
To make the comparison, we’d need to compare two identical spec engines. So, if we compare two identical spec engines, then it cant really be easier to service depending on the builder. Unless of course AS uses parts that are not available locally – which I doubt very much, but if this is the case then a locally built engine would indeed be easier to service (but not the same spec)
“BECAUSE OF FACTORY SUPPORT”
Lets look at the logic of this statement… lets start with an engine that blows up completely.
Big problem
The second time, an oil leak from the sump, the work was carried out by Charles Dunn, A/S approved UK repairer, under warranty.
The third time, detonation caused by running out of fuel on track (so I'm told), the work is being carried out by Charles - at my cost, and I've done what I should have done in the beginning, and gone dry sump and a few other A/S recommended changes to make the the engine survive what I throw at it.
That's how it works with me.
PeteNow, obviously if the engine blows up, this is either a problem with the building of the engine (which would be the builder’s fault) or a problem with the servicing routine (which would be the driver’s fault). This has absolutely nothing to do with the factory.
Small problem
Now, what about if its just a small thing…..
Assuming you have built the car yourself, one would expect that you are also servicing the car yourself. So lets say that you are able to find the problem… then obviously you already know which part to buy, so you make some calls to buy the part. If you bought the engine from AS you might call the factory, or you might call Charles Dunn, or you might call another of the many suppliers that stock Chev parts. Worst case is that you have to wait a day for parts. If you bought the car from another engine builder, there is one place you would not call, and that would be the factory. So, logically, you have one less supplier to call, no big deal really is it. Of course if you bought the engine from a UK supplier, you’d just call him, after all he is a specialist and he built the engine.
What about if you cant find the problem, what would you do? If the engine is an AS engine, you could call the factory (who may need to see the car to sort it out – so you’d have to get the car there), or you could post on this forum, or you could take the car to a local garage.
So really, the only time you need specialist advice is when something goes really wrong. The warranty doesn’t cover oil, plugs, tuning etc anyway, so no matter where you buy your engine, the only time you’re going to want to take it back where you bought it is for warranty claims…. Unless of course you live near your builder and its convenient for you to take it to him for servicing also.
So… if one can see the logic that getting your car serviced by the guy that built the engine adds value to the engine, then an engine from a local supplier is more valuable. If you're buying from overseas, there's no advantage in an AS engine vs any other builder.
All of this is how I would make a decision on whether the builder of the engine had any impact on the cost or ease of servicing. Others may have other reasons to make other choices, but to me, when we look at the logic of this and break it down, it is indeed a myth that an AS engine is any easier to maintain or service than a non-AS engine.
Apparently we got off topic by discussing the relation between real HP and dyno numbers
Stig said:
keep it on-topic or start a new thread.
TuxMan said:
Stigs right ,Crafty can you start a new thread on this ,some interesting stuff about CF .
- *******************************************************
So, being the ever helpful and obedient netizen that I am, Ive done as requested and started this thread.
BACKGROUND
Just to clear up my personal position on this, I really dont give a monkeys either way. This discussion is mainly about small block chev engines. I dont have a small block, and I live in Hong Kong, where the car will never be compared to another car if and when I sell it anyway.
The only reason I post this is that when I was looking to buy my car, I looked to this forum as source of information. During my search for information I came across the issue of dyno correction figures. I found dyno charts posted in people's build diaries It was only when researching these figures that I found that the Correction Factor used on AS engines Dyno charts was higher than other companies.
So, when I was comparing the prices, I downgraded the AS numbers so that I could make a proper comparison.
Recently there has been some heated debate over whether an AS engine makes a car more valuable than one with an engine from another builder. The logic of this discussion is therefore whether an AS engine is more valuable than an engine from another engine builder.
I think really most of the discussion is based around UK cars, so we’ll assume for the purposes of discussion that we are talking about UK cars. After all in the USA you can get parts on every street corner (so parts are not an issue), and in places like Hong Kong you have to ship everything in anyway…..
To me, this is a myth which seems to be in two parts
THE SERVICING MYTH
The myth that is sometimes propagated on this forum is that an AS engine is easier to service than a non-AS engine because it has factory support. That’s really two issues isn’t it… is it easier to service, and is it because of factory support.
“EASIER TO SERVICE”
To make the comparison, we’d need to compare two identical spec engines. So, if we compare two identical spec engines, then it cant really be easier to service depending on the builder. Unless of course AS uses parts that are not available locally – which I doubt very much, but if this is the case then a locally built engine would indeed be easier to service (but not the same spec)
“BECAUSE OF FACTORY SUPPORT”
Lets look at the logic of this statement… lets start with an engine that blows up completely.
