Poor Combo Good Results

[stokerboats]

And............ Nobody used a pick axe in the intake tract either.

[CGT]

2.25 HP per CFM. Great results!

[randy331]

In that case how do you explain this: 660 divided by 110 = 6.00

I guess your saying Banjo's MPH vs ET match close in this post? (.06 sec off)

If that formula is correct, how do we trust the MPH part of the same calculator that we don't trust the ET part of the calculator?

If his Et matches the MPH based on 660/110 shouldn't the MPH/ET calculator you use also match?

I'm not saying Banjo's engine makes 600 HP or 750 HP, ( I have no idea what it makes ) but should we be using a calculator that's 130+ HP off from ET to MPH on the same pass, but matches a different formula we choose to use?

I use formulas/on line calculators etc too, but put no blind faith in any of them.

Randy

[vortecpro]

In that case how do you explain this: 660 divided by 110 = 6.00

I guess your saying Banjo's MPH vs ET match close in this post? (.06 sec off)

If that formula is correct, how do we trust the MPH part of the same calculator that we don't trust the ET part of the calculator?

If his Et matches the MPH based on 660/110 shouldn't the MPH/ET calculator you use also match?

I'm not saying Banjo's engine makes 600 HP or 750 HP, ( I have no idea what it makes ) but should we be using a calculator that's 130+ HP off from ET to MPH on the same pass, but matches a different formula we choose to use?

I use formulas/on line calculators etc too, but put no blind faith in any of them.

Randy

Randy, you will never see me determining HP from ET, HP is always based off MPH. 1320 divided by MPH is a calculation used to determine ET to MPH efficientcy. The ET side of the calculator does not match my dyno testing. If I have a 500 HP engine calculators tell what my car should run at a certain weight, if the car doesn't run that taking into account conditions, I start looking at my combination on the car side. I try to run my engine in the car as I do on the dyno as close as I can. Obviously Banjo makes more than 614 HP on the dyno, but it don't going down the track.

[randy331]

Randy, you will never see me determining HP from ET, HP is always based off MPH. 1320 divided by MPH is a calculation used to determine ET to MPH efficientcy. The ET side of the calculator does not match my dyno testing. If I have a 500 HP engine calculators tell what my car should run at a certain weight, if the car doesn't run that taking into account conditions, I start looking at my combination on the car side. I try to run my engine in the car as I do on the dyno as close as I can. Obviously Banjo makes more than 614 HP on the dyno, but it don't going down the track.

I understand the use of formulas to see where we stand with the engine in the car, but if we chase ET only, MPH will suffer some showing less HP based on MPH only, yet power was the same. I've seen that happen in the past.

I ran a 6.02 @ 113.3 MPH at 2950 LBs. with one engine I have.

Stan's calculator says 704 HP by ET, but 623 HP by MPH. Patrick Hale's says 645 by Et and 665 by MPH. Which one is right? No corrections for either.
Should we use the one that's the lowest?
The highest one?
The one that matches ET and MPH the best?
Just pick the one that matches the dyno we use? LOL
Just pick the one that makes us proud of our ET?? LOL

Again, I'm not trying to validate/dispute Banjo's HP, but I do question blind faith in et/mph calculators.

And sorry, I didn't mean to de-rail this thread, nice build.
2.25 HP/CFM is getting it done.

Randy

[vortecpro]

Randy, heres an example:

292 CU IN
Flattop piston
1.780/1.450 valves
212 CFM @ 28 inches
435 CFM carb
Observed running weight 2960
ET 10.27
MPH 127

SF dyno says 467 corrected HP

Stan Weiss "OLD" calculator says 473 observed HP from MPH
Stan Weiss "ET" HP calculator says 540 HP from ET

I do put a lot of faith in the "OLD" HP calculator because it always matches my dyno HP. You really should take a hard look at this.
SF dyno says 384 corrected TQ

[vortecpro]

Randy, you will never see me determining HP from ET, HP is always based off MPH. 1320 divided by MPH is a calculation used to determine ET to MPH efficientcy. The ET side of the calculator does not match my dyno testing. If I have a 500 HP engine calculators tell what my car should run at a certain weight, if the car doesn't run that taking into account conditions, I start looking at my combination on the car side. I try to run my engine in the car as I do on the dyno as close as I can. Obviously Banjo makes more than 614 HP on the dyno, but it don't going down the track.

I understand the use of formulas to see where we stand with the engine in the car, but if we chase ET only, MPH will suffer some showing less HP based on MPH only, yet power was the same. I've seen that happen in the past.

I ran a 6.02 @ 113.3 MPH at 2950 LBs. with one engine I have.

Stan's calculator says 704 HP by ET, but 623 HP by MPH. Patrick Hale's says 645 by Et and 665 by MPH. Which one is right? No corrections for either.
Should we use the one that's the lowest?
The highest one?
The one that matches ET and MPH the best?
Just pick the one that matches the dyno we use? LOL
Just pick the one that makes us proud of our ET?? LOL

Again, I'm not trying to validate/dispute Banjo's HP, but I do question blind faith in et/mph calculators.

And sorry, I didn't mean to de-rail this thread, nice build.
2.25 HP/CFM is getting it done.

Randy[/quot

To answer your question:

It starts with this: 1320 divided by MPH, if this checks out, you would simply use the lowest HP calculator, which happens to be the Stan Weiss "OLD".

Example: 1320 divided by 137 = 9.63, 137 MPH @ 2950 = 592 observed HP

[randy331]

To answer your question:

It starts with this: 1320 divided by MPH, if this checks out, you would simply use the lowest HP calculator.

Example: 1320 divided by 137 = 9.63, 137 MPH @ 2950 = 592 observed HP

So when I go to a lower gear and it runs a 9.55 @ 134, did it make more HP, or less?

I've already done similar changes and seen that same result.

Randy

[vortecpro]

To answer your question:

It starts with this: 1320 divided by MPH, if this checks out, you would simply use the lowest HP calculator.

Example: 1320 divided by 137 = 9.63, 137 MPH @ 2950 = 592 observed HP

So when I go to a lower gear and it runs a 9.55 @ 134, did it make more HP, or less?

I've already done similar changes and seen that same result.

Randy

Randy, the formulas I use only work if the car setup is right. When using ET MPH combinations that don't make sense to me, I would have to say I would need to look at the 660 data to answer your question.

[banjo]

To answer your question:

It starts with this: 1320 divided by MPH, if this checks out, you would simply use the lowest HP calculator.

Example: 1320 divided by 137 = 9.63, 137 MPH @ 2950 = 592 observed HP

So when I go to a lower gear and it runs a 9.55 @ 134, did it make more HP, or less?

I've already done similar changes and seen that same result.

Randy

I think there is something to this, it seems every time I have put more gear in my car, it ets better, but I lose a little mph. My theory has always been because it doesn't hang on the converter as long in high gear where you are getting max torque multiplication.

[vortecpro]

To answer your question:

It starts with this: 1320 divided by MPH, if this checks out, you would simply use the lowest HP calculator.

Example: 1320 divided by 137 = 9.63, 137 MPH @ 2950 = 592 observed HP

So when I go to a lower gear and it runs a 9.55 @ 134, did it make more HP, or less?

I've already done similar changes and seen that same result.

Randy

I think there is something to this, it seems every time I have put more gear in my car, it ets better, but I lose a little mph. My theory has always been because it doesn't hang on the converter as long in high gear where you are getting max torque multiplication.

So I would go back to determining HP from 1/8 mile MPH. Have you run your car yet with less oil? I would be very interested to see less oil along with a good carb set up for Q-16, I just have a feeling track HP would go way up. When we ran engines on Alky we always ran a injector because it always seemed we couldn't get enough through the needles and seats with a carb, and these were way less HP engines than yours. I really think if you keep looking your going to find something. The two main things I've noticed from dyno to track HP are, in this order, windage, and fuel delivery, obviously the dyno is stationary, which really helps fuel delivery, and really doesn't load the engine like it does going down the track.

[banjo]

I haven't, last race of the year was cancelled due to weather. Looking for other options, but it may wait till next spring. Also working on something that will help with keeping the fuel bowls full.

[408 Nova]

I haven't, last race of the year was cancelled due to weather. Looking for other options, but it may wait till next spring. Also working on something that will help with keeping the fuel bowls full.

You still around Banjo?

Anyone seen Randy 331 on here in awhile?

[banjo]

I am still alive an kicking!

[steve cowan]

I haven't, last race of the year was cancelled due to weather. Looking for other options, but it may wait till next spring. Also working on something that will help with keeping the fuel bowls full.

You still around Banjo?

Anyone seen Randy 331 on here in awhile?

I talked to Randy a couple of months ago via email.
He very busy doing engine/ dyno stuff,
I sure miss his knowledge and opinions on this forum.