ValiantS
Well-Known Member
The WEIGHT wasn't updating correctly but from runs 2 and after it weighed 3715#. How much engine HP is my question? Thanks for your opinions.
Is this rear-wheel? 3715# at 9%650ish on the slide rule
I'm guessing 770-780ish at the flywheel. We had my wife engine dyno's and for the ET it runs using Wallace racing calculator there's about 11% loss. It's a decent sorta out combo, but I"m sure there's more in it so I think 10% loss from flywheel to rear wheels would be a fair guesstimate.The WEIGHT wasn't updating correctly but from runs 2 and after it weighed 3715#. How much engine HP is my question? Thanks for your opinions.
View attachment 1716250874
I might be low...might be closer to 670 after looking againIs this rear-wheel? 3715# at 9%
The WEIGHT wasn't updating correctly but from runs 2 and after it weighed 3715#. How much engine HP is my question? Thanks for your opinions.
View attachment 1716250874
That looks very close to what my Dyno numbers were putting out @ 685 HP which was saying
10.015 et.
Funny thing is Wallace calculator with gear ratio puts my car at 9.36 - 140 at 3000 with 4.10 gears.
If your car weighs 3500+ it's closer to 750
Yep true.I couldn’t agree with this more. The car is a little on the heavy side which of course, requires more power. I’m gutting and fiberglass it as much as practical but not in full my ‘71 Duster. Less weight = Less power needed.
Is this rear-wheel? 3715# at 9%
Wallace calculator says about 840 HP at 3750 I put in the wrong weight sorry lolOK not all are reading this correctly but the car at the line weighed 3715. Was adjusted to run 10.0 with weight in about 9% corrected conditions. I was asking what was the corrected HP to gage ET potential. The chart corrects the ET to as low as 9.61 at that weight. There are some other gains to be had in the scoop and a tray but it's a baseline tune-up.
Was this on a chassis Dyno ?OK not all are reading this correctly but the car at the line weighed 3715. Was adjusted to run 10.0 with weight in about 9% corrected conditions. I was asking what was the corrected HP to gage ET potential. The chart corrects the ET to as low as 9.61 at that weight. There are some other gains to be had in the scoop and a tray but it's a baseline tune-up.
I hope you have some good brakesIt was never on any dyno. I figure so far it's using about 775-780 crank corrected engine dyno. Wallace showed it correcting around there correcting for weather on other runs at 3540lbs. I was interested in knowing the masses general ideas. I'd like to see it touch the 9.5s in stellar air at 3540 but again it probably needs a working scoop and air pan to get there.
That's a good point and was considered. He's got the big Wilwoods on the front and I think disc on the rear. It's my old motor I REworked for someone. Using a modman, AFB's, wet sump, bumped compression to 12:1I hope you have some good brakes
That is true, I just assumed it was implied STD conditions, which is why I said stellar air. This was the standard CF for the 20 years I dynoed. I can take the thread down if it doesn't work for you?It's really an impossible question to answer fully, because we don't what standard to correct TO. So all anyone here can do is guess and I think you've gotten some pretty good ones.
That's really nice looking all turquoiseThat's a good point and was considered. He's got the big Wilwoods on the front and I think disc on the rear. It's my old motor I REworked for someone. Using a modman, AFB's, wet sump, bumped compression to 12:1
View attachment 1716251332
LolThat is true, I just assumed it was implied STD conditions, which is why I said stellar air. This was the standard CF for the 20 years I dynoed. I can take the thread down if it doesn't work for you?
What car is this engine in now, B-body?It was never on any dyno. I figure so far it's using about 775-780 crank corrected engine dyno. Wallace showed it correcting around there correcting for weather on other runs at 3540lbs. I was interested in knowing the masses general ideas. I'd like to see it touch the 9.5s in stellar air at 3540 but again it probably needs a working scoop and air pan to get there.
I'd like to know a little more about this engine if you care to share.That's a good point and was considered. He's got the big Wilwoods on the front and I think disc on the rear. It's my old motor I REworked for someone. Using a modman, AFB's, wet sump, bumped compression to 12:1
View attachment 1716251332
Thank you, I'd say I did think a lot on it. Whether it was good/bad is prob relative. I was happy with the results. It's a '73 400 block half-fill billet caps and bushed lifter bores, pushrod oiling, 275@ 050 roller .730 NET. Initially, hand-ported Indy SR at compuflow then redone by me. about 360cfm 2.25 valves. 1985 bobweight BME rods Crower 2.1 rod crank Manton pushrods 1225 Pac springs 1/16 ring pack. flat tops 12:1 I did EXTENSIVE mods to the intake but. it probably would gain with a touch more.I'd like to know a little more about this engine if you care to share.
Looks like a very well thought out engine.
Was this your 489 ci & what was rod length ?Thank you, I'd say I did think a lot on it. Whether it was good/bad is prob relative. I was happy with the results. It's a '73 400 block half-fill billet caps and bushed lifter bores, pushrod oiling, 275@ 050 roller .730 NET. Initially, hand-ported Indy SR at compuflow then redone by me. about 360cfm 2.25 valves. 1985 bobweight BME rods Crower 2.1 rod crank Manton pushrods 1225 Pac springs 1/16 ring pack. flat tops 12:1 I did EXTENSIVE mods to the intake but. it probably would gain with a touch more.
View attachment 1716252105