Big problem
LuckyP said:
eliot said:
Question: If you are in the UK when you buy an AS engine, do you buy it from Ultima or from AS?
The point being;
If you purchase it from Ultima and it dies within the first year - its up to them to fix it. Which IS worthwhile.
If on the otherhand you have to purchase direct from AS yourself (i.e. the contract and therefore the warranty is between you and AS) - then I dont see the benefit. You have to pay for shipping both ways, and even then they could decide its not a warranty repair for whatever reason.
?
You buy from A/S direct, the warranty is with them. After mine decided that 3000 odd miles wasn't the best service interval for it's first oil change, I had to ship it back to US at my cost. It was fixed by A/S, at my cost (didn't follow the run in schedule). The point being;
If you purchase it from Ultima and it dies within the first year - its up to them to fix it. Which IS worthwhile.
If on the otherhand you have to purchase direct from AS yourself (i.e. the contract and therefore the warranty is between you and AS) - then I dont see the benefit. You have to pay for shipping both ways, and even then they could decide its not a warranty repair for whatever reason.
?
The second time, an oil leak from the sump, the work was carried out by Charles Dunn, A/S approved UK repairer, under warranty.
The third time, detonation caused by running out of fuel on track (so I'm told), the work is being carried out by Charles - at my cost, and I've done what I should have done in the beginning, and gone dry sump and a few other A/S recommended changes to make the the engine survive what I throw at it.
That's how it works with me.
Pete
Small problem
Now, what about if its just a small thing…..
Assuming you have built the car yourself, one would expect that you are also servicing the car yourself. So lets say that you are able to find the problem… then obviously you already know which part to buy, so you make some calls to buy the part. If you bought the engine from AS you might call the factory, or you might call Charles Dunn, or you might call another of the many suppliers that stock Chev parts. Worst case is that you have to wait a day for parts. If you bought the car from another engine builder, there is one place you would not call, and that would be the factory. So, logically, you have one less supplier to call, no big deal really is it. Of course if you bought the engine from a UK supplier, you’d just call him, after all he is a specialist and he built the engine.
What about if you cant find the problem, what would you do? If the engine is an AS engine, you could call the factory (who may need to see the car to sort it out – so you’d have to get the car there), or you could post on this forum, or you could take the car to a local garage.
So really, the only time you need specialist advice is when something goes really wrong. The warranty doesn’t cover oil, plugs, tuning etc anyway, so no matter where you buy your engine, the only time you’re going to want to take it back where you bought it is for warranty claims…. Unless of course you live near your builder and its convenient for you to take it to him for servicing also.
So… if one can see the logic that getting your car serviced by the guy that built the engine adds value to the engine, then an engine from a local supplier is more valuable. If you're buying from overseas, there's no advantage in an AS engine vs any other builder.
All of this is how I would make a decision on whether the builder of the engine had any impact on the cost or ease of servicing. Others may have other reasons to make other choices, but to me, when we look at the logic of this and break it down, it is indeed a myth that an AS engine is any easier to maintain or service than a non-AS engine.
Edited by crafty on Saturday 1st March 03:49
THE DYNO MYTH
I think for this matter I will repost from the previous thread.
I think for this matter I will repost from the previous thread.
crafty said:
OK... back to the matter of AS engines...
When I first heard about the correction factor issue a few years back I did some research and found a website with a “correction factor calculator”
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_cf.htm
The SAE standard (the basis used to correct for) is:
Air temp 77 deg F (25 deg C), 29.235 Inches- Hg (990 mb) altitude-corrected barometric pressure, 0 ft ( 0 m) altitude, 0% relative humidity.
Using the calculator here >> http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_cf.htm you need to enter:
Air Temperature in degrees F
Absolute Pressure in inches Hg
Vapor Pressure in inches Hg
I found a copy of an AS dyno chart with peak HP of 640HP. On that chart there is a value for “C.F” – which I am told is the correction factor. Of course if this is not the correction factor, I am wrong about this, but I am told that this is what the “CF” means.
The AS Dyno chart in question says 60 deg F, 29.92 Inches- Hg..... no value for vapor pressure.
The date is December ...so I checked the weather charts and found that the Vapor Pressure varies, but the average for in Moline IL (where AS is located) for Dec is 0.1 (see here http://climate.fizber.com/kansas-city-moline-clima...
Put that value in the calculator and you get 0.958 correction factor.
