BHP of Full race 1700 X-flow
Discussion
We had a lively debate the other month about B series and Pinto bhp and whether power had improved over the last 25 years..... today I ran an Anderson Race X-flow 1700 on 36 mm chokes and 45 webers. Anderson had dynoed this at 198bhp (correction factor unknown)at the engine. We ran it up and achieved 175.3 at the wheels giving 201 Bhp SAE J1349, the DIN figure was calculated at 193 at the engine, both quite close to Andersons 198. It obviously does what it says on the can! The engine sounded wonderful and was clean to 9200 rpm! I attach a graph of the wheel horsepower SAE J1349.(edit) I forgot to explain, Andersonsbhp figure was from his engine dyno not a rolling road.
Peter
Peter
Edited by PeterBurgess on Tuesday 1st April 15:47
DVandrews said:
84/85 lb/ft per litre from a production based 2 valve engine is an excellent result. Absolute figures may seem low compared to modern forced induction engines, but given the starting point...
Dave
Indeed and that was kind of the point is was trying to make. ie lots of work must have gone into that engine (assuming we believe the figures! ;-) to make a figure which you'd be embarrassed to even mention down the pub in 2014, such is the march of progress........Dave
The DIN bhp number should be larger than the SAE J1349 one not smaller. SAE J1349 corrects bhp numbers back to standard conditions of 990 mbar and 77F. DIN 70020 corrects back to 1013.25 mbar and 68F. Higher pressure and lower temperature must result in a bigger bhp number. I suggest you examine how your roller's software is set up. Something looks wrong.
Not sure why the complaints, I was saying the figures are close to Andersons engine dyno, you can say what you like as it is a free world. remember parasitic losses are not constant at lower rpms the losses are so low that I think you ,may well find the torque/bhp is damn nigh flywheel. But hey ho, you are all experts. I presume you are saying Andersons engine dyno and mine are both wrong the same amount then?
Dave I am not sure where you work out SAE J1349 should give lower number, I attach a link to a website. We find the difference between SAE and DIN varies day to day but the on the day bhp is always nearer the SAE J1349 power figure than the DIN which can vary a lot from on the day, we feel the SAE J1349 is more representative of real world figures.
http://stmtune.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/how-to-gai...
Peter
I found this from DV on a thread Dave B and MaxTorque wrote on.....If DV can do it, why not Anderson whose stuff seems to be winning, so maybe up at the front for power and torque? Note DV quoting 103 lbs/ft per litre from posh engine.....that would be 175 from the x/flow would it not. Max torque was 143 plus parasitic transmission losses which must be less than the 25 bhp at max power, so still below the 103 lbsft per litre? In fact it hovers around 95 lbsft per litreish does it not? My guess is 160lbs ft max torque at engine, by the way, we are talking very expensive engine gentlemen! If the engine was built to what Vizard states has been achieved with a two valver you would be looking for 10% more than measured would you not?
David Vizard Friday 10th February 2012
Dave's Baker and Andrews,
Just want to back up what you are saying about exaggerated torque numbers. My push rod 10.5/1 motors consistently make 85 -86 lbs-ft per litre and getting them over that while still having a pump fueled street driver is a ton of hard work.
It is not until we start pushing the CR up that it is a practical issue to break the 90 lbs-ft per litre.
To get much past 90 per litre with a two valve engine you have to resort to such things as crank case vacuum (and plenty at that) low tension rings, hi - compression, optimal valve events in conjunction with matching tuned intake and exhaust etc.
The 712 inch BB Chevy I am currently working on with my friend Terry Walters is hovering around the 1110 lbs-ft mark at present giving some 95 lbs-ft per litre. We are expecting when all adjustments are done that this will very closely approach the 100 lbs-ft per litre.
But this is a motor that sports a 16/1 CR and all the trick stuff within the class rules allowed for its application. The big advantage here to making that near 100 per litre is the 16/1 CR. Take that out of the equation and everything gets really difficult to achieve.
That said I do know that in the days of the N/A BTCC super tourers that a top engine builder friend of mine was making 103 lbs-ft per liter from a 12.8/1 CR. Needless to say this was not a cheap engine!!!!
It is interesting that few, if any, magazine articles (other than the 2 -3 of mine) have ever directly addressed the means of maximizing torque output. If any of you guys are really keen to find out my Swansea seminar will cover it in micro-detail (www.davidvizardseminars.com)
David Vizard
Dave I am not sure where you work out SAE J1349 should give lower number, I attach a link to a website. We find the difference between SAE and DIN varies day to day but the on the day bhp is always nearer the SAE J1349 power figure than the DIN which can vary a lot from on the day, we feel the SAE J1349 is more representative of real world figures.
http://stmtune.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/how-to-gai...
Peter
I found this from DV on a thread Dave B and MaxTorque wrote on.....If DV can do it, why not Anderson whose stuff seems to be winning, so maybe up at the front for power and torque? Note DV quoting 103 lbs/ft per litre from posh engine.....that would be 175 from the x/flow would it not. Max torque was 143 plus parasitic transmission losses which must be less than the 25 bhp at max power, so still below the 103 lbsft per litre? In fact it hovers around 95 lbsft per litreish does it not? My guess is 160lbs ft max torque at engine, by the way, we are talking very expensive engine gentlemen! If the engine was built to what Vizard states has been achieved with a two valver you would be looking for 10% more than measured would you not?
David Vizard Friday 10th February 2012
Dave's Baker and Andrews,
Just want to back up what you are saying about exaggerated torque numbers. My push rod 10.5/1 motors consistently make 85 -86 lbs-ft per litre and getting them over that while still having a pump fueled street driver is a ton of hard work.
It is not until we start pushing the CR up that it is a practical issue to break the 90 lbs-ft per litre.
To get much past 90 per litre with a two valve engine you have to resort to such things as crank case vacuum (and plenty at that) low tension rings, hi - compression, optimal valve events in conjunction with matching tuned intake and exhaust etc.
The 712 inch BB Chevy I am currently working on with my friend Terry Walters is hovering around the 1110 lbs-ft mark at present giving some 95 lbs-ft per litre. We are expecting when all adjustments are done that this will very closely approach the 100 lbs-ft per litre.
But this is a motor that sports a 16/1 CR and all the trick stuff within the class rules allowed for its application. The big advantage here to making that near 100 per litre is the 16/1 CR. Take that out of the equation and everything gets really difficult to achieve.
That said I do know that in the days of the N/A BTCC super tourers that a top engine builder friend of mine was making 103 lbs-ft per liter from a 12.8/1 CR. Needless to say this was not a cheap engine!!!!
It is interesting that few, if any, magazine articles (other than the 2 -3 of mine) have ever directly addressed the means of maximizing torque output. If any of you guys are really keen to find out my Swansea seminar will cover it in micro-detail (www.davidvizardseminars.com)
David Vizard
Edited by PeterBurgess on Wednesday 2nd April 06:57
Edited by PeterBurgess on Wednesday 2nd April 07:05
Edited by PeterBurgess on Wednesday 2nd April 07:07
I always look at the 2013 F1 engines as a bench mark.
I found this on the www some time ago...
At peak power and 2.4 NA F1 engine made something like 750hp. 750/18000*5252=91.18lft/lt.
320Nm is = 320*.72=230lbft
23/2.4=96lbft/lt
Although it is a 2006 engine, the engines were frozen in 2008. I expect there was some progress made during the freeze, but I doubt if this was greater than 5%.
If we take a BTCC engine of 2lt making 300hp@8.5k rpm we are still only at 92.6lbft/lt.
Obviously higher octane fuel will help, but these probably demonstrate the limits for NA.
That is the perspective I apply.
I found this on the www some time ago...
At peak power and 2.4 NA F1 engine made something like 750hp. 750/18000*5252=91.18lft/lt.
320Nm is = 320*.72=230lbft
23/2.4=96lbft/lt
Although it is a 2006 engine, the engines were frozen in 2008. I expect there was some progress made during the freeze, but I doubt if this was greater than 5%.
If we take a BTCC engine of 2lt making 300hp@8.5k rpm we are still only at 92.6lbft/lt.
Obviously higher octane fuel will help, but these probably demonstrate the limits for NA.
That is the perspective I apply.
PeterBurgess said:
Probably best to go to an authoritative reference like an SAE paper rather than randomly selected interweb nonsense which btw indicates it isn't even J1349 being discussed, rather some older obsolete standard with weird temperature corrections which clearly doesn't work properly.DIN 70020 and SAE J1349 both use the same square root law for temp corrections. The only real differences are in the standard temp and pressure figures corrected back to plus one factors in humidity too although this is rarely a large effect. Done properly the DIN number should always be just a bit bigger than the SAE one. In fact something like this.
http://www.bikeboy.org/dynocorrectionfactors.html
PeterBurgess said:
I found this from DV on a thread Dave B and MaxTorque wrote on.....If DV can do it, why not Anderson whose stuff seems to be winning, so maybe up at the front for power and torque? Note DV quoting 103 lbs/ft per litre from posh engine.....that would be 175 from the x/flow would it not.
Posh 4v engine not old 2v pushrod one and anyway only anecdotal second hand data in the first place. I'm afraid I have to assume you don't understand the difference between 4v and 2v engines in terms of tumble, swirl, burn speed and torque per litre limits if you can dig this out as a comparison. 4v engines usually show approx 10% baseline improvement in torque per litre at any given state of tune over geometrically similar 2v ones nevermind antique 2v ones with horrible combustion chambers.Pro rating your wheel torque number back up to the notional SAE flywheel figure gives 201/175.3 x 143.2 = 164.2 = 96.6 ft lbs per litre. Nope. Not a cat in hell's chance. Bulls
t detector is making strange gargling noises and beginning to smoke gently.Dave, what is your guesstimated max engine torque and bhp from a 1700 X-flow engine?
What is the most you have achieved? I ask as I do not play with xflows beyond the occasional road head.
Are you saying Andersons engine dyno is crap as well as mine? I think the engine was in excess of 15 thousand.
The max torque per litre is not a hard and fast number which cannot ever be beaten is it?
I think you mention around 78lbsft per litre max for two valve motors in one of your articles?
Bear in mind 1700 size as quoted not as measured.
Peter
What is the most you have achieved? I ask as I do not play with xflows beyond the occasional road head.
Are you saying Andersons engine dyno is crap as well as mine? I think the engine was in excess of 15 thousand.
The max torque per litre is not a hard and fast number which cannot ever be beaten is it?
I think you mention around 78lbsft per litre max for two valve motors in one of your articles?
Bear in mind 1700 size as quoted not as measured.
Peter
PeterBurgess said:
Dave, what is your guesstimated max engine torque and bhp from a 1700 X-flow engine?
Dry or wet sump?Crankcase pressure evacuation or not?
Stock(ish) type cast iron head or money no object welded, filled, offset guides, max valve sizes, chambered?
Stock(ish) type pistons or state of the art in terms of ring pack and skirt friction?
Off the shelf cams and stock lifters or something fancy?
CR and fuel octane?
BHP is too big a variable without pinning down a lot of design constraints but high 70s ft lbs per litre would be good for club racing spec wet sump engines and mid 80s exceptional regardless of cost. Torque can obviously be enhanced at one particular point by careful pulse tuning but usually to the detriment of bhp somewhere else and an overall worse power curve.
Yes I've seen 2v engines nudging into the 90s ft lbs per litre but only on extreme CRs and only meant to last for the dyno run or a couple of passes down a drag strip. The annual American Engine Masters Challenge is worth looking up on google.
Engines that are supposed to be bullet proof for a season or more are a totally different kettle of fish from dyno and drag race specials which often deliberately nudge into detonation to enhance power at the cost of rebuild life. Fuel octane and CR are key.
Pumaracing said:
Probably not much of a benchmark for a 2v cast iron 1960s design Heron combustion chambered Ford Crossflow engine though.
Quite. I was was leaving the reader to deduce that if a, for all intents, limited budget 4valve engine produces Mid-high 90s lbft/lt, it is unlikly an ancient 2valve developed with significantly lower resources could match it.Only restriction is 1700 cc, this one is, as far as we are aware, chambered head and flat top style pistons, dry sumped,no cr limit no fuelling restrictions etc etc. It is in 2nd position in class, all others are Full Race Pintos at +60.
I thought 100 lbsft/litre was the theoretical max target whether 2 or 4 valve, just easier with 4 valve.
Peter
I thought 100 lbsft/litre was the theoretical max target whether 2 or 4 valve, just easier with 4 valve.
Peter
The technical articles on my web page will hopefully be of interest then.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110918114921/http://...
https://web.archive.org/web/20110918114921/http://...
A few more musings. Folk saying 2 valvers cannot make more than x per litre is based on what people have found so far, not what can be possibly achieved so the figures quoted are retroactive are they not? The 2/4 valve debate, it is easier to get more power from 4 valve than 2 valve but not impossible for the 2 valve, just very much harder, but what a target for hands on tuners not the armchair ones.
If you stick with numbers guesstimated from dodgy maths or plucked from thin air or cos it has always been that you will never reach beyond and achieve more. I fear that Dave B is stuck 20 plus years ago with regard to hands on state of the art racing and I do not know about MaxTorque pedigree, I feel Dave Andrews is a little more canny though. Power levels creep forward little by little as folk seek more from hands on work which is tested on the track, people learn and move forwards. Did I see that theorists said the bumble bee cannot fly? Sometimes the theorists have to alter to encompass reality.
I have figures from USA Nascars and NHRA prostock 2 valvers.
NHRA Pro stock is 500 cu in or 8.195 litres. 1400 + horsepower and over 800 lbft torque, so 170 hp and 97 lbft per litre.
Nascar 5868 cc and 835 hp, 540+ torque. So 142 hp and 92 lbft per litre.
This was a few years ago too.I am willing to bet if we go back 20 years the figures were lower and if we go back 20 years before that the figures were even lower! Mind you, the best way to attack this info is to say USA dynos over read so are not accurate
Peter
If you stick with numbers guesstimated from dodgy maths or plucked from thin air or cos it has always been that you will never reach beyond and achieve more. I fear that Dave B is stuck 20 plus years ago with regard to hands on state of the art racing and I do not know about MaxTorque pedigree, I feel Dave Andrews is a little more canny though. Power levels creep forward little by little as folk seek more from hands on work which is tested on the track, people learn and move forwards. Did I see that theorists said the bumble bee cannot fly? Sometimes the theorists have to alter to encompass reality.
I have figures from USA Nascars and NHRA prostock 2 valvers.
NHRA Pro stock is 500 cu in or 8.195 litres. 1400 + horsepower and over 800 lbft torque, so 170 hp and 97 lbft per litre.
Nascar 5868 cc and 835 hp, 540+ torque. So 142 hp and 92 lbft per litre.
This was a few years ago too.I am willing to bet if we go back 20 years the figures were lower and if we go back 20 years before that the figures were even lower! Mind you, the best way to attack this info is to say USA dynos over read so are not accurate
Peter
Ford Crossflow 10 car dyno shootout from 2009 to try and settle once and for all whether the mythical 200 bhp Crossflow engine actually exists.
http://www.classicfordmag.co.uk/2011/10/19/classic...
Includes a few full race engines, one from the very well respected HT Racing who've tried for years to get even close to 200 bhp from a Crossflow and another from race engine specialists Mass Racing. Hardly idiots in anyone's book.
Best flywheel power just shy of 180 bhp from three of the engines including a 1924cc Doug Kiddie crank equipped monster. Best flywheel torque 79 ft lbs per litre from the dry sumped Mass Racing 1700cc engine. Low to mid 70s ft lbs per litre from the wet sumped engines. Right on the money in my book for balls out 2v 4 pot pushrod engines and exactly what my website has always said. Obviously though these highly competent people are also all clueless according to you and your "special" rollers
Let's try and imagine what the guys from HT and Mass racing might do when you tell them how sh11te their engines are and if they knew as much as you do they should have mid 80s ft lbs per litre at the wheels and mid 90s at the flywheel - slightly more than a 10 million quid F1 4v engine. Laugh so hard at you they severely injure themselves perhaps?
Or maybe 2009 was also too long ago and miraculous developments in torque per litre production have suddenly appeared since then that only you know about?
Face it Peter. Your power and torque figures are nonsense unless that Anderson engine is really about 2.1 litres. Perhaps it's actually a big bore Pinto and you've forgotten how to tell the difference?
It's now becoming a lot clearer though why you thought you could get 180 bhp from an MGB yet still be 2 seconds a lap slower than my independently tested 140-150 bhp ones were. Your rollers read 30 brake too high!
So best guess at what bhp that Anderson engine really has? Probably true flywheel bhp about what your wheel figures show or maybe even a tad lower and even then the torque number is a bit suspicious. A country mile off 200 bhp that's for certain.
http://www.classicfordmag.co.uk/2011/10/19/classic...
Includes a few full race engines, one from the very well respected HT Racing who've tried for years to get even close to 200 bhp from a Crossflow and another from race engine specialists Mass Racing. Hardly idiots in anyone's book.
Best flywheel power just shy of 180 bhp from three of the engines including a 1924cc Doug Kiddie crank equipped monster. Best flywheel torque 79 ft lbs per litre from the dry sumped Mass Racing 1700cc engine. Low to mid 70s ft lbs per litre from the wet sumped engines. Right on the money in my book for balls out 2v 4 pot pushrod engines and exactly what my website has always said. Obviously though these highly competent people are also all clueless according to you and your "special" rollers
Let's try and imagine what the guys from HT and Mass racing might do when you tell them how sh11te their engines are and if they knew as much as you do they should have mid 80s ft lbs per litre at the wheels and mid 90s at the flywheel - slightly more than a 10 million quid F1 4v engine. Laugh so hard at you they severely injure themselves perhaps?
Or maybe 2009 was also too long ago and miraculous developments in torque per litre production have suddenly appeared since then that only you know about?
Face it Peter. Your power and torque figures are nonsense unless that Anderson engine is really about 2.1 litres. Perhaps it's actually a big bore Pinto and you've forgotten how to tell the difference?
It's now becoming a lot clearer though why you thought you could get 180 bhp from an MGB yet still be 2 seconds a lap slower than my independently tested 140-150 bhp ones were. Your rollers read 30 brake too high!
So best guess at what bhp that Anderson engine really has? Probably true flywheel bhp about what your wheel figures show or maybe even a tad lower and even then the torque number is a bit suspicious. A country mile off 200 bhp that's for certain.
Now who is using second hand non scientific info? Those cars in thgat article were not state of the art race engines were they? Or fresh off the shelf engines.
You choose to use your lbsft per litre numbers as constants for some reason, why is this as it means you restrict power ouputs achievable in one fell, illogical swoop? Do you pluck the numbers from thin air or to suit what you personally think the maxima for two, four, five valve etc etc? It may prevent you moving forwards with power development,but it is a most excellent tool for you to use to pooh pooh what other people seem to achieve isnt it?
The knockers seem to see F1 as the ultimate for power comparison, very shortsighted approach in my humble opinion.F1 bhp, now then, is this no holds barred state of the art bhp? No it isnt, it is the result of seriously restricted/strangled regs which artificially hold the power down, so you cannot pontificate about F1 power comparing to no holds barred tuning. Interestingly it seems to have been restricted since the 1989 post turbo years.....that magic twenty plus years ago eh? Time warp stuff.
Do you state the USA Nascar and NHRA 2 valve figures are lying? I am still trying to find the twenty plus years ago nascar and nhra comparitive figures for your delight and possible edification.
I also asked how much bhp you could get from a 1700 x-flow as you have previously intimated you are a Ford four pot specialist tuner?
MGB racing the class you reckon you hammered us in...we won in 1992,1993 and 1994 Comparing old Clayton with new Dynocom Racing rolling road is very poor logic but if it keeps you in your comfort zone who am I to argue?
Seems to me you think Anderson dyno wrong, Agra Engineering dyno wrong, my dyno wrong, ignored USA figures so they must be wrong, it seems you are the only person right on the planet, and that without engine or rolling road dyno of your own?
Peter
You choose to use your lbsft per litre numbers as constants for some reason, why is this as it means you restrict power ouputs achievable in one fell, illogical swoop? Do you pluck the numbers from thin air or to suit what you personally think the maxima for two, four, five valve etc etc? It may prevent you moving forwards with power development,but it is a most excellent tool for you to use to pooh pooh what other people seem to achieve isnt it?
The knockers seem to see F1 as the ultimate for power comparison, very shortsighted approach in my humble opinion.F1 bhp, now then, is this no holds barred state of the art bhp? No it isnt, it is the result of seriously restricted/strangled regs which artificially hold the power down, so you cannot pontificate about F1 power comparing to no holds barred tuning. Interestingly it seems to have been restricted since the 1989 post turbo years.....that magic twenty plus years ago eh? Time warp stuff.
Do you state the USA Nascar and NHRA 2 valve figures are lying? I am still trying to find the twenty plus years ago nascar and nhra comparitive figures for your delight and possible edification.
I also asked how much bhp you could get from a 1700 x-flow as you have previously intimated you are a Ford four pot specialist tuner?
MGB racing the class you reckon you hammered us in...we won in 1992,1993 and 1994
Comparing old Clayton with new Dynocom Racing rolling road is very poor logic but if it keeps you in your comfort zone who am I to argue?Seems to me you think Anderson dyno wrong, Agra Engineering dyno wrong, my dyno wrong, ignored USA figures so they must be wrong, it seems you are the only person right on the planet, and that without engine or rolling road dyno of your own?
Peter
Edited by PeterBurgess on Thursday 3rd April 06:21
Edited by PeterBurgess on Thursday 3rd April 06:54
Peter, I'm not sure what you think you gain from coming on here. You don't seem to spend much time helping others out like the rest of us but you pop up like a bad penny every few months, post some nonsense and then attack everyone who calls you out on it.
Spend the time instead getting your rollers calibrated properly and learning some basic rules about realistic engine bhp and torque outputs. Then maybe you'll be better educated to not just believe either your own bullsh11t or other people's.
Spend the time instead getting your rollers calibrated properly and learning some basic rules about realistic engine bhp and torque outputs. Then maybe you'll be better educated to not just believe either your own bullsh11t or other people's.
Gassing Station | Engines & Drivetrain | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff