Tiff Needell's 1980 Rover V8 S SD1 Group 2 on our rollers
Discussion
227bhp said:
What are your reasons for thinking that? Do you think it not possible to get 100bhp/litre from this engine (at that rpm)?
Power is not really relevant. It's too big a variable but torque per litre never lies. On a 2v parallel valve old school type engine like this with not much valve area and running normal fuel and compression ratios for a reasonable engine lifespan (non drag, non dyno shootout stuff like Engine Masters that only have to live for 5 minutes) those numbers are well known. Stock on carbs or FI plenum - circa 63 ft lbs per litre, single choke per port mild tune - 70 to 73 ft lbs per litre, full race - high 70s ft lbs, maybe just squeezing to 80+ with a lot of work, TBs, mappable etc.Ignoring the coastdown losses which are never a valid add back to wheel figures we can apply the normal transmission loss formula for rwd which is add 10 bhp and divide by 0.88 (divide by 0.90 for fwd).
322 at wheels + 10 = 332 / 0.88 = 377 bhp. Surprise surprise, the actual quoted engine dyno number.
Multiplying wheel torque by the same factor - 301.5 x 377/322 = 353 ft lbs.
If this was a 3.5 litre it would have to have over 100 ft lbs per litre. That's not even remotely possible for a 4v engine which peak at about 90-93 ft lbs per litre in similar tune although high 80s is very good on carbs.
Taking 78 ft lbs per litre as a best guess for a not very sophisticated lump like this on carbs we get 353 / 78 = 4.5 litres.
This should be room 101 stuff for anyone doing this for a living. It's not rocket surgery. Even the wheel torque per litre if this was a 3.5 would be 86 ft lbs which leapt out at me the second I saw the numbers. Simply not possible.
So later on I did a bit of digging on Google because like I say the torque numbers never lie if you know what the limits of them should be. This popped up.
http://www.handh.co.uk/buy/1980-rover-sd1-v8s-grou...
Da da. "- Engine: Rover-derived TVR Tuscan 4.5-litre V8 with dry sump oil system - 380-400bhp"
Hi Giovanni
The car hasn't raced much so not sure what class it is being prepped for.
The car will be on show at the London Classic Sports car Show this coming weekend.
With regard to torque maxima, the arguments go max torque per litre etc and discount the lbsft/litre achieved in 2v Nascar motors. If someone was claiming more than the 103 achieved commonly in Nascar and even 110 lbs/ft litre that would be an eye opener, but, when folk develop engines over a long period of time advances are made little by little. The same will obtain with the LS engines if they stay in race engine use as long as the X-flow, Pinto, A series, B series. Tr 4s and 6s and the venerable Buick derived V8 engines.
Just because folk haven't seen it thus far does not mean it does not exist.
The 3.5 in Tiff’s old car was a John Eales engine dynoed at 370 on his dyno. As fitted it gave 350 fly equivalent with our rollers.
Do you remember this topic I posted Dave?
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=149...
I also paste one of your replies where you stated:
“That second head has an identical flow curve to a John Eales (JE Motors) 43mm head I tested nearly 25 years ago and which I actually found nigh on impossible to beat which caused me some chagrin.”
Does this mean other V8s builders may find more power than you could?...allowing John a little more development work and I am sure he found a few more geegees over the years!
The engine mentioned in the above topic link went on to produce 390 flywheel bhp before we designed better inlet valves and the engine had a new cam with very rigid valve gear. Engine Bhp rose to approx 418 bhp. 3.9 with flat plane crank.
I attach a graph to compare the flat plane v8 3.9 with the Tiff Needell 3.5 engine.
PS, your transmission losses you stick to are and always have been a load of old cobblers you made up to justify your calculations. The number cannot be a constant as has been shown to you by many other posters on many other forums over the years, you just stick to it so your numbers make sense to you.
The one above, you have always said my dynos are all faulty and read wrong yet you use our wheel power to justify a fly figure from a different dyno. Sort yourself Dave, you are plucking numbers from a hat to try and justify your 'theories' to suit your machinations.
Peter
The car hasn't raced much so not sure what class it is being prepped for.
The car will be on show at the London Classic Sports car Show this coming weekend.
With regard to torque maxima, the arguments go max torque per litre etc and discount the lbsft/litre achieved in 2v Nascar motors. If someone was claiming more than the 103 achieved commonly in Nascar and even 110 lbs/ft litre that would be an eye opener, but, when folk develop engines over a long period of time advances are made little by little. The same will obtain with the LS engines if they stay in race engine use as long as the X-flow, Pinto, A series, B series. Tr 4s and 6s and the venerable Buick derived V8 engines.
Just because folk haven't seen it thus far does not mean it does not exist.
The 3.5 in Tiff’s old car was a John Eales engine dynoed at 370 on his dyno. As fitted it gave 350 fly equivalent with our rollers.
Do you remember this topic I posted Dave?
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=149...
I also paste one of your replies where you stated:
“That second head has an identical flow curve to a John Eales (JE Motors) 43mm head I tested nearly 25 years ago and which I actually found nigh on impossible to beat which caused me some chagrin.”
Does this mean other V8s builders may find more power than you could?...allowing John a little more development work and I am sure he found a few more geegees over the years!
The engine mentioned in the above topic link went on to produce 390 flywheel bhp before we designed better inlet valves and the engine had a new cam with very rigid valve gear. Engine Bhp rose to approx 418 bhp. 3.9 with flat plane crank.
I attach a graph to compare the flat plane v8 3.9 with the Tiff Needell 3.5 engine.
PS, your transmission losses you stick to are and always have been a load of old cobblers you made up to justify your calculations. The number cannot be a constant as has been shown to you by many other posters on many other forums over the years, you just stick to it so your numbers make sense to you.
The one above, you have always said my dynos are all faulty and read wrong yet you use our wheel power to justify a fly figure from a different dyno. Sort yourself Dave, you are plucking numbers from a hat to try and justify your 'theories' to suit your machinations.
Peter
Edited by PeterBurgess on Wednesday 22 February 06:46
Peter - what fuel was this engine running?
I am finding a figure of 550 lb/ft on a 358 ci NASCAR engine (5.86657 litres).
That would give <94 lb/ft/l, which is what I roughly calculated for your engine (based on 3.5 litres), on the previous page.
I assume the 98 octane (104 RON), 15% ethanol race fuel they run on is also highly knock resistant.
I'm not looking to disparage the work done but that is huge power/ torque (especially per litre) for a 2v engine, especially a Rover V8 at fairly low RPMs on carbs and a dizzy (if that's correct).
Apologies if there have been answers to this in the last hour or so. I started writing and then took a call from our KL office.
I am finding a figure of 550 lb/ft on a 358 ci NASCAR engine (5.86657 litres).
That would give <94 lb/ft/l, which is what I roughly calculated for your engine (based on 3.5 litres), on the previous page.
I assume the 98 octane (104 RON), 15% ethanol race fuel they run on is also highly knock resistant.
I'm not looking to disparage the work done but that is huge power/ torque (especially per litre) for a 2v engine, especially a Rover V8 at fairly low RPMs on carbs and a dizzy (if that's correct).
Apologies if there have been answers to this in the last hour or so. I started writing and then took a call from our KL office.
Considering you studied psychology at university Peter it's also disappointing you don't seem to be able to recognise yours. It's remarkably similar to Donald Trump's. When faced with information you don't want to hear you go straight into "closed mind" defensive mode. Firstly you claim the information is all "fake news" just like he does, then you start launching ad hominem attacks at the bearer, then you start dragging up loads of irrelevancies to create deflection. Same old story time after time on here. 60th birthday soon you say? It seems that old dogs really can't learn new tricks.
If you think prehistoric old 2v Rover V8s produce over 100 ft lbs per litre then it seems you were already too old to learn much when you started doing this for a living 30 years ago. I recall you thinking the same about Ford Crossflow engines a while back in here regardless of everyone telling you different. It's just nothing ever sinks in to you and you never learn. No one can help inform a truly closed mind though so I'll leave you to your tuning fantasies.