The values for Air Temperature and Absolute Pressure are measured values so we must assume they are correct, inside a heated factory in winter USA - they are reasonable..... so.....the only unknown is Vapor pressure, and I had used the average for December of 0.10, so I tried some other values:
At 0.01 (1/10th the average for Dec) you get a correction factor of 0.955
At 1.0 (10x the average for Dec) you get a correction factor of 0.994
.... but the dyno chart in question uses a C.F value of 1.143 ?
So with the Max HP shown as 643, the real corrected value should be 643 / 1.143 x 0.958 = 536HP!!!
So.... the engine that should be sold as a "Corrected 536HP" is being sold as a "Corrected 630HP"...... 630/539 = 1.19.... 19% more power!!!!
See… I don’t understand the logic behind this.
If the world record car (720HP AS engine) has a similar factor… then it is really a 603HP engine…… SURELY it would be better to say “an Ultima only needs 600HP to be the fastest accelerating car” rather than “you need 720HP to match the performance of the record beating car”
I am not taking anything away from a car with an AS engine..... I just dont understand the logic behind overselling (if this is indeed the case). At the end of the day the performance of the car is the important factor, not the numbers on the dyno... but it surely makes a difference when comparing to other engine suppliers.
Alternatively of course, the "C.F" number on the chart is not a correction factor and I am entirely wrong.
Can anyone shed any light on this? i.e. is the "CF" on the dyno charts really the correction factor?
When I first heard about the correction factor issue a few years back I did some research and found a website with a “correction factor calculator”
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_cf.htm
The SAE standard (the basis used to correct for) is:
Air temp 77 deg F (25 deg C), 29.235 Inches- Hg (990 mb) altitude-corrected barometric pressure, 0 ft ( 0 m) altitude, 0% relative humidity.
Using the calculator here >> http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_cf.htm you need to enter:
Air Temperature in degrees F
Absolute Pressure in inches Hg
Vapor Pressure in inches Hg
I found a copy of an AS dyno chart with peak HP of 640HP. On that chart there is a value for “C.F” – which I am told is the correction factor. Of course if this is not the correction factor, I am wrong about this, but I am told that this is what the “CF” means.
The AS Dyno chart in question says 60 deg F, 29.92 Inches- Hg..... no value for vapor pressure.
The date is December ...so I checked the weather charts and found that the Vapor Pressure varies, but the average for in Moline IL (where AS is located) for Dec is 0.1 (see here http://climate.fizber.com/kansas-city-moline-clima...
Put that value in the calculator and you get 0.958 correction factor.
The values for Air Temperature and Absolute Pressure are measured values so we must assume they are correct, inside a heated factory in winter USA - they are reasonable..... so.....the only unknown is Vapor pressure, and I had used the average for December of 0.10, so I tried some other values:
At 0.01 (1/10th the average for Dec) you get a correction factor of 0.955
At 1.0 (10x the average for Dec) you get a correction factor of 0.994
.... but the dyno chart in question uses a C.F value of 1.143 ?
So with the Max HP shown as 643, the real corrected value should be 643 / 1.143 x 0.958 = 536HP!!!
So.... the engine that should be sold as a "Corrected 536HP" is being sold as a "Corrected 630HP"...... 630/539 = 1.19.... 19% more power!!!!
See… I don’t understand the logic behind this.
If the world record car (720HP AS engine) has a similar factor… then it is really a 603HP engine…… SURELY it would be better to say “an Ultima only needs 600HP to be the fastest accelerating car” rather than “you need 720HP to match the performance of the record beating car”
I am not taking anything away from a car with an AS engine..... I just dont understand the logic behind overselling (if this is indeed the case). At the end of the day the performance of the car is the important factor, not the numbers on the dyno... but it surely makes a difference when comparing to other engine suppliers.
Alternatively of course, the "C.F" number on the chart is not a correction factor and I am entirely wrong.
Can anyone shed any light on this? i.e. is the "CF" on the dyno charts really the correction factor?
ultimaCZ said:
Crafty, I think you are right.
When I still had the AS engine, I put it on a dyno over here. At that time it had done approx. 2000 miles, fresh oil and plug change. The result on a 450HP engine (dyno sheet showed around 460HP) was approx. 360HP which is even a bit more than 20% less - that fits to your CF calculation... Cant find the old dyno sheet now, but I remember that the CF was also around 15%
When I still had the AS engine, I put it on a dyno over here. At that time it had done approx. 2000 miles, fresh oil and plug change. The result on a 450HP engine (dyno sheet showed around 460HP) was approx. 360HP which is even a bit more than 20% less - that fits to your CF calculation... Cant find the old dyno sheet now, but I remember that the CF was also around 15%
GTRCLIVE said:
Don't forget they "Reverse" Dyno Pull there engines to.... Starting at max RPM and put the brake on.... that's HP your never going to be able to use... unless you have your foot on the brake.... then whats the Point...
Ramthorne said:
I recall sometime ago Pi5ton showed a particular dyno result to be in fairyland by getting the atmospheric records from a nearby airfield for the time on the dyno sheet. Very amusing 
kylemrushall said:
Inspector Crafty......
You are right, the cf used seems to be a little high!!!
When i ordered my repacement SBC i spoke to many companies and indeed i did ask what cf they were using and to be honest AS seems to be the highest without exception.
The engine i bought was quoted at figures from 575-650bhp as an estimate by the builders. When i spoke to the people who i bought from he said i will be very surprised if it makes 600bhp max. AS quote 640bhp on similiar spec to my engine with a lower comp ratio and a lower flow rates on the heads??
I think as you said we as customers should get what we pay for not 20% less!! An industry standard should be used??
I must admit i do not fully understand cf factors, as im sure many others dont
You are right, the cf used seems to be a little high!!!
When i ordered my repacement SBC i spoke to many companies and indeed i did ask what cf they were using and to be honest AS seems to be the highest without exception.
The engine i bought was quoted at figures from 575-650bhp as an estimate by the builders. When i spoke to the people who i bought from he said i will be very surprised if it makes 600bhp max. AS quote 640bhp on similiar spec to my engine with a lower comp ratio and a lower flow rates on the heads??
I think as you said we as customers should get what we pay for not 20% less!! An industry standard should be used??
I must admit i do not fully understand cf factors, as im sure many others dont
TuxMan said:
Its so difficult with power outputs there are so many things that can effect power e.g. fuel type, air inlet temps ,exhaust fitted ect ,is this what the CF figuers are supposed to correct ??? i know in the Can-am that on a cold day the engine feels much crisper and gives alot more power the odd things is i never noticed it when it was running on a carb !!!
crafty said:
The whole idea of a correction factor is to set an industry standard.... the idea is to correct figures back to what would be achieved at Air temp 77 deg F (25 deg C), 29.235 Inches- Hg (990 mb) altitude-corrected barometric pressure, 0 ft ( 0 m) altitude, 0% relative humidity. You'll notice that if you use the calculator (http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_cf.htm) and input:
Temp = 77 deg
Abs Press = 29.235 Inches
Vap Press = 0
.... you get a correction factor of 1.
The reason your car feels more powerful on a cold day is that it is.
There's some good explanations of Correction Factors
Here:
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/cf.htm
and here:
http://www.dynamometer-info.co.uk/index.htm
Temp = 77 deg
Abs Press = 29.235 Inches
Vap Press = 0
.... you get a correction factor of 1.
The reason your car feels more powerful on a cold day is that it is.
There's some good explanations of Correction Factors
Here:
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/cf.htm
and here:
http://www.dynamometer-info.co.uk/index.htm
crafty said:
For example... if you took your car to a dyno (outside) in London today:
http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/03772....
Temp: 45F
Bar Press: 30.01 in
Vap Press: ... say 0.121 (this makes little difference)
CF = 0.936
So.. you'd need to multiply the figures by 0.936 to get the same HP as you would at 77F and 29.235 ... which is the SAE standard.. based on readings taken in Detroit.
In other words, your car is producing 0.064% more power than it would at 77F and 29.235.
As you can see, the correction is very small. Really, the correction factor is something that should only be used for race teams looking for that very last bit.
If you play around with the calculator, you can see that you have to assume some silly things to need a CF of 14%.
The whole idea of standards such as this is to level the playing field...The EURO4 road test for emissions uses a similar method for correction. Years ago they used to drive the vehicle around a road in California and collect the particulates for measurement and analysis. When this became impractical to replicate, they measured the load readings on a lap around the road circuit and they now use those figures on a rolling road to check emissions.
The car is "driven" on the rolling road, the load is increased and decreased and that replicates the loads that would be encountered going up and down the hills on the test route.
That way each car tested in this manner has been tested on the same load conditions.
http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/03772....
Temp: 45F
Bar Press: 30.01 in
Vap Press: ... say 0.121 (this makes little difference)
CF = 0.936
So.. you'd need to multiply the figures by 0.936 to get the same HP as you would at 77F and 29.235 ... which is the SAE standard.. based on readings taken in Detroit.
In other words, your car is producing 0.064% more power than it would at 77F and 29.235.
As you can see, the correction is very small. Really, the correction factor is something that should only be used for race teams looking for that very last bit.
