Dyno results: 2.6 liter short block

[Brendan K. Walsh]

the 28% figure comes from
http://www.engineersedge.com/calculators/horsepower_automotive.htm
I'm not sure what formula they use to get that, something ratio between
1/4mile and weight.

as for what's expected etc... I'm really curious what the limiting factor is
on the N/A 5cyl motors. check out http://www.tsr-performance.com/ the claim
170bhp from a 10v 2.3 and 185 from a 2.6 with the same head. Maybe these
aren't really streetable motors, but quite frankly for the price, I'd be
dissapointed if i didn't see something close to that with all the attitude
of a full race car. If the 40 year old carburated 1.8l 4 cyl pushrod motor
in a Turner MK IV can make 120hp at the fly wheel, why can't a much newer
much bigger fuel injected motor achieve similar or better efficiency? For
all that work your talking about a 10-15hp gain over stock. the way the
powerband works is neat sure, but 10 bloody horsepower?! I would love to see
what's going on in the head/intake. it seems like a good port/polish would
really make a difference. Then again maybe the I5 just isn't capable w/o
forced induction. Personally, I think it is, but I'm no Engineer(yet).

my .02.

regards
Brendan

"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: <JShadzi at aol.com>
To: ""Brady Moffatt"" <bradym at sympatico.ca>; ""Brendan K. Walsh""
<bkwalsh4201 at hotmail.com>; ""Chris Darringer"" <cdarring at pacbell.net>;
<quattro at audifans.com>
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 1:55 PM
Subject: RE: Dyno results: 2.6 liter short block


> Its all pretty hard to say, especially considering different dynos and
their respective correction figures.
>
> The value of dynoing a car is in just that, having some sort of
quantifiable figure to use _relatively_ against future runs, on the _same_
dyno.  Trying to accurately extrapolate crank HP is very difficut and
typically not very valuable.  IME, a Dynojet dyno will pull about 20-25% out
of the driveline, a dynodynamics dyno will need a higher correction figure,
dynapack less, etc, etc.
>
> FWIW, Chris really needs to take a bone stock NG back to that dyno to have
a good reference to where he's really at.  On that same dyno I've made over
290hp at the wheels, and seem many cars with over 400 at the wheels (an A4
1.8t with 410whp to be exact), so when I see Chris's 114, and maybe some
optimization would get it to 117hp, its kind of pointless.
>
> Needless to say, I think Chris's results are what I'd expect and
definitely within' the range of what it should be.
>
> Javad
>
> >I thought 25% (3/4HP left at wheels) driveline losses were commonly
assumed
> >for RWD applications. That would mean a 33% (4/3) multiplier to get back
to
> >crank numbers. It might be even higher on quattros. No BTDTs, though...
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Brady
> >Urq, 4kq, Z
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: quattro-bounces at audifans.com
[mailto:quattro-bounces at audifans.com]On
> >Behalf Of Brendan K. Walsh
> >
> >> (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.
> >
> >I thought it was more like 28%?
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >quattro mailing list
> >quattro at audifans.com
> >http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/quattro
> >
>