Rear Wheel HP results

Rick, thanks for the link. It helps a lot in finding out the difference between Dynojet and Dynamics. It's about what the guy told me. Take the HP numbers and multiply it by about 1.15

342 rear wheel HP, those are better numbers than the Diablo and the Modena that was Daynoed at the shop /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif
 
FaliF
I can assure you with only 900kg to move it feels pretty impressive. How others use power in the region of some of the numbers I have seen is unreal. They must be very very skilled and experienced. Me, I am learning and the sprint series is really good for that. Tight, twisty tracks that put an empasis on throttle control, good braking and handling. Great fun.

Cheers,
RV
 

Adam C.

GT40s Sponsor
[ QUOTE ]
I did not do any tunning or Air/Fuel ratio adjustments (No need to bother with these heads ).

[/ QUOTE ]

You probably should consider it. I made 285 RWHP (dynojet) on a 5.0L with GT40X heads (lightly ported) X303 cam, full exhaust, conservative timing (12 deg base), and full accessories in a mustang on a 100 deg F day.

Those heads flow enough to support 350 hp. I would take a closer look at my engines state of tune, the calibration of the dyno, and other sources of losses in my combination before blaming the long block.

The first time I took a friends 383 road runner to the dyno it managed 215 RWHP, the last time I took it it managed about 345. None of the change had to do with the long block.
 
Cobraowner, The guys at the shop did mention Chevys hitting the mark closer than Ford crate motors, can't eplain it!!

Howard, The pulls were all done in 4th gear. No slipping of the clutch, I have the Dyno sheet results, I will show them to you before I burn/hide them /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif. The motor run out of breath around 5200 to 5300 RPM.

Adam, I see your point Iam sure I can probably get better numbers than what I got. The question is how much better? The head and the cam you mentioned is not quit what I have. And THERE, may partially lay the answer /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

You mentioned GT40X heads (which is what I have) and the X303 cam (not what I have). FMS rates this cam as "ultra high performance" with peak RPMs at 6200 for HP and 3500 for torque. I have the B303 cam which is for "Significant top-end HP" (yea right /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif) with peak RPMs at 5100 for HP and 3300 for torque. The 345HP rated motor is/was only supplied with B303 or E303 cams. The X303 and Z303 are the hotter cams and may require piston modification for clearance. As I indicated earlier on this tread the motor runs great, the gas mileage is fantastic, it does not miss hesitate, it does not run hot,,, /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif Perhaps it needs to be installed in a Van /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 

Ian Clark

Supporter
Hi All,

I have to agree with Adam. There's a lot to look at before blaming the motor. It comes down to tuning expertise, optimum choice of induction, ignition, headers and calibration of the dyno.

Lets face it, in most cases we're putting better stuff on these engines than FMS does the ratings on. The Bow Tie boys run tried and true known combinations. With a GT40, you're always on a learning curve.

If a 500 horse Lambo only showed 330 on your dyno, who's zoomin who? Is the dyno showing low numbers, is the Lambo sick or the factory exagerating?

We all like bragging rights, these are such beautiful cars to begin with. Keep on it, there's more to be had:)

Cheers

Ian
 

Ron Earp

Admin
Personally, as I've stated before, I feel the exotics (until recently with the Enzo, Ford GT, etc.) were highly overrated. They always claimed XXX hp but when you looked at quarter mile trap speed and extrapolated hp, which is decently accurate, they were always way off. And of course, all the magazines that are popular in the US (Car nad Driver, Road and Track, Sports Car International, Motor Trend ugh!, etc.) won't get anywhere NEAR a chassis dyno to measure anything.

That is odd, given their sister publications Cycle World and Motorcylist dyno every bike that they test. Maybe they need a new editor....
 
This does make Rick Merz ~440 RWHP (that I also observed but not sure which dyno manufacturer) all that more impressive. The car does pull like it has that kind of RWHP.
 

Adam C.

GT40s Sponsor
[ QUOTE ]
the X303 cam (not what I have).

[/ QUOTE ]

Despite what the catalog description is for the X303 and B303, the cams are very similar. Both have durations of 224 @ .050 and both have LCA's of 112 deg. The only difference is lift, which is not a huge factor. These cams should be within 10 HP of eachother. Also, the GT40x has 1.94" intake valves, and should not require any piston mods to clear with the X303. A head with 2.02" valves would need larger reliefs for the X303 though.

[ QUOTE ]
The motor run out of breath around 5200 to 5300 RPM.


[/ QUOTE ]

This alone tells me that you have a problem. The with the Performer RPM manifold this engine should pull to 5700 RPM easily.

Just to beat a dead horse, I've attached dyno results published in MM&FF September 2003. The engine was a 302 CI, 9:1 compression motor. The heads were the GT40Y's, which flow quite a bit worse than the X's, and the cam was a Comp XE264R which is more tame than the B303 (212/218 @ .050, .512" lift, and 114 LSA). The intake was the carbed performer RPM.

Peak HP 353, peak torque 363.

Also notice that in the same graph are the results for the same engine with good old E7TE heads (stock 5.0L), and it still made more power than yours must be making at the flywheel.

I don't see how the heads are to blame.
 

Attachments

  • 36447-GT40-Y.jpg
    36447-GT40-Y.jpg
    37.4 KB · Views: 606

Ron Earp

Admin
Have to completely agree with Adam's analysis despite feeling the 5.0L FMS motors are not as good as they claim. I remember the MM&FF data and although the motors made more power with aftermarket heads, the stock 5.0 heads did reasonably well.

I'd start looking at A/F, timing, initial timing, advance, and cam setup. Get your initial timing up, if you're at 10 degrees raise it up, I imagine you can do at least 14-16 without problem. Also, what sort of springs are stock on those heads? I've not used FMS heads since about 1994 and back then the springs stunk, they couldn't control the valves at high (for them, 6000 RPM).

If you could scan the dyno plots that would be great, especially if it had A/F too with RPM (insted of mph like some folks show).

R
 
First of all I want to thank everyone for their input. This is what makes this forum so great.

I am gone make an appointment with the Dyno shop again. and this time do a test and tune. Ron, I don't have a scanner, timming is/was set at 12 Deg. I can do 14-16 and see what happens. I know for a fact the car runs on the rich side, so that is another factor. And finally, I will borrow Howard's exhaust to see if that makes a differnce. Did I miss anything else?

The reason I am always Suspicious of FMS has partially to do with their 1999 Ford Cobra HP numbers, were they claimed 325HP and Car & Driver proved them wrong with 1/4 mile results. 1/4 mile results IMHO can show over or even under rated HP numbers (as it was the case on Ford GT).

May be that's why Rick Mertz's car is the only GT (In the US) that always post great numbers at the 1/4M. And that is a 3000lb car with him in it (I think).
 
Faili,

A couple of thoughts. First I agree with everyone else that there is certainly power to be found by properly tuning the carb. The chances of a carb being right out of the box are about 100 to 1. The Webers will certainly need tuning as well.

As for the dyno numbers being too low, I don’t know. The only car you mentioned that I am familiar with is the Ferrari 360. They got 300 RWHP and are normally 86.6% of a Dynojet number based on what they told you. That would be 345 RWHP. If we allow 15% driveline losses that equals 400 Flywheel HP which is right on the head. That suggests that as long as you up-convert to Dynojet equivalent numbers you should be pretty close.

As for the issue of the Heads, If you look at the numbers from the Muscle Mustangs test that I mentioned in my first post, The GT-40X made 416 ft lbs @ 4,400 RPM and the AFR 185s made 445 ft lbs @ 4,300 RPM. Note that the RPMs for the torque peaks are basically the same.

For Horsepower it is somewhat different. The GT-40X made 390 HP @ 5,400 RPMs and the AFRs made 448 HP @ 6,100 RPM. Even though the torque peaks were at the same RPMs, the GT-40Xs are making peak power 700 RPM lower than the AFRs. A clear indication that the heads have simply run out of flow capability and can no longer adequately supply the engine.

Interestingly the Stock E7TE Heads were included in that MM&FF test and made 351 HP @ 5,300 RPM and 400 ft lbs @ 3,800 RPM. (Don’t read too much into that 3,800 RPM for torque, they were basically flat (within 5 ft lbs) from 3,800 to 4,300 RPM).

Good luck, It will be interesting to see what you can pick up with some jetting, although I can understand where you might not want to spend a lot of time on that given that you are going to be changing carburetors anyhow.

Kevin
 
Please remember to check total timing not just base timing. You are probably going to want 32-36 degrees total all in by 2500 - 3000 RPM. Idle timing makes very little difference.
 
Faili,

Something I forgot to mention, Check to make sure the piston relief’s will accept a 2.02" Intake valve before you go to AFR 185s. The GT-40s have a 1.94" Intake so I don't know if those pistons have the larger valve pockets. If not, you would need to use the AFR 165s that have 1.94" valves.

Kevin
 
Thanks Gary, I will re-check that. kevin, you are right AFR 165s are the ones that would work on my engine. I guess TFS Twisted Wedge is also an option.

