Engine Lottery results...

Engine Lottery results...

Pat Higginbotham
Pat Higginbotham

March 24th, 2008, 12:41 pm #1

Thanks to everyone for participating in the lottery. There were 32 guesses if you count justabob and rs as guesses! I was really pullling for Herzel, as a 162 HP x would have to be the the greatest car on earth. Bob Brown and Tony N. wee nearly as enthusiastic at 138 and 129.8 respectively.

Bill D. nailed the hp/torque combo pretty close but the h # was a hair off.

Colin Duckworth-true to his surname-knows his engines and got optimistically close with his guess.

Damonfg got almost as close on the pessimistic side, and was very close to the 3 run average.

The prize-if it can be called that- goes to Bruce B who came within .09 HP of Matt's best run on the dyno.

Here are the charts-interesting to note that math always works-the torque and hp lines always cross right at the 5252 rpm line!
Also note the flat torque lines - which is what the whole exercise was about to begin with. I asked Matt for very driveable engine that would give extra grunt in the day-to-day rev range. I think he accomplished this admirably. I suppose this mostly comes down to improved BMEP from the higher compression pistons and better gas flow into the engine.

It was fun!



Quote

Joined: January 24th, 2008, 1:20 pm

March 24th, 2008, 1:36 pm #2

Its, what more the standard?

Quote

Matt Brannon - Columbus, Ohio USA
Matt Brannon - Columbus, Ohio USA

March 24th, 2008, 2:01 pm #3

Thanks to everyone for participating in the lottery. There were 32 guesses if you count justabob and rs as guesses! I was really pullling for Herzel, as a 162 HP x would have to be the the greatest car on earth. Bob Brown and Tony N. wee nearly as enthusiastic at 138 and 129.8 respectively.

Bill D. nailed the hp/torque combo pretty close but the h # was a hair off.

Colin Duckworth-true to his surname-knows his engines and got optimistically close with his guess.

Damonfg got almost as close on the pessimistic side, and was very close to the 3 run average.

The prize-if it can be called that- goes to Bruce B who came within .09 HP of Matt's best run on the dyno.

Here are the charts-interesting to note that math always works-the torque and hp lines always cross right at the 5252 rpm line!
Also note the flat torque lines - which is what the whole exercise was about to begin with. I asked Matt for very driveable engine that would give extra grunt in the day-to-day rev range. I think he accomplished this admirably. I suppose this mostly comes down to improved BMEP from the higher compression pistons and better gas flow into the engine.

It was fun!



Hi folks,

On the surface, the values we found on Pat's motor don't appear to be terribly agressive. However, retaining many stock bits including the non-optimized exhaust manifold, we ended up with a 30% increase in power. That's pretty big. Also, a perfectly flat torque curve up to 5500 RPM is somewhat tough to do. We could have changed cam timing characteristics and gotten more of a bump higher up, but the tradeoff would have come at the low-end of the RPM spectrum.

Attached below is a dyno graph of one of our stock-head/stock valved "Limited Prep" race motor for comparison.

Here you will see the effect of long cam duration on "power band". Sure this motor makes significantly more overall torque and HP than the street motor, but it's in an unusable area for a street car. That's the trade-off. Finding large amounts of usable low-end torque is a tough order. The optimium set-up would be something like Steve H's DSP car: Tuned-length slide-throttle intake and exhaust runners combined with tons of fuel and crazy ignition advance. Again, completely unusable on a california emissions street application.

You will see that Pat's motor has about 40% more usable torque and power than my race motors up to 4500 RPM. For a street motor, that's right where you want it.

Anyways, am open for opinions / observations on these numbers and curves.



-Matt
www.midwest-x19.com
Quote

DaleS (Goodyear, AZ)
DaleS (Goodyear, AZ)

March 24th, 2008, 2:01 pm #4

Thanks to everyone for participating in the lottery. There were 32 guesses if you count justabob and rs as guesses! I was really pullling for Herzel, as a 162 HP x would have to be the the greatest car on earth. Bob Brown and Tony N. wee nearly as enthusiastic at 138 and 129.8 respectively.

Bill D. nailed the hp/torque combo pretty close but the h # was a hair off.

Colin Duckworth-true to his surname-knows his engines and got optimistically close with his guess.

Damonfg got almost as close on the pessimistic side, and was very close to the 3 run average.

The prize-if it can be called that- goes to Bruce B who came within .09 HP of Matt's best run on the dyno.

Here are the charts-interesting to note that math always works-the torque and hp lines always cross right at the 5252 rpm line!
Also note the flat torque lines - which is what the whole exercise was about to begin with. I asked Matt for very driveable engine that would give extra grunt in the day-to-day rev range. I think he accomplished this admirably. I suppose this mostly comes down to improved BMEP from the higher compression pistons and better gas flow into the engine.

It was fun!