If you play around with the calculator, you can see that you have to assume some silly things to need a CF of 14%.
The whole idea of standards such as this is to level the playing field...The EURO4 road test for emissions uses a similar method for correction. Years ago they used to drive the vehicle around a road in California and collect the particulates for measurement and analysis. When this became impractical to replicate, they measured the load readings on a lap around the road circuit and they now use those figures on a rolling road to check emissions.
The car is "driven" on the rolling road, the load is increased and decreased and that replicates the loads that would be encountered going up and down the hills on the test route.
That way each car tested in this manner has been tested on the same load conditions.
So... the Dyno Myth is really to do with comparing dyno numbers vs price, and how this is not the best method for making a decision on an engine.
The REAL way to make a decision is on spec vs price.
If you compare two equally specc'd engines, then you can actually compare prices. The power output for two equally specc'd engines should be very similar.
What this boils down to is that it is a myth that an AS engine is easier to service, and it is a myth that one should purchase based on dyno numbers.
The whole purchasing decision, if you think about it logically, should be based on specification and reputation of the builder. How you derive at the decision on both of these can involve an element of personal preference... however these preferences should be based on fact.
The facts in this case are that equally specc'd engines are equally easy to maintain, and that if you want to compare dyno numbers, make sure you look at the correction factors and make the appropriate adjustment.
The REAL way to make a decision is on spec vs price.
If you compare two equally specc'd engines, then you can actually compare prices. The power output for two equally specc'd engines should be very similar.
What this boils down to is that it is a myth that an AS engine is easier to service, and it is a myth that one should purchase based on dyno numbers.
The whole purchasing decision, if you think about it logically, should be based on specification and reputation of the builder. How you derive at the decision on both of these can involve an element of personal preference... however these preferences should be based on fact.
The facts in this case are that equally specc'd engines are equally easy to maintain, and that if you want to compare dyno numbers, make sure you look at the correction factors and make the appropriate adjustment.
Edited by crafty on Saturday 1st March 04:08
crafty said:
a whole bunch of stuff (which I promise I will read when I get the time), but what he really needs to do is get his plates, and get out there and DRIVE!!!!
Possibly the most unhelpful post I've ever made. Sorry 
Just off to Pick up GTWayne for a boyz trip to BSMotorsport.
Good luck with this thread.
Lucky
LuckyP said:
Good luck with this thread.
It seemed a few people were interested and chipped in on the other thread, judging by a handful of emails Ive received there's a few more that didn't want to post, but welcomed the info. As I said, when I was looking for an engine I had to unravel a whole load of info.... just trying to share my experience and research that's all, people can do with it as they please...... there's no goal or agenda (other than sharing info) so it doesnt need any luck.
Edited by crafty on Saturday 1st March 12:56
SlackBlevens said:
If I understand this CF thing correctly then, it's a bit like buying a 2Ghz computer, only to get home and find out it's really only a 1.5Ghz ...
It would depend on whether the guy selling the computer knew it was a 1.5Ghz computer. It might have been a one off mistake. Maybe the computer was second hand, and the guy selling the computer thought it was a 2Ghz because when he bought it, he got a receipt saying it was 2Ghz. If the guy that was buying the computer checked in the shop, and found the mistake, and the guy selling it didnt know, then it wouldnt really be the same thing. I would expect however that the guy that was selling the computer would change his advertisement to say the correct model of chip in the computer. However, if this is a problem with the label on the chips, that would be different. If the company building the chips was labeling the chips incorrectly, and passing off 1.5Ghz chips with 2Ghz labels, then that would really complicate matters.
One factor to take into consideration that has not already been mentioned is the danger of researching engine specs/dyno graphs and builders to intensly. For any one positive bit of info gathered, three more will rear their heads to dispel it. Never before in my life have I found myself in such a minefield of conflicting information as we find regarding engine spec + power = budget. In the end I chose a builder with a proven track record whose word is his bond and above all, a man that I liked and could relate to on a personal level. He was not cheap but I was not concerened with cheap. Also, as Grant says, be logical in your decsion. If everyone was to buy their motors based on this theory, this would bankrupt and eradicate the chancers and hollow promise makers in the engine building arena, but alas, I fear we will never find ourselves in such a positive position and so the never ending quest lives on !
Go forth friends and aply logic to your purchase/choice, you KNOW it makes sense
Go forth friends and aply logic to your purchase/choice, you KNOW it makes sense
I have a feeling that this thread may get closed soon as it looks like a bit of witch hunt for AS and must be very much close to the line to the naming and shaming policy. We all know that BHP in the US is often less than in the UK but we also know that AS have been building very successful and reliable engines for years now and also have the world record.
