Dyno results (Engle Cams shoutout)

[Rolling_Thunder]

I just wanted to share with you guys some dyno results that a recent engine I built made - The key to the combo was the Engle cam...     I have nothing but love for these guys and think their cams rock       Both engines I used Engle cams in seem to rev up alot faster and make gobs of power....   

This particular build was a 440 +.030"
Forged 3.75" stroke crank
Eagle rods
Arias pistons
Indy EZ 440 heads
Indy dual plane intake
Mighty Demon 850
TTI Headers
Engle cam

Pump gas engine with 10.89 compression, works with power brakes, and idles at 800rpm...       4-speed car...

Horsepower:      556 @ 6000rpm
Torque:             591 @ 4500rpm

Best part ? the torque was over 400 from 2000rpm to 6000rpm     

the torque at 2000rpm jumped 129 lb-ft up from the old Comp bumpstick and made 44hp more at top end...         


In short - The Guys at ENGLE are great to deal with and I highly reccomend them

[Sinister68]

I'm curious, which Engle cam was used with that combo?  Mine is a 2360-H (K60)

[Just 6T9 CHGR]

I run their K56 in my 440 & love it

[firefighter3931]

Nice numbers.....those Engle sticks are strong performers ! 

What grind did they use ? Can you post a dyno sheet ? How much cfm did it pull at WOT ?



Ron

[Rolling_Thunder]

dyno sheet is somewhere on my desk at work - i'll look for it...          numbers were converted from a mustang chassis dyno   

But i used my trusty dyno simulation program an i came up with a 3% difference...    so it is close

The grind ?   I picked it out...       simple   K60/K64 on a 110*

They were out of 3 bolt blanks though...     so they reground a K64/K64 108* that someone ordered and never picked up...   the intake lobe was large enough to be reground and change the LSA....     

not sure how much cfm it was pulling...   

[firefighter3931]

dyno sheet is somewhere on my desk at work - i'll look for it...          numbers were converted from a mustang chassis dyno   

But i used my trusty dyno simulation program an i came up with a 3% difference...    so it is close

The grind ?   I picked it out...       simple   K60/K64 on a 110*

They were out of 3 bolt blanks though...     so they reground a K64/K64 108* that someone ordered and never picked up...   the intake lobe was large enough to be reground and change the LSA....     

not sure how much cfm it was pulling...   

Those are impressive numbers to say the least from a flat tappet hydraullic cam. Nice work ! Was this a stroker build ?

The cfm numbers should be on the dyno sheet (engine dyno). Airflow is allways a good indicator of how much power an engine is making....dyno numbers can be all over the map with different correction factors, cell conditions etc...

I know that this was a chassis dyno conversion but maybe there is some airflow data available.


Scan and post the sheet when you have time. 



Thanks, Ron

[Rolling_Thunder]

will do Ron.. .    I think the customer has it at the moment...   

It was a 440 build..   4.35 bore x  3.75" stroke

I was impressed with the numbers as well - it even idles at 900rpm  (4-speed car and all)

i'll find the dyno sheet when i get around to it...

Ron - how would you calculate from a chassi dyno number to flywheel hp on a 4-speed car ?  take 75% of the number you believe to be actual ?     ie...    (guess) 556 x 75% = 417rwhp  ?   That is how I arrived at the numbers...        I remember it was 416.8hp and 442tq...     at the wheels...             

[miller]

how much did it cost to make this all happen?

[firefighter3931]

Ron - how would you calculate from a chassi dyno number to flywheel hp on a 4-speed car ?  take 75% of the number you believe to be actual ?     ie...    (guess) 556 x 75% = 417rwhp  ?   That is how I arrived at the numbers...        I remember it was 416.8hp and 442tq...     at the wheels...             

That's probably pretty close....a 25% drop from the crank to the rear wheels is reasonable. The problem being is that Chassis dyno numbers can be all over the map. Some read high while others are very conservative. An engine dyno can also be inaccurate as well....depends on the calibration/operator and correction factors. 

Regardless of what the readings are/were....that is a pretty stout combo and i'm sure your customer is happy. Again, very good job ! 



Ron

[Rolling_Thunder]

True about chassis dynos being all over the place...      dyno-jet compared to mustang is what ?  10% difference at least     These were taken on a Mustang dyno so they are not overinflated like others (so i'm told)     


Cost ?  well...    figure around $10,000 including assembly, dyno tuning, installation ?

[Streetwize]

Cam specs?

K60/K64? MFG lobe specs sometimes change over the years, numbers are whatever they are

[firefighter3931]

Cam specs?

K60/K64? MFG lobe specs sometimes change over the years, numbers are whatever they are

Bobby that's a custom Engle hydraulic flat tappet grind ;

288*/298* advertised
238*/249* @.050
.534/.557 lift @ 1.5 rr



Ron

[hard-charger]

nice!.. what kind of head work was done to them heads?
I to use an engle cam. kv3 int. kv4 exh.
awsome/friendly/customer service.

[Rubberduck]

Ron - how would you calculate from a chassi dyno number to flywheel hp on a 4-speed car ?  take 75% of the number you believe to be actual ?     ie...    (guess) 556 x 75% = 417rwhp  ?   That is how I arrived at the numbers...        I remember it was 416.8hp and 442tq...     at the wheels...             

That's probably pretty close....a 25% drop from the crank to the rear wheels is reasonable. The problem being is that Chassis dyno numbers can be all over the map. Some read high while others are very conservative. An engine dyno can also be inaccurate as well....depends on the calibration/operator and correction factors. 

Regardless of what the readings are/were....that is a pretty stout combo and i'm sure your customer is happy. Again, very good job ! 



Ron

Why do most people say you loose about 25% between engine and rear wheels?
Certainly the transmission, driveshaft and rearaxle rob power.
Just an example:

You run a car on a dyno with a 100hp engine you might get 75hp at the rear wheels. That´s a loss of 25%.
All the parts between engine and rear wheels take 25hp.
Take the same car and only change the engine with 500hp.
Now take away the 25%. You should have 350hp at the rear wheels. The same transmission, drive shaft and rearaxle now robs 150hp
compared to the 25hp on the 100hp engine?

This is why I don´t believe in that % stuff.

If it takes 25hp to move all the parts, it always takes 25hp no matter what engine.

Correct me if I´m wrong.



Mario

[2Gunz]

Ron - how would you calculate from a chassi dyno number to flywheel hp on a 4-speed car ?  take 75% of the number you believe to be actual ?     ie...    (guess) 556 x 75% = 417rwhp  ?   That is how I arrived at the numbers...        I remember it was 416.8hp and 442tq...     at the wheels...             

That's probably pretty close....a 25% drop from the crank to the rear wheels is reasonable. The problem being is that Chassis dyno numbers can be all over the map. Some read high while others are very conservative. An engine dyno can also be inaccurate as well....depends on the calibration/operator and correction factors. 

Regardless of what the readings are/were....that is a pretty stout combo and i'm sure your customer is happy. Again, very good job ! 



Ron

Why do most people say you loose about 25% between engine and rear wheels?
Certainly the transmission, driveshaft and rearaxle rob power.
Just an example:

You run a car on a dyno with a 100hp engine you might get 75hp at the rear wheels. That´s a loss of 25%.
All the parts between engine and rear wheels take 25hp.
Take the same car and only change the engine with 500hp.
Now take away the 25%. You should have 350hp at the rear wheels. The same transmission, drive shaft and rearaxle now robs 150hp
compared to the 25hp on the 100hp engine?

This is why I don´t believe in that % stuff.

If it takes 25hp to move all the parts, it always takes 25hp no matter what engine.

Correct me if I´m wrong.



Mario

Your forgetting that an engine that produces 100HP has a much smaller drive train than a car that produces 400.

Bigger Transmission, bigger drive shaft, bigger rear end. And with bigger you get heavier.

And moving all that extra weight takes HP.


Which also makes 383 pointless (to me anyway). Get all the heavy stuff and loose 60 cubes vs the 440.

[Challenger340]

Nice numbers !

Should be a very nice performer !

Chassis dyno's are a great tuning tool, as are all dyno's.

But converting numbers from "Chassis" dyno's , to "Crank Horsepower", can be somewhat misleading at times.

Same goes for comparing "Crank Horsepower" numbers, from 1 ENGINE Dyno, to another.
Too many different factors may be present, and must be accounted for.

Only "true" way to compare engines/cams/etc., is to use the SAME Dyno, with as many of the same factors utilized as possible, present, when comparing.
Even different Chassis dyno's can differ, due to induction coil, and eddy wave variables.

Just doesn't matter, the engine obviously makes very good power, and should be a very strong performer. You should be very pleased with the results from ANY dyno.

However, "chassis" dyno numbers are just that, "chassis" numbers as installed in the car, NOT, Crank Horsepower numbers.

They are "rear wheel" power/time exerted numbers, accounting for, and after, the parasitic geartrain losses and heat, from the variables imputed at that time.

GREAT ENGINE BUILD !

BE HAPPY ! I certainly would be !

Bob out.

[Streetwize]

Nice job!

What were the actual RWHP numbers and are they SAE or Standard?

The general rule of thumb I use for a chassis dyno (again can vary 2-3% from unit to unit) is 20% loss for an automatic and 15% for a 4 speed. An auto loses more because of the slip in the converter and the fact that with an auto the motor is actually turning a hydraulic pump (which is the transmission) that in turn turns the wheels. 25% is way too high of a loss factor in my experience, that means you'd be losing 1hp out of every 4 through drivetrain losses.

You generally learn more from a chassis dyno about the torque curve and by looking at the A/F ratio under load it does give you a pretty clear idea on tuning direction as well as how the car will et. This is by giving you the true torque curve characteristics which you can use (once tuned for optimum power) to plot your shift points and then determine your shift recovery point rpms. A broad flat torque curve is best for consistency and for overall street performance as it becomes far less critical to hit the "optimum" shift rpm for the car to ET.

[Rolling_Thunder]

Well - it pulls hard none-the-less          

As far as head work being done - none. They were box stock Indy heads   

[SeattleCharger]

Ron - how would you calculate from a chassi dyno number to flywheel hp on a 4-speed car ?  take 75% of the number you believe to be actual ?     ie...    (guess) 556 x 75% = 417rwhp  ?   That is how I arrived at the numbers...        I remember it was 416.8hp and 442tq...     at the wheels...             

That's probably pretty close....a 25% drop from the crank to the rear wheels is reasonable. The problem being is that Chassis dyno numbers can be all over the map. Some read high while others are very conservative. An engine dyno can also be inaccurate as well....depends on the calibration/operator and correction factors. 

Regardless of what the readings are/were....that is a pretty stout combo and i'm sure your customer is happy. Again, very good job ! 



Ron

Why do most people say you loose about 25% between engine and rear wheels?
Certainly the transmission, driveshaft and rearaxle rob power.
Just an example:

You run a car on a dyno with a 100hp engine you might get 75hp at the rear wheels. That´s a loss of 25%.
All the parts between engine and rear wheels take 25hp.
Take the same car and only change the engine with 500hp.
Now take away the 25%. You should have 350hp at the rear wheels. The same transmission, drive shaft and rearaxle now robs 150hp
compared to the 25hp on the 100hp engine?

This is why I don´t believe in that % stuff.

If it takes 25hp to move all the parts, it always takes 25hp no matter what engine.

Correct me if I´m wrong.



Mario

I follow your reasoning,   say you are comparing 2 b body chargers with the same trans and rear end etc., one with a 325 horsepower stock engine and one with a seriously built engine, 500 horsepower or something,  then ya, 25 % wouldn't apply to both, right?  It should be the same number of horsepower lost from other running gear across the board for both cars wouldn't it?  from what you guys are saying,
  If the 727 and the rear end drain 75 horsepower say, then it would be about a 23% loss for the stock 440 engine, and about 15% for the 500 horsepower 440 engine,  I don't know, just the math of it

[Chryco Psycho]

No wonder why I  have been using & recommending their cams for years now
Congrats

[Chargerguy74]

EDIT: I disagree with my earlier statement.

[Challenger340]

Can you post the actual Dyno sheet as well, to go with this 440  ?

[Rolling_Thunder]

Can you post the actual Dyno sheet as well, to go with this 440  ?

I guess i could go back and get a dyno print out of it and scan it...      give me a while - pretty busy out here during the holidays

[375instroke]

I follow your reasoning,   say you are comparing 2 b body chargers with the same trans and rear end etc., one with a 325 horsepower stock engine and one with a seriously built engine, 500 horsepower or something,  then ya, 25 % wouldn't apply to both, right?  It should be the same number of horsepower lost from other running gear across the board for both cars wouldn't it?  from what you guys are saying,
  If the 727 and the rear end drain 75 horsepower say, then it would be about a 23% loss for the stock 440 engine, and about 15% for the 500 horsepower 440 engine,  I don't know, just the math of it

The problem here is that the chassis dynos compute the power, not measure it.  A stronger engine accelerates the rollers faster, and the computer in the chassis dyno equates that with more power.  It takes an exponential increase in power to accelerate something twice as fast, not just twice as much power.  The formulas used have a lot of educated guessing in them.  You can have a heavy drivetrain, and a light one.  If you measure the power to the ground, they will be the same with both, but if you accelerate with them, the lighter one will accelerate faster, because there is less mass to accelerate, but the chassis dyno computer has no way of calculating the differences.  This is where the inaccuracy comes in.  Real dynos are more expensive than the inertia type dynos, like the Mustang and Dynojet.  I heard the developer of one of them try to adapt one from motorcycles to cars, or maybe the other way around, and couldn't get the numbers to come out correctly with what was really measured on an actual dyno.  He gave up and just added a fudge factor into the formula to get the numbers in line with reality.

[SeattleCharger]

I follow your reasoning,   say you are comparing 2 b body chargers with the same trans and rear end etc., one with a 325 horsepower stock engine and one with a seriously built engine, 500 horsepower or something,  then ya, 25 % wouldn't apply to both, right?  It should be the same number of horsepower lost from other running gear across the board for both cars wouldn't it?  from what you guys are saying,
  If the 727 and the rear end drain 75 horsepower say, then it would be about a 23% loss for the stock 440 engine, and about 15% for the 500 horsepower 440 engine,  I don't know, just the math of it

The problem here is that the chassis dynos compute the power, not measure it.  A stronger engine accelerates the rollers faster, and the computer in the chassis dyno equates that with more power.  It takes an exponential increase in power to accelerate something twice as fast, not just twice as much power.  The formulas used have a lot of educated guessing in them.  You can have a heavy drivetrain, and a light one.  If you measure the power to the ground, they will be the same with both, but if you accelerate with them, the lighter one will accelerate faster, because there is less mass to accelerate, but the chassis dyno computer has no way of calculating the differences.  This is where the inaccuracy comes in.  Real dynos are more expensive than the inertia type dynos, like the Mustang and Dynojet.  I heard the developer of one of them try to adapt one from motorcycles to cars, or maybe the other way around, and couldn't get the numbers to come out correctly with what was really measured on an actual dyno.  He gave up and just added a fudge factor into the formula to get the numbers in line with reality.

Thanks.  That makes sense.    
    Kinda like stereo amps, exponential increase in power of amp to increase volume of stereo?