If you think prehistoric old 2v Rover V8s produce over 100 ft lbs per litre then it seems you were already too old to learn much when you started doing this for a living 30 years ago. I recall you thinking the same about Ford Crossflow engines a while back in here regardless of everyone telling you different. It's just nothing ever sinks in to you and you never learn. No one can help inform a truly closed mind though so I'll leave you to your tuning fantasies.
I found an old post of mine from April 2006. I am 99% certain it is the same car. Note the race series and the modified engine...
Thread here
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
The link to the advert is long gone unfortunately.
My post:
Saturday 22nd April 2006
A friend of mine was competing in an Ex-Works Rover SD1 in the Classic Thunder/Heritage Touring Car series. This car was modified to a Tuscan 4.5 engine...
He has had the car for sale (www.fastroadandtrack.co.uk/frat/showad.php?adid=3149) over the winter. I am not sure if he sold it...
I hope to speak to him soon to find out his plans for this year if he still has the car. Last year at Brands Hatch he drove a great race in the Heritage Touring Car race and got a load of airtime on Motors TV.
I can't get that link to work from here - Google the following to see the pics/description: Ex-Works G2 Rover SD1 V8S
Thread here
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
The link to the advert is long gone unfortunately.
My post:
Saturday 22nd April 2006
A friend of mine was competing in an Ex-Works Rover SD1 in the Classic Thunder/Heritage Touring Car series. This car was modified to a Tuscan 4.5 engine...
He has had the car for sale (www.fastroadandtrack.co.uk/frat/showad.php?adid=3149) over the winter. I am not sure if he sold it...
I hope to speak to him soon to find out his plans for this year if he still has the car. Last year at Brands Hatch he drove a great race in the Heritage Touring Car race and got a load of airtime on Motors TV.
I can't get that link to work from here - Google the following to see the pics/description: Ex-Works G2 Rover SD1 V8S
And Donald also specialises in diverting attention. How come you took my 'plucked from the air', as you have described it in the past, wheel figure and extrapolated it with your guesswork figures to a fly figure of 370. From the build specs we don't think it was ever 370, we think it did very well to show 350 fly on our supaguessplucka number dyno. The original '370' engine had problems and has been stripped and built three times to get it back to where it is now. I don't suppose it even runs the same carbs and ex manifold and system as on engine dyno but you are hell bent on proving everyone wrong even to the extent of alternative facts....my wonky wheel power reading, your wonky maths to make it read 370 which was just a stated number from someone elses dyno not a gospel number.
Peter
Peter
dom9 said:
Peter - what fuel was this engine running?
I am finding a figure of 550 lb/ft on a 358 ci NASCAR engine (5.86657 litres).
That would give <94 lb/ft/l, which is what I roughly calculated for your engine (based on 3.5 litres), on the previous page.
The thing you have to bear in mind with the 2v American V8 engine world is that tens of millions of hours of development work on just the cylinder heads alone over 50 plus years mean these engines are nothing remotely like their original ancestors or any other engine built by porting a set of stock factory head castings. Designed and cast from scratch to eliminate every possible port restriction, chamber shapes optimised for burn and valve flow, CNC ported to eliminate cylinder to cylinder variances the flow rates achieved are up into 4v per cylinder territory. It's chalk and cheese compared to taking an old Rover V8 lump, or a Ford Crossflow or even something a bit more modern like a Peugeot 205 and doing the best you can with porting gear on the stock heads before you hit a waterway.I am finding a figure of 550 lb/ft on a 358 ci NASCAR engine (5.86657 litres).
That would give <94 lb/ft/l, which is what I roughly calculated for your engine (based on 3.5 litres), on the previous page.
You also have to bear in mind that American dyno correction factors add about 3 to 4% to the torque and power figures that would be shown under European standards.
Starting from a stock production car engine and head castings and tested on an accurate dyno to European correction specs you simply don't see more than 80 ft lb per litre on 2v motors and 93 ft lb per litre on 4v ones on pump fuel and normal budget builds and even those are outliers. High 70s for 2v and high 80s to 90 for 4v is very good going.