And yes I have a 6 year old AS engine that used to be a 525 Enforcer before the upgrades.
And yes I have a 6 year old AS engine that used to be a 525 Enforcer before the upgrades.
As an owner / buyer of an AS engine, here is my 2 cents. No bias, just my honest opinion.
1) Ultima recommended AS, so they were immediately as good as any other engine supplier in my mind. If there was an problem with AS's engines, then surely Ultima would know by now? And as someone with no experience, who DO you trust ?
2) When I ordered the engine, AS were professional and timely with the delivery. The dyno printout shows 642bhp, and this was sent to me before the engine was shipped. For the power, the engine was reasonably priced, cheaper than an LS7 but more expensive than some of the UK suppliers. At the time the pound was worth $2 so I took it as good value for money.
3) Since buying the engine, I have had no problems at all (2,000 miles to date). But neither have I had the courtesy of an email from AS asking if everything was okay etc - so nil points for customer feedback (has anyone heard from Gail Trent at AS about their engine, other than over a problem ?).
4) I've never had the car dyno'd, but would be willing to put it on the rollers to see if it does make the power AS say it does. This opens up the whole area of whether a rolling road gives the right answers - from various threads there seems to be a theme that all cars are over-quoted. But I'm happy to do it if it serves a purpose.
5) In the absence of a UK dyno test, I have benchmarked my car's acceleration against the factory quoted times. If anything, it is slightly quicker, which supports the bhp quoted, unless of course the factory are also over-egging the bhp. I just can't see this personally. Their 0-100-0 record (et al) speaks volumes.
6) Given the stick that most GTR engines get (track, VMax etc) I would be surprised if mine made 100,000 miles without a hiccup ! My expectation is that the engine, if properly serviced, will run without problem for many years so long as it is not totally thrashed. But if I tracked the car every day I would not envisage a long life. I doubt anything at this price would do any better.
7) I am surprised at the oil change intervals quoted by AS (at 1,500 miles or so). The oil does get contaminated quite quickly, but whatever the reason, I see this as a trade off of fragility against the power the engine makes.
8) I am sure that there are many good UK engine builders. AS sell to the UK and the US. I have not seem many comments from US buyers of AS engines. Surely someone in the US of A has been through the same thought process and can enlighten us as to the credibilty of AS's bhp and the reliability of these engines ?
9) I am surprised at the stick the Factory get over these "under-bhp" and "buy only from AS" remarks. I can see why they have a recommended supplier (or else they would be inundated with questions). I can also see why they read but seldom reply to these threads and I have respect for their restraint. If anyone has an issue with an Ultima bought or recommended product then I am sure that Ted and Co would listen. I still rate the Factory support an A+ and way better than any other car suplier I have encountered.
Perhaps a simple drag race (0 to 150 say) between similarly powered cars (as quoted by engine supplier) would settle this once and for all ? How about fighting torque in August ? A mini Ultima shoot out !!
Tony
1) Ultima recommended AS, so they were immediately as good as any other engine supplier in my mind. If there was an problem with AS's engines, then surely Ultima would know by now? And as someone with no experience, who DO you trust ?
2) When I ordered the engine, AS were professional and timely with the delivery. The dyno printout shows 642bhp, and this was sent to me before the engine was shipped. For the power, the engine was reasonably priced, cheaper than an LS7 but more expensive than some of the UK suppliers. At the time the pound was worth $2 so I took it as good value for money.
3) Since buying the engine, I have had no problems at all (2,000 miles to date). But neither have I had the courtesy of an email from AS asking if everything was okay etc - so nil points for customer feedback (has anyone heard from Gail Trent at AS about their engine, other than over a problem ?).
4) I've never had the car dyno'd, but would be willing to put it on the rollers to see if it does make the power AS say it does. This opens up the whole area of whether a rolling road gives the right answers - from various threads there seems to be a theme that all cars are over-quoted. But I'm happy to do it if it serves a purpose.
5) In the absence of a UK dyno test, I have benchmarked my car's acceleration against the factory quoted times. If anything, it is slightly quicker, which supports the bhp quoted, unless of course the factory are also over-egging the bhp. I just can't see this personally. Their 0-100-0 record (et al) speaks volumes.
6) Given the stick that most GTR engines get (track, VMax etc) I would be surprised if mine made 100,000 miles without a hiccup ! My expectation is that the engine, if properly serviced, will run without problem for many years so long as it is not totally thrashed. But if I tracked the car every day I would not envisage a long life. I doubt anything at this price would do any better.