I'll give the motor one more try, If I get anywere near the 260/270HP mark (Dynamics Dyno) which would be around 300 Dynojet numbers, I will be content. It will be intersting and usefull to everyone here to see If this motor can come up with 50 more horses /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
 

Ron Earp

Admin
You should be able to get those numbers without much trouble. Heck, if I can get them from my 4 banger you'll have no trouble. I'll bet you've got something funny going on with ignition timing, not enough advance or too much when at RPM.
 

Malcolm

Supporter
Some remembrances from when Paul Thompson and I took my car down to Sigma Engineering in Dorset (UK) for a rolling road tune and test. We spent 5 hours (£125!) with this chap who specialised in Holleys. Possibly ten years ago?

If you want to see the set up go to the GTD club website (www.gtd40club.co.uk) and then click on The Car is The Star (part of the picture gallery section), scroll right down to the photo section and there she be!

We managed 306 rear wheel bhp with the following setup;

Dart 2 cast iron heads
roller rockers
Rhodes hydraulic lifters
TRW forged pistons
10:1 CR (I can't remember the exact figure)
1.75 inch primary cross over exhaust
brand new out the box 650 double pumper
mega cam 280 camshaft
torquer 2 inlet manifold
Accel electronic distributor and coil
one oily rag (used)

This was my very first engine and had initially been timed up by me badly, like constant 57 degrees advanced! Oooops! But still good enough to record my best ever (still best ever) 1/4 mile at Brighton at 12.61secs!

The dymo chap (sorry can't remember his name) was unimpressed by the list of parts above. This engine had been spec'ed by a freind and myself based on his Chevy powered Cobra replica. All these parts in Chevy form on his car worked a real treat and kicked ass. So we thought we would try teh Ford versions. The Dart 2 heads had only just made it to the UK and were quite new back then. But they still weigh as much now as they did back then!

However as a package things really worked well and we acheived the 306 rwbhp.

The carb was straight out the box and from the comments above I am that 1 in 100! We set float levels and that is all I ever done to that carb in all the time I have used it. It is still on the car today. But now on a Ron Earp/Dave Milham spec'ed engine.

We took the the vacuum advance system off the Accel dizzy, which took a little butchering if I remember rightly. Poorer fuel consumption but who notices that in a 40?

Our main problem was with the spark plugs. The raised top pistons and head/valve combo with the plugs we started with had negative clearance. The gap on the plugs used to get hit and squashed shut causing very poor sparking! Reduced lenght plugs and indexing them to avoid fouling eventually solved that problem until I could find an equivalent plug that was the right fit and rating, which I now run all the time.

The driving difference before and after was very different ie much more power.

Anyway that is my experience of dyno testng for what it is worth. I spoke with Paul this morning who may still have the video of the power runs. If he is minded to post it I have no problems with that.

The wheels were 15 inch with Comp TA2 tyres on which actually worked well on the rollers with a very even contact patch. We got them good and hot! All gears were used but I do remember getting quite concerned at the noise and movement of everything whilst the car was stationary. Scary stuff to a dyno virgin.

My only other thought would be that if guys are thinking of doing bench runs and then a rolling road run we should at least get a better idea of transmission loss. I continue to beleive in the loss being about 40 bhp with some variation for heat and friction increases and not a percentage of engine power. Its a lonely corner!

I do fancy putting my current engine on a rolling road but other priorities call. Maybe another day.

Hoping you find the secret to unlock your engine, Fali

Malcolm
 

Howard Jones

Supporter
Fred, Gary is correct, My car is set to 34 degrees total advance all in by 2800 RPM's. Let me know when you need my mufflers.

By the way do you still have the spring selection that came with your MSD?
 

Howard Jones

Supporter
Also if you do the calulation that KMC did above you will come up with about 330HP. Add 25-30hp for that muffler,really, another dozen for timming and carb tune and you got just about what that motor will make if run on headers and flowmasters like was done in MM&FR's article. Right at 360hp or so. This is just about enough for that renault clutch and transaxle anyway. Unless you want to spend a lot more money on drivetrain.

Take to easy Fred we'll get it.
Your friend, Howard
ps; drop by and breath the dust!
 
Malcom, Great info on your motor/car. The more info shared like yours the more "REAL" the future HP discussions will be. I also think my carb is in pretty good tune, can't imagine gaining 50 more HPs by changing things on my carb & timming, but I guess I will find out on the next run!

Howard, I will come by and take your mufflers (and a set of ear plugs /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif) this weekend, If it is OK with you.
 
Back
Top