Once you've done all the basic stuff to reduce friction losses and get a decent burn and good pulse tuning then torque per litre just hits a brick wall over quite a wide range of cam durations and power possibilities. There's not really much difference in peak torque over a spectrum covering rally type engines all the way up to very peaky full race. What changes is the rpm necessary to produce the power as you go up on cam spec.
This ought to make common sense anyway. Whatever the cam duration there'll be some point in the rpm range where it works at its best and that's where you hit peak torque which is simply a function of how much charge the engine breathes in per cycle. When the cylinders are full they're full. Nothing much left you can do to improve that.
Here's the magical Ford Crossflow 96 ft lb per litre thread I knew I remembered vaguely.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
It makes rather depressing reading looking at it again 3 years later as apparently it achieved precisely nothing. Lots of very clued up people back then trying to explain to Peter why such prehistoric 2v engines don't make that much torque including a guy who actually works with F1 engines but clearly nothing sank in.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
It makes rather depressing reading looking at it again 3 years later as apparently it achieved precisely nothing. Lots of very clued up people back then trying to explain to Peter why such prehistoric 2v engines don't make that much torque including a guy who actually works with F1 engines but clearly nothing sank in.
Hi Dom
Around 13:1 long rods and short pistons.
We have never said our power figures are Gospel, we have always said we use the rolling road as a comparator tool and, as long as we get repeatable results day in and day out and we can compare and see slight changes as an increase or decrease in power we are happy, this has been especially so with our Dynocom inertia dyno. Once we get the Superflow dyno running, from talking to others, we will get similar discrepancies. I feel the real problem is, folk who do not actually work on rolling roads and engine dynos but only have access to occasional figures attribute too much to and from said figures,and don't spend time comparing figures from the same dyno or rolling road but heyho, what do I know, it is other folk who want to spend time poh-poohing the figures
A good use of the rollers is to see the differences in the 3.5 to 3.9 dogs dangly bits graphs shown above. You also have to remember we have many more graphs for all the cars we have done which gives us a lot of insight. We have probably tuned around 1500 cars on our new rollers.
Peter
Around 13:1 long rods and short pistons.
We have never said our power figures are Gospel, we have always said we use the rolling road as a comparator tool and, as long as we get repeatable results day in and day out and we can compare and see slight changes as an increase or decrease in power we are happy, this has been especially so with our Dynocom inertia dyno. Once we get the Superflow dyno running, from talking to others, we will get similar discrepancies. I feel the real problem is, folk who do not actually work on rolling roads and engine dynos but only have access to occasional figures attribute too much to and from said figures,and don't spend time comparing figures from the same dyno or rolling road but heyho, what do I know, it is other folk who want to spend time poh-poohing the figures
A good use of the rollers is to see the differences in the 3.5 to 3.9 dogs dangly bits graphs shown above. You also have to remember we have many more graphs for all the cars we have done which gives us a lot of insight. We have probably tuned around 1500 cars on our new rollers.
Peter
PeterBurgess said:
Hi Dom
Around 13:1 long rods and short pistons...
Hi Peter, that's interesting. It does sound like it's built to rev with a long duration/ high overlap cam, I assume, based on the static compression figure.Around 13:1 long rods and short pistons...
However, the power curve doesn't look 'peaky' or 'up top' that we might expect for the small(ish) capacity, with what would sound like a rev hungry engine.
I was trying to be a little more subtle than our fillety friend but that torque figure /litre does sound very, very high for the capacity, even when compared with a NASCAR engine, which may well be some of the most 'developed' engines on the planet.
Are the head castings re-worked Rover castings and are you confirming it is running 'pump gas'?
Again; I'm genuinely interested as the torque seems remarkable (and I am someone building a 2v engine at the moment and don't expect to make nearly 100bhp/l let alone the torque).
If it turned out to be a litre larger in capacity; I am not sure it would diminish the achievement for a Rover V8, especially running carbs, dizzy, Rover head castings and pump gas (if the assumptions I've made are correct).
Hi Dom
I do not know fuel or what the head specs are. Our guesstimate is 91 lbs/ft litre from our figures. I know many pistoheaders think 80 is the limit but that limit is a mental limit and not a physical one or the Nascar 2valvers (remember they are actually restricted for mods so there would be more to come if restrictions were lifted) are running 103 with 110 I think having been seen according to a PH thread that David Vizard was involved in.
Sorry I cannot be of any further help, it isn't my engine build or headwork, just ran it up on my rollers to bed the refreshed engine in and make sure fuelling and timing was optimised.
I do feel the important thing is to see how different engines respond on the same dyno so comparisons are as genuine as can be. I would not use five different micrometers to measure one component and then use the possibly differing measurements to try and 'mean' something. Micrometer maybe not very good analogy as dynos are not as consistent as micrometers, mind you, micrometers can and do vary with temp
From my own point of view, whatever the 'true' figures are (whatever 'true' means) I have seen slow but steady power improvements over the 33 years I have been modding heads and tuning cars. Recently friction reduction is playing a large part and power to the wheels response improves dramatically with lightened components. As I said in an earlier post, the aggregation of marginal improvements. This slowly pushes the lbs/ft per litre upwards.
Peter
I do not know fuel or what the head specs are. Our guesstimate is 91 lbs/ft litre from our figures. I know many pistoheaders think 80 is the limit but that limit is a mental limit and not a physical one or the Nascar 2valvers (remember they are actually restricted for mods so there would be more to come if restrictions were lifted) are running 103 with 110 I think having been seen according to a PH thread that David Vizard was involved in.
Sorry I cannot be of any further help, it isn't my engine build or headwork, just ran it up on my rollers to bed the refreshed engine in and make sure fuelling and timing was optimised.
I do feel the important thing is to see how different engines respond on the same dyno so comparisons are as genuine as can be. I would not use five different micrometers to measure one component and then use the possibly differing measurements to try and 'mean' something. Micrometer maybe not very good analogy as dynos are not as consistent as micrometers, mind you, micrometers can and do vary with temp
From my own point of view, whatever the 'true' figures are (whatever 'true' means) I have seen slow but steady power improvements over the 33 years I have been modding heads and tuning cars. Recently friction reduction is playing a large part and power to the wheels response improves dramatically with lightened components. As I said in an earlier post, the aggregation of marginal improvements. This slowly pushes the lbs/ft per litre upwards.
Peter
Hi All
I have carried out a fair amount of work on this car during its current ownership. The engine that was in the car when it was purchased was removed and replaced with a 3.5 ltr engine built by John Eales. The engine has just been freshened up hence the visit to the rolling road. I can confirm that it is indeed still 3.5 ltr.
Regards
I have carried out a fair amount of work on this car during its current ownership. The engine that was in the car when it was purchased was removed and replaced with a 3.5 ltr engine built by John Eales. The engine has just been freshened up hence the visit to the rolling road. I can confirm that it is indeed still 3.5 ltr.
Regards
I just calculate that my 5.2l will make 570Nm@4400rpm, witch is 80.57lb/litre. It will run normal pump gas 98E and ~12:1CR. It is emission legal without any cheating issues.. It wil run Kent M256 cam and make best power 418hp at 5700rpm.. This is measured Bosch rolling road. Sound like i may have more power if engine dyno give more.. 
Maybe add same 20hp..
I have to say that there is slightly more potential, if i will sit many hours in my garage and spend time and money to modify exhaust manifold´s and inlet pipes.. + some very silly mechanical custom cam like 270-275deg @ 0.05".. Or Roller cam setup..
Maybe 430+hp is possible and near 580-590Nm.. Witch means maxium +83lb/litre..
My head´s has been measured after valve seat offset porting, and they flow in some superflow bench +370hp.. And another bench they will flow near 400hp. This 400hp bench, merlin head´s flow slightly less than usually in UK.. If remember ~370hp..
5950rpm sound´s low to me in 3.5l engine.. I hope we are learn our lesson´s with RV8 head´s..
Maybe add same 20hp..I have to say that there is slightly more potential, if i will sit many hours in my garage and spend time and money to modify exhaust manifold´s and inlet pipes.. + some very silly mechanical custom cam like 270-275deg @ 0.05".. Or Roller cam setup..
Maybe 430+hp is possible and near 580-590Nm.. Witch means maxium +83lb/litre..
My head´s has been measured after valve seat offset porting, and they flow in some superflow bench +370hp.. And another bench they will flow near 400hp. This 400hp bench, merlin head´s flow slightly less than usually in UK.. If remember ~370hp..
5950rpm sound´s low to me in 3.5l engine.. I hope we are learn our lesson´s with RV8 head´s..
A good hot bath and some Old Speckled Hen helps with the thought processes.
If I am preaching to those who already know the difference between graphs from wheel power and engine dyno graphs I apologise.
A graph of wheel power and engine power does not overlay with just more vertical power for the engine figures linearly. The tyres absorb power exponentially so, as the speed goes up, especially over 70 mph power absorption increases alarmingly, I am sure Stevie Turbo knows this all too well. So, below 70 losses are low, as far as I can see looking at wheel power versus engine dyno graphs ( I know one cannot say the two are comparable as they are different dynos but please bear with me) below 70 mph the wheel power is very close to engine power as transmission losses are very very low, above 70 mph and the tyre loses snowball so at high rpms the wheel power peaks some 500-700 rpm earlier than flywheel power because of the increase in power absorption of the tyres. This gives rise to truncated wheel power graphs. This is from comparing engine dyno graphs from many different dynos with our Clayton and Dynocom rollers. The problem with the exponentially increasing tyre losses with speed , tyre width and compound means Daves constant cannot hold true, the difference between a car doing 90 mph and 160 is stunning for tyre power absorption. We also move onto gearbox losses. Time and again we run MGBs with OE 4 speed boxes or Ford 5 speed boxes, the Fords sap around 3-4 bhp less than the OE Bs. Thinner gearbox oil and diff oil also reduces power losses and this readily shows up with power tests on an inertia dyno. These variations also throw cold water on Daves constants.
So, we come to the conclusion that one cannot really extrapolate from wheel power to flywheel power. We deal in wheel power as that is what accelerates the car, for instance, leave the handbrake on and all that lovely engine power goes nowhere! We use the coast down losses to compare cars with the same transmissions, we can see if there is a problem if losses higher than expected. However, people always want to know what the flywheel bhp is so we give a ballpark figure with the addition of wheel power and coastdown losses.
I posted the info on Tiffs old car as an interest item for a car with a lot of history which I felt folk may appreciate, I have owned 2 mk1 SD1s and I owned the Vitesse originally built for Harold Musgrove MD Rover, I have a soft spot for the SD1s. My mate Rog Parker worked with Rover and Michelin to develop the MK1 from a sloppy beastie to a taught good handling and well braked car which worked well for the Police. Rog's mate Phil designed the fuel injection setup for the Vitesse using a biscuit tin for the plenum I seem to recall, so, as I say I have a soft spot for SD1s.
Peter
If I am preaching to those who already know the difference between graphs from wheel power and engine dyno graphs I apologise.
A graph of wheel power and engine power does not overlay with just more vertical power for the engine figures linearly. The tyres absorb power exponentially so, as the speed goes up, especially over 70 mph power absorption increases alarmingly, I am sure Stevie Turbo knows this all too well. So, below 70 losses are low, as far as I can see looking at wheel power versus engine dyno graphs ( I know one cannot say the two are comparable as they are different dynos but please bear with me) below 70 mph the wheel power is very close to engine power as transmission losses are very very low, above 70 mph and the tyre loses snowball so at high rpms the wheel power peaks some 500-700 rpm earlier than flywheel power because of the increase in power absorption of the tyres. This gives rise to truncated wheel power graphs. This is from comparing engine dyno graphs from many different dynos with our Clayton and Dynocom rollers. The problem with the exponentially increasing tyre losses with speed , tyre width and compound means Daves constant cannot hold true, the difference between a car doing 90 mph and 160 is stunning for tyre power absorption. We also move onto gearbox losses. Time and again we run MGBs with OE 4 speed boxes or Ford 5 speed boxes, the Fords sap around 3-4 bhp less than the OE Bs. Thinner gearbox oil and diff oil also reduces power losses and this readily shows up with power tests on an inertia dyno. These variations also throw cold water on Daves constants.
So, we come to the conclusion that one cannot really extrapolate from wheel power to flywheel power. We deal in wheel power as that is what accelerates the car, for instance, leave the handbrake on and all that lovely engine power goes nowhere! We use the coast down losses to compare cars with the same transmissions, we can see if there is a problem if losses higher than expected. However, people always want to know what the flywheel bhp is so we give a ballpark figure with the addition of wheel power and coastdown losses.
I posted the info on Tiffs old car as an interest item for a car with a lot of history which I felt folk may appreciate, I have owned 2 mk1 SD1s and I owned the Vitesse originally built for Harold Musgrove MD Rover, I have a soft spot for the SD1s. My mate Rog Parker worked with Rover and Michelin to develop the MK1 from a sloppy beastie to a taught good handling and well braked car which worked well for the Police. Rog's mate Phil designed the fuel injection setup for the Vitesse using a biscuit tin for the plenum I seem to recall, so, as I say I have a soft spot for SD1s.
Peter
dom9 said:
Peter - what fuel was this engine running?
I am finding a figure of 550 lb/ft on a 358 ci NASCAR engine (5.86657 litres).
Here is an actual late spec Toyota Nascar 358 ci engine being dynoed in November 2013 presumably for the 2014 season. The dyno is in the Evernham Motorsports workshop which is now part of the Richard Petty operation.I am finding a figure of 550 lb/ft on a 358 ci NASCAR engine (5.86657 litres).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EScO0-NHGs0
The rpm and SAE ft lb torque dials can be read clearly when the camera is in the right place. The engine is being revved to over 9500, peak power at 770 bhp is over 130 bhp per litre and the torque just nudges 500 ft lbs on a couple of runs and maybe 505 on one of them so 85 to 86 ft lbs per litre.
So clearly given their 5 million dollar engine budget per season and that every part of that thing is custom designed and CNC machined they're doing something drastically wrong when they can't even get close to an old Rover V8 but someone else can phone them and tell them how crap they are.
Edited by Mignon on Thursday 23 February 08:46
Think you forgot a link there, Miggy!
Could this not be explained by the engine running all that compression and perhaps a milder cam than assumed (more torque and producing power at a lower rpm than expected for the 'long rod spec') but on rocket fuel?
It seems that everyone involved with this car/ engine believes it to be a 3.5 litre so we kind of have to take their word for it and fill in the gaps.
I'll be honest; I am still very skeptical as I have never really seen any evidence of such high torque per litre figures from that type of engine.
But that's not to say it isn't possible, there would just appear to be (at least one thing) we don't know that would change our frame of reference.
For an engine that sounds like it is built to rev, it does make that power/ torque pretty low down and Rover head castings are not known for their tunability.
Peter - Any chance you could fire an email off to Mr JE and ask whether it is running a Wildcat (or other) style head and was built for race fuel?
I feel like those on this thread need the answers in their lives
Could this not be explained by the engine running all that compression and perhaps a milder cam than assumed (more torque and producing power at a lower rpm than expected for the 'long rod spec') but on rocket fuel?
It seems that everyone involved with this car/ engine believes it to be a 3.5 litre so we kind of have to take their word for it and fill in the gaps.
I'll be honest; I am still very skeptical as I have never really seen any evidence of such high torque per litre figures from that type of engine.
But that's not to say it isn't possible, there would just appear to be (at least one thing) we don't know that would change our frame of reference.
For an engine that sounds like it is built to rev, it does make that power/ torque pretty low down and Rover head castings are not known for their tunability.
Peter - Any chance you could fire an email off to Mr JE and ask whether it is running a Wildcat (or other) style head and was built for race fuel?
I feel like those on this thread need the answers in their lives
Gassing Station | Engines & Drivetrain | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff