Dyno Day pics

[Greg Phillips]

Thanks to JBA and the tech team for setting up the event today.

It turns out that Steve's '79 SC with a short stroke 3.2 made more power (197 RWHP) than my '82 SC SS (186 RWHP).

Apparently the size of the heads makes a difference, and Steve's are larger.

Photos are up on Picasa at:
https://picasaweb.google.com/phigreg/20 ... directlink

Greg

[rshon]

End of the day results from the "second shift":



These are "peak" observed measurements, not averaged ones...

[gocart]

A fun morning for sure. My ears have yet to recover.

Now that these numbers are published no more cheating, right?

According to my preliminary calculations I saved 5 modification points.

[jrgordonsenior]

Casual obervation... Porsche's never have more TQ than WHP yet about half these cars show more TQ. Am I reading it incorrectly?

JRG

[gocart]

Yes you are reading it correctly. I guess we just have torquey (sp?) motors.

BTW. On my computer using Firefox the image Russell posted is cropped and I can only see half of the results. If you use internet explorer you can see the entire image.

Greg, we all suspected Steve had a few tricks up his sleeve.

[ttweed]

Porsche's never have more TQ than WHP, yet about half these cars show more TQ.

Never??? That's quite a generalization, and might hold up better with the newer models, or race engines, but not with the older, air-cooled street cars. According to my Porsche tech spec books, the 911SC 3.0 engine is rated at 172 SAE net HP (180 DIN) and 189 ft. lbs. of torque (257 Nm). The early 930s were rated at 265HP and 291 ft. lbs. torque or 245/253 for the US spec. The 3.3 turbo was 300HP/321T in the Euro version, and 282HP/287T in the USA. The 1968-9 911T was rated at 110HP and 116T. The '70-71 911T was 125HP/130T. The '72-73 911T w/ MFI was rated at 140HP/148T. The 2.7 CIS engine in various configurations for smog purposes was 150HP/173T, 175/175, 165/167, 165/176, and 160/162 (Type 911/41-48 and 911/84-86). There are others as well with higher torque than HP.

Am I reading it incorrectly?

Well, I can't vouch for how the numbers were transcribed onto that chart because I wasn't there for that, but I do see a few errors--where is SG's silver '79SC (ex-Hector car), for instance? Also, Greg's '82SC is a custom 3.2L short-stroke, built from the original 3.0L, George Taylor's engine is a 3.4 built from a 3.2L Carrera engine, not a 2.7L, mine is a Type 930/10 3.0L not a 2.0L, so it is certainly possible that some of the power numbers were transcribed incorrectly, too, I don't know. But putting that aside, let's throw out the 2 big-bore V-8s (the Z06 and the GTO) that might be expected to generate big torque numbers, and the BMW, because it is a non-Porsche. That leaves 14 P-cars, only 5 of which registered higher torque figures than HP. Of these, 4 out of the 5 are (or were custom-built from) engines I listed above having factory specs of lower HP than torque. The only real anomaly I see is the 1971 911E, which is rated by the factory at 155HP and 141 ft.lbs. w/ stock MFI induction. The readings it shows of 113HP and 117T are way out of spec, and not in a good way--I would suspect something is wrong there if the numbers were measured and transcribed correctly--either poorly executed mods or bad tuning. It should be making at least 130HP at the rear wheels. The first thing I would check is whether the throttle linkage is opening up the butterflies completely.

That's my $0.02,
TT

[ttweed]

BTW. On my computer using Firefox the image Russell posted is cropped and I can only see half of the results. If you use internet explorer you can see the entire image.

I am using Firefox 9.0.1 and the whole image appears fine on my screen, Gordon.

TT

[JERRY B]

The 911E had Ign. / Fuel problems at full thorottle

[ttweed]

The 911E had Ign. / Fuel problems at full thorottle

Ah, that explains that one then. I missed his run. Thanks, Jerry!

TT

[rshon]

BTW. On my computer using Firefox the image Russell posted is cropped and I can only see half of the results. If you use internet explorer you can see the entire image.

I am using Firefox 9.0.1 and the whole image appears fine on my screen, Gordon.

TT

Here is a lower-res version of the results image. If your computer/display or mobile device has a limited horizontal resolution, or if your browser has a limited window width, the picture may get cropped, not scaled. Get out your reading glasses...



Thanks to the Tech Session team for organizing this event! And to TT for "giving it the gas".

[Mike]

let's throw out the 2 big-bore V-8s (the Z06 and the GTO) that might be expected to generate big torque numbers, That's my $0.02,
TT

Tom if the Vette was stock I was going to use that as some sort of baseline.
His Vette posted 451rwhp/458rwtq.
According to a google search a stock C6 Z06s are closer to 453rwhp/423rwtq.
On the JBA dyno last year my Vette had the same results, higher tq #s on that dyno.
The JBA HP #s seem to be in the ballpark and that's the only important # we need for PCA.

[Jad]

I believe the vette was modified, and that is why he was doing the dyno test.

[gocart]

I am using Firefox 9.0.1 and the whole image appears fine on my screen, Gordon.

Sorry to hijack, but I'm running Firefox 9.0.1 and 1280 x 1024 screen resolution. On Russell's first image I only see about 2/3s of it. I only see to the HP column. If I view it in internet explorer the entire image shows up.

[jrgordonsenior]

Never??? That's quite a generalization....

Tom at first glance there's 7 P-cars with equal or more TQ than WHP. That's an odditiy to me, that's all I was trying to point out. I keep all the POC dyno sheets which are on the same machine (different vendor), a Dyno Dynamics unit. Going thru 3 years of dyno sheets I only have 2 cars that had equal or more TQ than WH and they're both San Diego cars. Dave Quesnel's(barely) and Kris Urquhart's 964 (equal). Must be something in the water down there....

[ttweed]

I am using Firefox 9.0.1 and the whole image appears fine on my screen, Gordon.

Sorry to hijack, but I'm running Firefox 9.0.1 and 1280 x 1024 screen resolution. On Russell's first image I only see about 2/3s of it. I only see to the HP column. If I view it in internet explorer the entire image shows up.

I am running 1600 x 900 screen resolution on my laptop, so that is probably the difference. The original pic was 1024 x 612, and the forum layout reserves some space around the edge for a border, plus about 1/5 of the width for a righthand frame displaying the user's identity. Now that Russell posted the smaller version, I can see that my Firefox screen did chop it on the right side too, even with my higher resolution, but I could still read all the columns out to the edge of the chalkboard (including "Notes"), it just cut off the righthand background stuff. I think IE might automatically scale the pic if it is too wide to fit the frame on your screen, while Firefox doesn't. It's probably best to post pics with no higher width than about 800 pixels to keep them fully accessible for more devices and browsers.

TT