Super Stock Dyno Pull

[SpeierRacingHeads]

Had many people ask me how the SS engine turned out. Here is a pull.

350/360hp LT1 combo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWP7YPVhWf8

[rebelrouser]

Come on now, you cannot tease us, numbers to go with the video.

[SpeierRacingHeads]

Come on now, you cannot tease us, numbers to go with the video.

The dyno I use is low vs some of the others. Last time I posted a sheet from it from another one of my personal engines I was told it was bad, so I'm not posting a sheet. I'm going to put it in the car and test the wheels off it. Then freshen it and change a few things. Like the cam, IMO it's all wrong and I knew/know better so I'm putting in what I want.

[1972ho]

I’ve seen 327 Chevy superstock engines make 590 hp back in 2000 with iron heads so I’m sure your 350 makes more than that.Then I saw the car run in the high nines back then in a 66 Chevy nova.

[RW TECH]

The dyno I use is low vs some of the others. Last time I posted a sheet from it from another one of my personal engines I was told it was bad, so I'm not posting a sheet. I'm going to put it in the car and test the wheels off it. Then freshen it and change a few things. Like the cam, IMO it's all wrong and I knew/know better so I'm putting in what I want.

I don't blame you. All someone has to do is make 600 RPM/SEC or faster sweep rate pulls & let SF software add their calculated inertia and you will wind up with an engine that looks about 3.5%-5% better than it actually is. Slow the sweep rate down to 300 RPM/SEC or slower and all of a sudden the inertia added vs no inertia numbers line up closer to each other by a bunch.

This is how people get sucked into advertised HP numbers on engines for sale (i.e.-crate specials).

[SupStk]

I've followed your posts on the SS build. would have liked to seen the dyno results as well. Not to pick them apart but to see how well my stuff stacks up.

My dyno is similar to what is shown in the video. Freshly calibrated it reads lower than most others too. Normally out run the "other guys" who claim more power.

[SpeierRacingHeads]

I've followed your posts on the SS build. would have liked to seen the dyno results as well. Not to pick them apart but to see how well my stuff stacks up.

My dyno is similar to what is shown in the video. Freshly calibrated it reads lower than most others too. Normally out run the "other guys" who claim more power.

PM sent

[ClassAct]

The dyno I use is low vs some of the others. Last time I posted a sheet from it from another one of my personal engines I was told it was bad, so I'm not posting a sheet. I'm going to put it in the car and test the wheels off it. Then freshen it and change a few things. Like the cam, IMO it's all wrong and I knew/know better so I'm putting in what I want.

I don't blame you. All someone has to do is make 600 RPM/SEC or faster sweep rate pulls & let SF software add their calculated inertia and you will wind up with an engine that looks about 3.5%-5% better than it actually is. Slow the sweep rate down to 300 RPM/SEC or slower and all of a sudden the inertia added vs no inertia numbers line up closer to each other by a bunch.

This is how people get sucked into advertised HP numbers on engines for sale (i.e.-crate specials).

I thought a faster sweep rate lowered BHP?

[RW TECH]

The dyno I use is low vs some of the others. Last time I posted a sheet from it from another one of my personal engines I was told it was bad, so I'm not posting a sheet. I'm going to put it in the car and test the wheels off it. Then freshen it and change a few things. Like the cam, IMO it's all wrong and I knew/know better so I'm putting in what I want.

I don't blame you. All someone has to do is make 600 RPM/SEC or faster sweep rate pulls & let SF software add their calculated inertia and you will wind up with an engine that looks about 3.5%-5% better than it actually is. Slow the sweep rate down to 300 RPM/SEC or slower and all of a sudden the inertia added vs no inertia numbers line up closer to each other by a bunch.

This is how people get sucked into advertised HP numbers on engines for sale (i.e.-crate specials).

I thought a faster sweep rate lowered BHP?

It does. When the water brake inertia factor is applied it shoots the "corrected" number up to non-reality.

When you slow down the sweep rate, the measured TQ increases & inertia correction falls into a reasonable range but either way I don't look at that or use that because it's not real unless you run the engine bottom to top, then top to bottom, and dink with the inertia factor if possible, to make those 2 runs lay on top of each other as much as possible.

Fast sweep & baked in water brake software inertia calculations typically give 3.5%-5% higher "corrected" HP than slower sweep with inertia added. Observed goes up, corrected comes down.

[1980RS]

If Chad's dyno is stingy, it's probably a touch under 650hp

[Charliesauto]

The dyno I use is low vs some of the others. Last time I posted a sheet from it from another one of my personal engines I was told it was bad, so I'm not posting a sheet. I'm going to put it in the car and test the wheels off it. Then freshen it and change a few things. Like the cam, IMO it's all wrong and I knew/know better so I'm putting in what I want.

I don't blame you. All someone has to do is make 600 RPM/SEC or faster sweep rate pulls & let SF software add their calculated inertia and you will wind up with an engine that looks about 3.5%-5% better than it actually is. Slow the sweep rate down to 300 RPM/SEC or slower and all of a sudden the inertia added vs no inertia numbers line up closer to each other by a bunch.

This is how people get sucked into advertised HP numbers on engines for sale (i.e.-crate specials).

If you are seeing different HP numbers at different acceleration rates, your inertia factor input is incorrect. Actually you can determine if the inertia factor is correct by testing at two significantly different acceleration rates and the results should be identical. If not you need to find a different dyno operator, not a different dyno.

[treyrags]

The track results won't lie. And I'm guessing they'll be pretty good

[vortecpro]

The dyno I use is low vs some of the others. Last time I posted a sheet from it from another one of my personal engines I was told it was bad, so I'm not posting a sheet. I'm going to put it in the car and test the wheels off it. Then freshen it and change a few things. Like the cam, IMO it's all wrong and I knew/know better so I'm putting in what I want.

I don't blame you. All someone has to do is make 600 RPM/SEC or faster sweep rate pulls & let SF software add their calculated inertia and you will wind up with an engine that looks about 3.5%-5% better than it actually is. Slow the sweep rate down to 300 RPM/SEC or slower and all of a sudden the inertia added vs no inertia numbers line up closer to each other by a bunch.

This is how people get sucked into advertised HP numbers on engines for sale (i.e.-crate specials).

I've never seen a 1 percent difference between 300 RPM per sec to 600 RPM per sec on my SF 901 with wyn dyn, much less a 3-5 percent swing. I did test recently on a PowerMark dyno, with no inertia factor a 645 HP engine made around 600 with no inertia factor, and this was with a 30 pound flywheel turning a driveshaft that was not inline with the brake.

I've tested on different dyno's, and generally the operator will ask me what kind of power I expect to make, I always say it will be over a certain number, I'am then told "this dyno" is stingy in so many words, my comment to that is: yea I never seen a dyno owner not say that. Infact the last independently owned dyno I tested on the owner is frequently on this forum, feel free to comment-

Chad

Were going to know what kind of power it makes when you get to the track. I have raced for years in the same area you have near you, those horrible conditions will be taken into account.

[vortecpro]

If Chad's dyno is stingy, it's probably a touch under 650hp
[/quot.

Will change my post, were not dealing with a 295/350 here, dealing with a LT1 never power numbers with one of those.

[ClassAct]

The dyno I use is low vs some of the others. Last time I posted a sheet from it from another one of my personal engines I was told it was bad, so I'm not posting a sheet. I'm going to put it in the car and test the wheels off it. Then freshen it and change a few things. Like the cam, IMO it's all wrong and I knew/know better so I'm putting in what I want.

I don't blame you. All someone has to do is make 600 RPM/SEC or faster sweep rate pulls & let SF software add their calculated inertia and you will wind up with an engine that looks about 3.5%-5% better than it actually is. Slow the sweep rate down to 300 RPM/SEC or slower and all of a sudden the inertia added vs no inertia numbers line up closer to each other by a bunch.

This is how people get sucked into advertised HP numbers on engines for sale (i.e.-crate specials).

I've never seen a 1 percent difference between 300 RPM per sec to 600 RPM per sec on my SF 901 with wyn dyn, much less a 3-5 percent swing. I did test recently on a PowerMark dyno, with no inertia factor a 645 HP engine made around 600 with no inertia factor, and this was with a 30 pound flywheel turning a driveshaft that was not inline with the brake.

I've tested on different dyno's, and generally the operator will ask me what kind of power I expect to make, I always say it will be over a certain number, I'am then told "this dyno" is stingy in so many words, my comment to that is: yea I never seen a dyno owner not say that. Infact the last independently owned dyno I tested on the owner is frequently on this forum, feel free to comment-

Chad

Were going to know what kind of power it makes when you get to the track. I have raced for years in the same area you have near you, those horrible conditions will be taken into account.

I find this interesting. If I may Id like to frame this differently.

Let’s say we pick an arbitrary RPM/sec of 300, and make some tests with a 30 pound flywheel attached. Then test at 600 RPM/sec. Then do it again with an 11 pound flywheel. Shouldn’t the faster acceleration rate show less power with the heavy flywheel?

Now take that same engine and test it on a true inertia dyno, like the dyno Mike Laws developed. It’s now called the Revolution dyno. On that type of dyno the engine accelerates a know load at whatever RPM/sec the engine is capable of. I would think that the addition of flywheel weight, crank weight or any other rotating weight would and should affect the ability of an engine to accelerate.

Am I thinking wrong here?