Titanium valves - How much HP ?
Discussion
MajorClanger said:...but how much are we talking about to upgrade?
Must be one of the most cost effective upgrades available... how much did it cost if you don't mind me asking?
Can any engine be modded in this way? What are the potential problems that might materialise? Do they have a list of engines they've worked on with power gain figures?.. are you planning to be their agent?!!!
MC
MC
canam-phil said:
I'd like to see the correction factors on those tests. It's been mysteriously deleted from the TI chart.
Jeff
I think you and I discussed in emails this correction factor the last time it came up with Stigs engine. Looks strange to me like last time.
I emailed Gman to ask what the correction factor was the last time.
Phil
You piqued my curiosity Phil and I checked my old dyno printout and the C.F. ranges from 1.086 to 1.145 in the same run??!? Whereas GMans is a consistent figure.
Any idea why?
PS. Monster engine there Gareth. Solid fuel boosters next?
Mmmmmmm.....
Can I have a go?
Moline 600ft above sea level.
At 1.52pm, on that day the weather was as follows:
Baro 29.98
Temp 28.0 degrees f (-2.2 degrees C)
Av humidity 78.
Daventry (my dyno)
Altitude 590ft. Weather differences calculable as altitude the same +/- 10 ft. Anyone with a dyno must know how to do this in order to operate it.
Correction is to 29.92 (sea level) 60 degrees F, dry air.
The most influential factors are Baro & carb air temp.
For true & accurate testing carb air temp should be ambient.
Correction factor calculates, with an allowance for engine heat warming the cell (but not too much, as this gives BIG CORRECTIONS, ahem....)
Std Correction (used by most would be .994)
SAE correction (claimed to used by American speed) .959
I'll use STD, because it gives bigger figures, so we'll give the benefit of the doubt.
This is some way away from the factor quoted, as some of the sharper PHers have noted it to be 'odd.'
Claimed correction factor per sheet 1.143
Horsepower corrected per sheet 685
Uncorrected must be 685 less 14.3% = 599.30 horsepower
Corrected Stp = 599.30 x .994 = 595.70 bhp
SAE corrected = 574.44 bhp.
Is it too late to claim my prize? LOL
Seriously though, don't let this detract from your achievements with the car, and I'm sure it is, like all American Speed engines, an excellent powerplant.
It's also plenty enough power to do what it did.
Merry Christmas
Can I have a go?
Moline 600ft above sea level.
At 1.52pm, on that day the weather was as follows:
Baro 29.98
Temp 28.0 degrees f (-2.2 degrees C)
Av humidity 78.
Daventry (my dyno)
Altitude 590ft. Weather differences calculable as altitude the same +/- 10 ft. Anyone with a dyno must know how to do this in order to operate it.
Correction is to 29.92 (sea level) 60 degrees F, dry air.
The most influential factors are Baro & carb air temp.
For true & accurate testing carb air temp should be ambient.
Correction factor calculates, with an allowance for engine heat warming the cell (but not too much, as this gives BIG CORRECTIONS, ahem....)
Std Correction (used by most would be .994)
SAE correction (claimed to used by American speed) .959
I'll use STD, because it gives bigger figures, so we'll give the benefit of the doubt.
This is some way away from the factor quoted, as some of the sharper PHers have noted it to be 'odd.'
Claimed correction factor per sheet 1.143
Horsepower corrected per sheet 685
Uncorrected must be 685 less 14.3% = 599.30 horsepower
Corrected Stp = 599.30 x .994 = 595.70 bhp
SAE corrected = 574.44 bhp.
Is it too late to claim my prize? LOL
Seriously though, don't let this detract from your achievements with the car, and I'm sure it is, like all American Speed engines, an excellent powerplant.
It's also plenty enough power to do what it did.
Merry Christmas
Stig
Let me say before I start that AS engines do the business because Gmans car did the official times. Its just that I was looking for an understanding of the dyno figures when comparing my engine and the "Ti valves" improved performance on Gmans engine.
p15ton has done the calculations for me. A correction factor of about 1 is what I would have generously expected for the time of year and location being cold and near sea level.
So you see my dilemma. I look at dyno sheets with quite large correction factors that have not been explained by actual ambient condition figures that would allow me to varify the correction factor.
Another dilemmma is your varying cf. Well, I've never seen one vary like yours before. It could be that the air temperature in the intake has been measured and factored in. As I say, I have never seen it before.
You and Gman are the only people that can get the environmental values or the basis on which AS set the correction factor to the cfs shown. I for one am very interested - aren't you two intrigued?
There must be more AS dyno sheets around from other engines so we can look at more cfs. Come on, get posting.
Edited to include this resource.
Superflow dyno viewer www.superflow.com/support/support-dynosoft.htm
Engine Masters results
www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/dynopulls/
The competition results can be fed in and you can see the correction factors for lots of dyno pulls
>> Edited by canam-phil on Wednesday 22 December 11:53
Let me say before I start that AS engines do the business because Gmans car did the official times. Its just that I was looking for an understanding of the dyno figures when comparing my engine and the "Ti valves" improved performance on Gmans engine.
p15ton has done the calculations for me. A correction factor of about 1 is what I would have generously expected for the time of year and location being cold and near sea level.
So you see my dilemma. I look at dyno sheets with quite large correction factors that have not been explained by actual ambient condition figures that would allow me to varify the correction factor.
Another dilemmma is your varying cf. Well, I've never seen one vary like yours before. It could be that the air temperature in the intake has been measured and factored in. As I say, I have never seen it before.
You and Gman are the only people that can get the environmental values or the basis on which AS set the correction factor to the cfs shown. I for one am very interested - aren't you two intrigued?
There must be more AS dyno sheets around from other engines so we can look at more cfs. Come on, get posting.
Edited to include this resource.
Superflow dyno viewer www.superflow.com/support/support-dynosoft.htm
Engine Masters results
www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/dynopulls/
The competition results can be fed in and you can see the correction factors for lots of dyno pulls
>> Edited by canam-phil on Wednesday 22 December 11:53
Quick grub on the web reveals James Crewe's dyno sheet with a constant CF of 1.069.
I'll dig out mine tonight.
>> Edited by davefiddes on Wednesday 22 December 15:14
I'll dig out mine tonight.
>> Edited by davefiddes on Wednesday 22 December 15:14
My thoughts on this are clear.
American Speed engines produce power - the 0-100-0 - is 1/2 sec faster than a 230bhp Caterham @400Kg, that says it all and it was not a good run
Never compare one engine builder dyno with someone else, apples for apples means same dyno for everything ..
Ti valves added 45 bhp on the same dyno ..
My car is faster all the ways thru than a Mac F1 which has 620 ish BWM HP and weights 1100 so my power to weight ratio in all probability is better
For the money I would do Ti valves
Oh did I tell you I came across a Ti crankshaft for a SBC made out of solid billet .... Santa Please
G MAN
American Speed engines produce power - the 0-100-0 - is 1/2 sec faster than a 230bhp Caterham @400Kg, that says it all and it was not a good run
Never compare one engine builder dyno with someone else, apples for apples means same dyno for everything ..
Ti valves added 45 bhp on the same dyno ..
My car is faster all the ways thru than a Mac F1 which has 620 ish BWM HP and weights 1100 so my power to weight ratio in all probability is better
For the money I would do Ti valves
Oh did I tell you I came across a Ti crankshaft for a SBC made out of solid billet .... Santa Please
G MAN
Just what I suggested Gman - your speed figures speak for themselves. The bhp numbers are bragging rights for someone who has not put the car to the stopwatch.
Yes, your engine tested +45bhp on the same dyno, but are you saying that the correction factor was correct for each run?
The +40bhp ish was not a scientific back to back test. Yes, your engine tested +45 numbers whatever those are and for whatever reason they were +45.
Just find me a manufacturers site that quotes any gain let alone an 8% ish gain for the same valve shape. If this was the case, everyone would be doing it as this sort of gain is very good. (What cost for the Ti valves and springs etc I know not)
I'll say it again, your AS engine done good and bhp numbers are nowt compared with your cars performance on the road.
>> Edited by canam-phil on Wednesday 22 December 15:47
Yes, your engine tested +45bhp on the same dyno, but are you saying that the correction factor was correct for each run?
The +40bhp ish was not a scientific back to back test. Yes, your engine tested +45 numbers whatever those are and for whatever reason they were +45.
Just find me a manufacturers site that quotes any gain let alone an 8% ish gain for the same valve shape. If this was the case, everyone would be doing it as this sort of gain is very good. (What cost for the Ti valves and springs etc I know not)
I'll say it again, your AS engine done good and bhp numbers are nowt compared with your cars performance on the road.
>> Edited by canam-phil on Wednesday 22 December 15:47
Just a quick question on the A/S dyno thing. How do they get their readings, is it on a straight dyno run or do they reverse pull(take the engine to full RPM and use the dyno to bring the revs back down) aswell and take the average?
P.S Fantastic run GMAN, bet it's fun in this weather!
P.S Fantastic run GMAN, bet it's fun in this weather!
steve_D said:
Gman
Next time there's a run out to Brunting you will have to put my Gtech Pro on the dashboard. It uses accelerometers to tell you exactly what is happening at the road. Flywheel power, transmission losses etc matter not. It just tells the truth.
Steve
The best set of acceleration figures for hp estimation will be from the Datrontech data set from the runs. From these you can compute the effective rear wheel horsepower. I would love to have the full set and have a go at calculating rwhp. There have been some variable results from the Gtech type accelerometer systems and they have their own problems.
If only the truth was that easy...
phil
The datatron sheet has been published and is available on the ultima web site me thinks ..
www.ultimasports.co.uk/record/ultimarecord.pdf
G MAN
>> Edited by G Man on Wednesday 22 December 21:53
The datatron sheet has been published and is available on the ultima web site me thinks ..
www.ultimasports.co.uk/record/ultimarecord.pdf
G MAN
>> Edited by G Man on Wednesday 22 December 21:53
canam-phil said:
Thanks Gman, but I looked briefly and only saw the pdfs that gave a coarse dataset (every 5mph). I think the Datron set will be much finer sampling. I looked at them last night and thought they were too undersampled to be meaningful.
The data set I saw on the Dataron screen was every 5 mph.
I don't know if there is raw data more accurate
G MAN
The numbers for my 425 bhp 383 engine were: air pressure 29.92", dyno correction factor 1.092 though the run, air density 88.9 (no idea what units) to produce 456.3 bhp.
The butt dyno says "scary fast"...no idea what 650+bhp would feel like...probably "insanely s*** scary fast"...approximately.
The butt dyno says "scary fast"...no idea what 650+bhp would feel like...probably "insanely s*** scary fast"...approximately.
Gassing Station | Ultima | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff