Dyno results: 2.6 liter short block

[Brendan K. Walsh]

http://www.engineersedge.com/calculators/horsepower_automotive.htm

Try fiddleing with the time till you hit the estimated hp #.

"If God had intended us to walk he wouldn't have invented roller skates."
Gene Wilder, Willy Wonka and The Chocolate Factory.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David" <duandcc_forums at cox.net>
To: "Chris Darringer" <cdarring at pacbell.net>; <quattro at audifans.com>
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: Dyno results: 2.6 liter short block


> What happened to the pic of the dyno plot? It's 404... And this interests
me a LOT, I've always wanted a bit more power in my CGT and $$ for a proper
turbo swap is not available right now. Anybody willing to speculate on what
the 0-60 and/or 1/4 mile times would be like if this engine were in a
roughly 2,500# FWD Coupe GT?
>
> Dave
> 87.5 CGT 2.3
> SE Virginia
> ============================================================
> From: "Chris Darringer" <cdarring at pacbell.net>
> Date: 2004/01/29 Thu PM 09:02:43 EST
> To: <quattro at audifans.com>
> Subject: Dyno results: 2.6 liter short block
>
> Hello listers,
>
> Thanks to a failed flow test (and plenty of encouragement from Javad), I
> recently committed to replacing the 2.3 liter engine in my '90 80q with
> a 2.6 liter short block (rated at 146hp according to Eurospec).  As
> expected, this was a bolt-on upgrade.  The goal of this project was to
> have a car with a bit more power and some extra low-end torque without
> some of the complexities and costs of a turbo conversion.
>
> After two tuning sessions at the dyno with Javad, I have some results to
> share:
> http://www.80tq.com/images/ChrisDarringerDyno.JPG
>
> Here are some interesting notes from the test:
>
> (1) Max power at the wheels is 114.2 hp and max torque is 122.4.  If you
> make the (overly-simplified) assumption that hp and torque are 25%
> higher at the crank, then we are looking at around 143 hp and 153 lbs of
> torque.  This is a bit lower than I expected, given the original
> Eurospec rating.  I should also point out that a basic amount of head
> porting was done, and the BlauSport 272 cam was installed too.
>
> (2) Over 90% of the torque is available at 2k rpm, and the curve seems
> relatively flat through the whole rpm band.  This is a noticeable
> improvement over the original 2.3 block.
>
> (3) The air/fuel ratio starts out fine but approaches 12 as rpms
> increase.  According to the guys at ATP, 13.5 to 14 is ideal for
> normally aspirated cars, so mine appears to be running rich.  This was a
> surprise, since one of the biggest concerns about this conversion was
> that CIS would not be able to fuel the slightly larger engine at high
> rpms.  Javad attempted to lean out the engine by adjusting the CO
> (values from 0 to 11mA were tried) but this appeared to have no
> significant effect at high rpms.
>
> Special thanks to Javad for his continuous help, M&M AutoHouse in
> Cambell for their enthusiasm and excellent customer service, and Chris
> at Force5auto for answering my tedious phone questions over the
> holidays.
>
> As always, your questions, comments or suggestions would be appreciated!
>
> Chris
> '90 80q 2.6
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> quattro mailing list
> quattro at audifans.com
> http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/quattro
> ============================================================
>
>
> Dave
> 2002 Jetta 1.8T (hers)
> 1993 RX-7 R1 (weekend play toy, soon to be for sale)
> 1987 CGT Special Build 2.3
> in Virginia Beach, VA.
>
>
>