That should be a really fun car to drive too! I bet your seat-of-the-pants dyno reads a lot higher!
Quote

Pat Higginbotham
Pat Higginbotham

March 24th, 2008, 2:19 pm #5

I have very sensitive fanny!
Quote

Denise
Denise

March 24th, 2008, 2:31 pm #6

rated at the flywheel or wheels? I've got dyno runs for my original engine and rebuilt 1608. They're a good tool to determine any problems.
Quote

Pat Higginbotham
Pat Higginbotham

March 24th, 2008, 2:34 pm #7

wheels.
Quote

Joined: August 29th, 2005, 1:53 am

March 24th, 2008, 2:41 pm #8

Thanks to everyone for participating in the lottery. There were 32 guesses if you count justabob and rs as guesses! I was really pullling for Herzel, as a 162 HP x would have to be the the greatest car on earth. Bob Brown and Tony N. wee nearly as enthusiastic at 138 and 129.8 respectively.

Bill D. nailed the hp/torque combo pretty close but the h # was a hair off.

Colin Duckworth-true to his surname-knows his engines and got optimistically close with his guess.

Damonfg got almost as close on the pessimistic side, and was very close to the 3 run average.

The prize-if it can be called that- goes to Bruce B who came within .09 HP of Matt's best run on the dyno.

Here are the charts-interesting to note that math always works-the torque and hp lines always cross right at the 5252 rpm line!
Also note the flat torque lines - which is what the whole exercise was about to begin with. I asked Matt for very driveable engine that would give extra grunt in the day-to-day rev range. I think he accomplished this admirably. I suppose this mostly comes down to improved BMEP from the higher compression pistons and better gas flow into the engine.

It was fun!



While the peak numbers for Pat's motor may not be impressive on paper, the thing that most people really don't understand about dyno sheets is; "the area under the curve". I don't recall having seen a SOHC dyno sheet with a torque curve that flat, or with that much torque that low in the PRM range.

My DSP motor pulled like a train from 3000 rpm. While my DSP motor made significantly more peak torque, Pat's has more area under the curve. That is, it has more power available, more of the time.

My DSP motor made peak torque at 4250 rpm but the curve had a significan arch. It climbed steeply from 2500 rpm to the platue between 3500 and 4700, then fell off. Pat's curve is virtually flat.

The effect on daily driving is significant. It will have more than 90% of its peak torque available any time you step on the throttle. That translates to an effortless feeling. The car never seems to be working hard in normal driving. Nor does the driver have to work to keep up in traffic. Step on the throttle and the car accelerates.

Its my opinion that the low peak numbers are the result of the use of the OE AFM, intake and exhaust manifolds. These three components limit peak flow and therefore the peak horserpower and torque numbers. The side benefit is the very good low rpm torque numbers. I would imagine that a low restriction intake and exhaust would generate much more impressive numbers.

Despite the low numbers, I think Pat will be very happy with his new motor.

Steve
1x5
Quote

Joined: October 31st, 2006, 7:36 pm

March 24th, 2008, 2:48 pm #9

Thanks to everyone for participating in the lottery. There were 32 guesses if you count justabob and rs as guesses! I was really pullling for Herzel, as a 162 HP x would have to be the the greatest car on earth. Bob Brown and Tony N. wee nearly as enthusiastic at 138 and 129.8 respectively.

Bill D. nailed the hp/torque combo pretty close but the h # was a hair off.

Colin Duckworth-true to his surname-knows his engines and got optimistically close with his guess.

Damonfg got almost as close on the pessimistic side, and was very close to the 3 run average.

The prize-if it can be called that- goes to Bruce B who came within .09 HP of Matt's best run on the dyno.

Here are the charts-interesting to note that math always works-the torque and hp lines always cross right at the 5252 rpm line!
Also note the flat torque lines - which is what the whole exercise was about to begin with. I asked Matt for very driveable engine that would give extra grunt in the day-to-day rev range. I think he accomplished this admirably. I suppose this mostly comes down to improved BMEP from the higher compression pistons and better gas flow into the engine.

It was fun!



Wow, 30% gain in torque, not bad. Is there a chance a slightly more detailed 'plan' of what was done to this engine will be posted?

Cheers,

Cesare
Quote

Matt Brannon - Midwest-X19.com
Matt Brannon - Midwest-X19.com

March 24th, 2008, 3:21 pm #10


1500 10-bolt 10mm block
Stock 1500 Head unshaved
Isky Springs
Stock valves w/3-angle cut
Port and polish on head (runner enlarged 2mm)
Port-match FI intake runners
NOS oil pump
Delta A-411 cam
87mm Wiseco 11:1 flat-top pistons w/Wiseco thin rings
Stock crank
Stock bottom-end gears/pulleys
Adjustable cam pulley
Stock AFM, Throttle Body, ECU (AFM remapped)
Stock exhaust manifold
AC-set-up (compressor not on for dyno runs)
Steel Flywheel
Bosch distributor

Probably a couple other nit-picky things i missed.

-M
Quote