Dyno results: 2.6 liter short block

[Brendan Walsh]

fair enough,to each his own. i guess i'm just too american for my own good, 
I won't be happy untill the motor pulls itself off the mounts and drives off 
without me destroying entire ecosystems in it's wake.
can I make the assumption the 2.6 is a stroker built from a VW vanagon crank 
and rods (2.5l i5 right?) and NG pistons?
as an after thought, i would venture a guess the the rich mix at high rpm's 
would be reduced somewhat with a more open intake... just a thought for the 
next one.
B

>From: JShadzi at aol.com
>To: bkwalsh4201 at hotmail.com ("Brendan K. Walsh"),        
>bradym at sympatico.ca ("\"Brady Moffatt\""),        cdarring at pacbell.net 
>("\"Chris Darringer\""), quattro at audifans.com
>Subject: Re: Dyno results: 2.6 liter short block
>Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:35:37 -0500
>
>Remember, tourque is in the bottom end, HP is in the head.  HP is a 
>function of toruqe and engine speed, the higher your peak TQ happens in the 
>RPM range, the higher your HP #.  By simply more aggressively camming this 
>motor or retarding cam timing to shift the TQ cure up, you'd easily make 
>bigger HP #'s.
>
>From what I know, Chris's head was mildly ported, nothing crazy, and the 
>272 cam isn't terribly aggressive either, like I said, from an engine with 
>the stroke, known head flow, cam tuning, etc, these results are quite 
>acceptable.  Sacrifice a bunch of that TQ down low and shift it up 2krpm 
>and you'd easily start seeing much bigger HP #'s.  With the right head I 
>bet you could dyno that motor close to 200whp, but that would be a very 
>high revving, heavily flowed and cammed motor, and would have cost A LOT 
>more money to build.  For what Chris put into his 2.6, he spent a marginal 
>amount more than he would have putting in a new 2.3, i'd bet it would have 
>been a few hundred $$ less.
>
>So, if you do want a motor with bigger HP #'s, and you want to make HP with 
>that kind of displacement, you'll be addressing the head, not the bottom 
>end, you could easily make 114hp with a 1.8 8v motor with basically some 
>porting and a cam, but you'd never have the TQ of this motor.
>
>Javad
>
> >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
> >> >
> >>
> >

_________________________________________________________________
Find high-speed ‘net deals — comparison-shop your local providers here. 
https://broadband.msn.com