7) I am surprised at the oil change intervals quoted by AS (at 1,500 miles or so). The oil does get contaminated quite quickly, but whatever the reason, I see this as a trade off of fragility against the power the engine makes.
8) I am sure that there are many good UK engine builders. AS sell to the UK and the US. I have not seem many comments from US buyers of AS engines. Surely someone in the US of A has been through the same thought process and can enlighten us as to the credibilty of AS's bhp and the reliability of these engines ?
9) I am surprised at the stick the Factory get over these "under-bhp" and "buy only from AS" remarks. I can see why they have a recommended supplier (or else they would be inundated with questions). I can also see why they read but seldom reply to these threads and I have respect for their restraint. If anyone has an issue with an Ultima bought or recommended product then I am sure that Ted and Co would listen. I still rate the Factory support an A+ and way better than any other car suplier I have encountered.
Perhaps a simple drag race (0 to 150 say) between similarly powered cars (as quoted by engine supplier) would settle this once and for all ? How about fighting torque in August ? A mini Ultima shoot out !!
Tony
I will not close the thread.
If that's Grant's opinion - then he can stand by the comments. If of course, the parties implicated want to take it further, then that's their perogative - as they say, 'publish and be damned'.
I have mentioned off-line the risks of letigious comments on here, yet certain posters seem determined to continue to post them.
Caveat emptor.
If that's Grant's opinion - then he can stand by the comments. If of course, the parties implicated want to take it further, then that's their perogative - as they say, 'publish and be damned'.
I have mentioned off-line the risks of letigious comments on here, yet certain posters seem determined to continue to post them.
Caveat emptor.
Nice to see somebody actually looking at the subject of dyno numbers...
This is not unique to Ultima or any other car, it's just about the norm for the engine market (unfortunatly...)
Crafty has spent some time in this and just started to get a handle on it.
the IT in question is dyno plots and corrections.
Now, without comming accross all zenophobic et all, our US cousins seem to be the kings of this trade...
things to be aware of here are that there are several 'standards' for corrections, some are 'better' than others (by this I mean more consistent and realistic), they are:
SAE-J1349
DIN 70020
EEC 80/1269
ISO 1585
STD
of these, STD is about as much use as a chocolate kettle, (and widely used in the US).
nothing wrong with using the others, so long as you are sure that the input figures are realistic (like the air temp sender has not been put in a cup of steaming coffee or the like!
as you can probably tell, this is another one of my favourite subjects...
This is not unique to Ultima or any other car, it's just about the norm for the engine market (unfortunatly...)
Crafty has spent some time in this and just started to get a handle on it.
the IT in question is dyno plots and corrections.
Now, without comming accross all zenophobic et all, our US cousins seem to be the kings of this trade...
things to be aware of here are that there are several 'standards' for corrections, some are 'better' than others (by this I mean more consistent and realistic), they are:
SAE-J1349
DIN 70020
EEC 80/1269
ISO 1585
STD
of these, STD is about as much use as a chocolate kettle, (and widely used in the US).
nothing wrong with using the others, so long as you are sure that the input figures are realistic (like the air temp sender has not been put in a cup of steaming coffee or the like!
as you can probably tell, this is another one of my favourite subjects...
An engineer friend said the AS components listed in their engine builds are of very good quality.
I dont understand the power output argument (not being technically savy), but ater watching the factory demonstrator going round the top gear track, it looks like theres no shortage of power with it ...damn that cars fast!
I dont understand the power output argument (not being technically savy), but ater watching the factory demonstrator going round the top gear track, it looks like theres no shortage of power with it ...damn that cars fast!
actuary said:
As an owner / buyer of an AS engine, here is my 2 cents. No bias, just my honest opinion.
1) Ultima recommended AS, so they were immediately as good as any other engine supplier in my mind. If there was an problem with AS's engines, then surely Ultima would know by now? And as someone with no experience, who DO you trust ?
2) When I ordered the engine, AS were professional and timely with the delivery. The dyno printout shows 642bhp, and this was sent to me before the engine was shipped. For the power, the engine was reasonably priced, cheaper than an LS7 but more expensive than some of the UK suppliers. At the time the pound was worth $2 so I took it as good value for money.
3) Since buying the engine, I have had no problems at all (2,000 miles to date). But neither have I had the courtesy of an email from AS asking if everything was okay etc - so nil points for customer feedback (has anyone heard from Gail Trent at AS about their engine, other than over a problem ?).
4) I've never had the car dyno'd, but would be willing to put it on the rollers to see if it does make the power AS say it does. This opens up the whole area of whether a rolling road gives the right answers - from various threads there seems to be a theme that all cars are over-quoted. But I'm happy to do it if it serves a purpose.
5) In the absence of a UK dyno test, I have benchmarked my car's acceleration against the factory quoted times. If anything, it is slightly quicker, which supports the bhp quoted, unless of course the factory are also over-egging the bhp. I just can't see this personally. Their 0-100-0 record (et al) speaks volumes.
6) Given the stick that most GTR engines get (track, VMax etc) I would be surprised if mine made 100,000 miles without a hiccup ! My expectation is that the engine, if properly serviced, will run without problem for many years so long as it is not totally thrashed. But if I tracked the car every day I would not envisage a long life. I doubt anything at this price would do any better.
7) I am surprised at the oil change intervals quoted by AS (at 1,500 miles or so). The oil does get contaminated quite quickly, but whatever the reason, I see this as a trade off of fragility against the power the engine makes.
8) I am sure that there are many good UK engine builders. AS sell to the UK and the US. I have not seem many comments from US buyers of AS engines. Surely someone in the US of A has been through the same thought process and can enlighten us as to the credibilty of AS's bhp and the reliability of these engines ?
9) I am surprised at the stick the Factory get over these "under-bhp" and "buy only from AS" remarks. I can see why they have a recommended supplier (or else they would be inundated with questions). I can also see why they read but seldom reply to these threads and I have respect for their restraint. If anyone has an issue with an Ultima bought or recommended product then I am sure that Ted and Co would listen. I still rate the Factory support an A+ and way better than any other car suplier I have encountered.
Perhaps a simple drag race (0 to 150 say) between similarly powered cars (as quoted by engine supplier) would settle this once and for all ? How about fighting torque in August ? A mini Ultima shoot out !!
Tony
I would like to see your car on the rollers Tony!! I shall be putting mine on this year, shall we run them back to back??1) Ultima recommended AS, so they were immediately as good as any other engine supplier in my mind. If there was an problem with AS's engines, then surely Ultima would know by now? And as someone with no experience, who DO you trust ?
2) When I ordered the engine, AS were professional and timely with the delivery. The dyno printout shows 642bhp, and this was sent to me before the engine was shipped. For the power, the engine was reasonably priced, cheaper than an LS7 but more expensive than some of the UK suppliers. At the time the pound was worth $2 so I took it as good value for money.
3) Since buying the engine, I have had no problems at all (2,000 miles to date). But neither have I had the courtesy of an email from AS asking if everything was okay etc - so nil points for customer feedback (has anyone heard from Gail Trent at AS about their engine, other than over a problem ?).
4) I've never had the car dyno'd, but would be willing to put it on the rollers to see if it does make the power AS say it does. This opens up the whole area of whether a rolling road gives the right answers - from various threads there seems to be a theme that all cars are over-quoted. But I'm happy to do it if it serves a purpose.
5) In the absence of a UK dyno test, I have benchmarked my car's acceleration against the factory quoted times. If anything, it is slightly quicker, which supports the bhp quoted, unless of course the factory are also over-egging the bhp. I just can't see this personally. Their 0-100-0 record (et al) speaks volumes.
6) Given the stick that most GTR engines get (track, VMax etc) I would be surprised if mine made 100,000 miles without a hiccup ! My expectation is that the engine, if properly serviced, will run without problem for many years so long as it is not totally thrashed. But if I tracked the car every day I would not envisage a long life. I doubt anything at this price would do any better.
7) I am surprised at the oil change intervals quoted by AS (at 1,500 miles or so). The oil does get contaminated quite quickly, but whatever the reason, I see this as a trade off of fragility against the power the engine makes.
8) I am sure that there are many good UK engine builders. AS sell to the UK and the US. I have not seem many comments from US buyers of AS engines. Surely someone in the US of A has been through the same thought process and can enlighten us as to the credibilty of AS's bhp and the reliability of these engines ?
9) I am surprised at the stick the Factory get over these "under-bhp" and "buy only from AS" remarks. I can see why they have a recommended supplier (or else they would be inundated with questions). I can also see why they read but seldom reply to these threads and I have respect for their restraint. If anyone has an issue with an Ultima bought or recommended product then I am sure that Ted and Co would listen. I still rate the Factory support an A+ and way better than any other car suplier I have encountered.
Perhaps a simple drag race (0 to 150 say) between similarly powered cars (as quoted by engine supplier) would settle this once and for all ? How about fighting torque in August ? A mini Ultima shoot out !!
Tony
Gassing Station | Ultima | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff