vortecpro wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 9:30 am
DYNOSHEET.jpgDYNOSHEET.jpgNot on my dyno you can't. Theres a formula that applies friction HP. Example: I used this formula, 500 HP X .30 = 150, 500 - 150 = 350 observed HP, so the correction would be 30 % and although the dyno would show that on a engine that produced HP at a certain RPM, I thought as you do. I would show this formula to Harold Bettes from SF and he would lose his mind "THATS NOT HOW IT WORKS" he would say. Lets look at another example from my dyno with track data:
SF 901 STP Corrected HP 820 @ 6700 RPM
SF 901 Measured HP @ 6400 feel elevation 570 HP @ 6500 RPM
You will notice on Wyndyn software the corrected HP will always have a higher RPM peak than the observed HP RPM peak, this is because friction HP is applied. Keep in mind I didn't design this I just know how it works.
820 X .28 = 229.6, 820 - 229.6 = 590.4 as you see the number don't line up, thats because as RPM rises friction HP changes.
Now to put this into performance, as you know STP correction is 29.92 60 degrees dry air, we would agree this is O DA conditions?
The above 820 HP engine, 570 observed @ 6400 feet ran 146.24 MPH @ 3440 in 615 feet positive air in ONE night of testing with limited runs. Now how much HP is that showing going down a 615 DA track? https://youtu.be/E1Wz5qZDPAk
I am not questioning your abilities, or the quality of your engines. I respect them, and believe you do really good work for the record. But still, look at Stan's reply above, that engine showed about about 13hp more than what I would calculate using the numbers how I describe. On a 700hp engine, that's about 1.8%. So, at least me and Harrold are on the same page, what does he know. On the dyno I use, the numbers jive how I describe, not sure, maybe there's a setting, or the software is different, not sure. But the cars run the number and match the power.
Yeah, that car is showing the power. How much power is 148.8 at 3000 to the 1/8? And not in mind shaft air, like 1500 feet. Engine made 1380 on 2 different local dynos. According to the calculators, it takes over 1500 to run that mph at that weight, same calculator I used that shows your example makes 820.
Ok-how about just going off the observed or measured or in the room HP, my last fuelie headed 350
4.060 X 3.483
10.9 Comp
291 fuelie heads
264/264/.528/108 flat tappet
RPM air gap
750 Holley
499 HP 472 TQ @ 850 feet elevation, 29.37 baro, 29 Humidity, 25 GOW, 88 degrees in the room.
Racing a NA NHRA stocker should be mandatory before any posting.
vortecpro wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 9:30 am
DYNOSHEET.jpgDYNOSHEET.jpgNot on my dyno you can't. Theres a formula that applies friction HP. Example: I used this formula, 500 HP X .30 = 150, 500 - 150 = 350 observed HP, so the correction would be 30 % and although the dyno would show that on a engine that produced HP at a certain RPM, I thought as you do. I would show this formula to Harold Bettes from SF and he would lose his mind "THATS NOT HOW IT WORKS" he would say. Lets look at another example from my dyno with track data:
SF 901 STP Corrected HP 820 @ 6700 RPM
SF 901 Measured HP @ 6400 feel elevation 570 HP @ 6500 RPM
You will notice on Wyndyn software the corrected HP will always have a higher RPM peak than the observed HP RPM peak, this is because friction HP is applied. Keep in mind I didn't design this I just know how it works.
820 X .28 = 229.6, 820 - 229.6 = 590.4 as you see the number don't line up, thats because as RPM rises friction HP changes.
Now to put this into performance, as you know STP correction is 29.92 60 degrees dry air, we would agree this is O DA conditions?
The above 820 HP engine, 570 observed @ 6400 feet ran 146.24 MPH @ 3440 in 615 feet positive air in ONE night of testing with limited runs. Now how much HP is that showing going down a 615 DA track? https://youtu.be/E1Wz5qZDPAk
I am not questioning your abilities, or the quality of your engines. I respect them, and believe you do really good work for the record. But still, look at Stan's reply above, that engine showed about about 13hp more than what I would calculate using the numbers how I describe. On a 700hp engine, that's about 1.8%. So, at least me and Harrold are on the same page, what does he know. On the dyno I use, the numbers jive how I describe, not sure, maybe there's a setting, or the software is different, not sure. But the cars run the number and match the power.
Yeah, that car is showing the power. How much power is 148.8 at 3000 to the 1/8? And not in mind shaft air, like 1500 feet. Engine made 1380 on 2 different local dynos. According to the calculators, it takes over 1500 to run that mph at that weight, same calculator I used that shows your example makes 820.
Ok-how about just going off the observed or measured or in the room HP, my last fuelie headed 350
4.060 X 3.483
10.9 Comp
291 fuelie heads
264/264/.528/108 flat tappet
RPM air gap
750 Holley
499 HP 472 TQ @ 850 feet elevation, 29.37 baro, 29 Humidity, 25 GOW, 88 degrees in the room.
What's the question? I'd need fuel flow in lbs/hr, and bsfc's. I can see that combo making 500hp. The one from earlier in the thread where I calculated 441 corrected based on the numbers, had less compression and a much smaller cam.
vortecpro wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 5:02 pm
It was 537 corrected.
So, like 507 ftlbs corrected from 360 inches with that combo? 1.076 correction, roughly 220lbs of fuel is what I would estimate. The TQ sure seems optimistic for that combo though.
The correction was 1.05 and I thought 504 TQ was high myself, but it ain't my dyno, I ran the HP number by Larry M and he said it matches pipe Max to the exact HP. We will see how it runs in the truck, never the less we had 499 observed. I'm looking for mid 11s in my two piece drive shaft 79 C-10 @ 3970.
The question is: will I get those 1.4 60s I so desire??
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Racing a NA NHRA stocker should be mandatory before any posting.
vortecpro wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 10:01 am
The correction was 1.05 and I thought 504 TQ was high myself, but it ain't my dyno, I ran the HP number by Larry M and he said it matches pipe Max to the exact HP. We will see how it runs in the truck, never the less we had 499 observed. I'm looking for mid 11s in my two piece drive shaft 79 C-10 @ 3970.
The question is: will I get those 1.4 60s I so desire??
Friend of mine has a 71 C-10 long box with a big heavy fiberglass tonau cover that weighs 4200. 100% stone stock suspension it went 1.65 60's with a mild 421 sbc, ran 11.50's. I thought that was pretty good. 3.73 gears and a Midwest brand 3500 10 inch converter. Those converters are hit or miss. Cheaper converters that could work. Another friend of mine went 8.70's with a na sbc in a mustang at 3100 lbs. He had a Coan, PTC and a A-1 made for it, because we kept telling him, get a GOOD converter, it'll go faster. Nothing beat that Midwest. Pretty unusual result, but it happens. 1.4. 60's with a 360 inch sbc would be pretty good in that truck of yours.
My 327 in this truck went 1.63 60 foot, but I always felt like it didn't want to pull through low gear. Now I have 20 % more TQ @ the rear wheels, it will be interesting to see how it does, hopefully I don't get robbed, but I think I can go under 11.50, we will see.
Racing a NA NHRA stocker should be mandatory before any posting.
Another one, the 480 in this case again came in higher than 6000.
FC-Pilot wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 10:04 am
My annular 750 was down 30hp over my 750 with down legs on a 358 spinning 6500 rpm and making 480 HP. We put 40 dyno pulls on that annular trying every e-bleed, air bleed and jet combo. We had it spot on. Then dropped on a down leg and blew it away by 25 HP on the first pull. I was about ready to walk out as it should not have lost that much on paper. Well, that’s why we test. Just sharing my personal experience.
Paul
Tom68 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 4:23 am
What revs was the 480 HP at ?
FC-Pilot wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 10:04 am
6600 was its peak. That’s where it made 480. Just a basic iron headed, hydraulic roller pump gas boat engine.
Paul
Ignorance leads to confidence more often than knowledge does.
Nah, I'm not leaving myself out of the ignorant brigade....at times.
Tom68 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 1:51 am
Another one, the 480 in this case again came in higher than 6000.
FC-Pilot wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 10:04 am
My annular 750 was down 30hp over my 750 with down legs on a 358 spinning 6500 rpm and making 480 HP. We put 40 dyno pulls on that annular trying every e-bleed, air bleed and jet combo. We had it spot on. Then dropped on a down leg and blew it away by 25 HP on the first pull. I was about ready to walk out as it should not have lost that much on paper. Well, that’s why we test. Just sharing my personal experience.
Paul
Tom68 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 4:23 am
What revs was the 480 HP at ?
FC-Pilot wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 10:04 am
6600 was its peak. That’s where it made 480. Just a basic iron headed, hydraulic roller pump gas boat engine.
Paul
That highlighted text would be just about where I'm at. Peak at 6200 and carry to 6500.
Now the annular booster carb I have comes into question...
