It is my understanding that VE is affected by intake and exhaust flow as well as porting, valve timing etc.
We have been told by others that the exhaust manifolds have been used to 500+hp (again, not necessarily proven to scientific standards, but I choose to believe that there is at least a majority of truth in it) so I don't have too many qualms in accepting that sufficient work to the exhaust housings and turbines could contribute to much better exhaust flow. There was enough done to Brads exhaust to (in 4th gear) result in max boost being achieved at ~3250RPM which is quite a bit slower than standard.
If you had a 1.4l Polo, claimed 1000bhp and provided the dyno graph to back it up (and the dyno graph wasn't totally unbelievable) then I would accept your claim. I don't really care whether or not you made 1000bhp. If you didn't then it is your lie. The only one you would be cheating is yourself. Even if it was 990hp, I don't see the point in splitting hairs over it.
Brad knows his car was tuned on a dyno which is known to be a little optimistic and he was due to lose a few KW at the wheels if he dynoed with the club dyno day, which is why he didn't. That is his choice though, he still has his claim to 400hp in the mean time.
I would like to see your flow maps etc which prove that 400hp is impossible. It would be nice if you could do it up in a spreadsheet so we can fiddle with parameters which we feel might contribute to system differences.
I am highly interested in what figures you feel WOULD be possible.
Little update.
Thanks to Paul (psbarham) who borrowed to me stock front exhaust cam gear with cam rotor blades I could investigate why in my aftermarket cam verniers rotor blade was so much misaligned.
So did few checks:
IMAG0413.jpg
Here is the answer...
Rotor blade wasn't misaligned at all! There was wrongly positioned timing mark!
There is 2 tooth misalign between both cam gears
Now adjustable cam gear has a "new" timing mark scratched by myself:
IMAG0435.jpg
Ex: Galant VR4
Running 268 HP ATW and 443 Nm torque at 0.9 bar
Now: Lancer Evolution 8 FQ-300
Running 325 HP ATW and 510 Nm torque at 1.6 bar
Interesting read. Any updates?
Legnum, Sil80, R32 GTR, R32 4 door!
Bit late in the day this I know, but from memory no graph can be correct if the torque and power lines do not cross at 5200 rpm. Simple maths from the formula for each, please correct my dying brain cells if I am in error but I have dabbled a little and most of the rolling roads and dynos out there are, shall we say, only really useful for comparisons. Love the torque figures, beats my car (at tickover, lol)
If you have a problem with getting Amsoil just contact me on 07949 944523 email don@performanceoilsltd.co.uk or web at http://www.performanceoilsltd.co.uk/
AMSOIL 'The First in Synthetics'
I don't believe this is the case
Horsepower is the product of torque * RPM so if your peak torque was made at say 4000 RPM and then fell flat after due to poor fueling etc then the cross over point of power would be much earlier than 5200 RPM for example.
But yes no two dynos will read the same on any given day, there are just to many variables.
I believe Don was correct
HP = (Torque * RPM) / 5252
When RPM = 5252 they cancel each other out and you are left with just hp = torque.
However that may just be true for HP and torque in lb-ft
Last edited by Kenneth; 26-11-2012 at 08:53 PM.
yes kenneth and swinnks are right
The internet is full of arguments with keyboard warriors saying hurr durr that dyno graph is wrong because hp doesnt cross torque at 5252 rpm. but most of the people dont take into account mostly the torque lines and hp lines are on different scales to fit them on the same page. as well as 5252rpm being the crossover point for imperial measurements. im sure it would be different when measuring in kilowatts and newton meters instead of horsepower and foot pounds.
but don is also right when the scales are the same and you measure in hp/ft-lb vs rpm it should cross at 5252rpm
This does irritate me. Power is NOT Torque *rpm.... it is Torque * angular velocity which is very much different from rpm (rad/s). Power is simply T*2*Pi*rpm/60. However you have to be careful of what units are used, if you are using Nm for Torque then you will get watts out. If you want HP, then you have to use a conversion factor which is then why if you are using lbFt that you then get the 5250 division.
Thus if you want it in kW (divide by 60000) and if you have the same scaling on both, you will find that they only cross at 9554rpm
Last edited by Gowf; 27-11-2012 at 01:00 AM.
hmmm power is torque * RPM, just it has to be converted to a value to make the calculation true. They are both a measure as to how fast the engine is rotating. Just the same as Nm is the same as lbFt, just different units.
But I digress all I was wanting to illustrate is that there is no fixed point that the curves must cross.
Very late at night for me now, but...... from an online converter:- 100Nm at 5252 rpm = 100HP so maybe irrespective of the scales at 5252 rpm metric torque = BHP? So that line is pegged here. The other line however moves and as Gowf says with KW the cross point is 9550.
Guess if they kept these metric scales they lines would rarely meet never mind cross. Soooooo looks like they use KgM instead to fit it all on the same piece of paper. The correct crossing point? I'll let someone else work that one out.
Gosh I hate metric, the threads arnt even right!
Guess I'll have to remain using the 2nd best system of fastners, imperial.
The best was of course Whitworth! but long gone.
Last edited by amsoil; 28-11-2012 at 11:42 AM.
I really cant be bothered to argue over unit expressions, BUT when you tell people that P=T*RPM then that is exactly what they try and calculate and get horendously confused when you then put a conversion factor in, as they don't understand where it came from, far better to explain it by stating its true formula which is angular velocity
Thanks not sure how i missed that post *puzzled*
Just purchased a set myself