I would like to thank everyone for coming out. I would say the day was a success, whether-or-not the results were. It was nice to meet a few new faces. I will be looking forward to the next time we meet.
My results were nothing to write home about, however I now know what I will need to do. The first thing is to get my Holley carb replaced and a new intake manifold.
My results were:
1st run- 147.0 @3,800 rpm
215 Ft/lbs of torque @3200 rpm
2nd run with K&N filters
146.1 @4,500rpm
232.0 Ft/lbs of torque @2,700 rpm
My Hp increased throughout the power curve alot quicker with my K&N filters and my torque increased by 17 Ft/lbs.
Let the mods begin, I guess...

 

It was nice to meet some new people and see they're cars.
As for my results, they were pretty much what I expected, although it would have been good to see higher numbers.
I still have a problem with max. hp. at 3650 rpm.
All the specs. I can find say 4400rpm.
It's a mystery to me. I wish I could explain it.

 

Remember to account for drivetrain power loss. You could in fact have more HP and Torque than stock as those numbers are at the flywheel, while the numbers today are at the rear wheels. As far as the 3650 RPM drop, that is a concern as I think all of us hit our peaks at the proper RPM save for some exceptions whose engines were heavilly modified. Remember they only took in information on size of engine year, but with all respects, gear ratios, cams, heads varied for all engines, let alone gears, transmission types, rims and tires.

If you have an auto, divide your numbers by 0.82 as there is an 18% average loss after the flywheel in the drivetrain.

if you have a stick, divide your numbers by 0.85 as there is a 15% average loss after the flywheel in the drivetrain.

This is a good way to compare if you've improved your engine or not. To see if you've improved your car as a whole, the only way is at a track.

 

What gear was the run done in? and was it with the converter locked or unlocked?

 

best run of the day for me was 213hp and 300 lbs/ft

 

The guys at the dyno place did the actual test.
Maybe someone can help out here. I think they tested in drive?
Is it possible the test was done in overdrive and not at a 1 to 1 ratio. That would explain the rpm loss.
I'm not sure about the convertor being locked or not.

 

They made sure tests were done in 3rd gear 1-1 ratio for the automatics, but just for info no matter what gear you are in, it measures maximum torque and hp at the rear wheels, not the car in general. The difference is it bases it off how many rpm to move 1 mph. The calculation is complicated and it makes no basis for 1/4 mile runs. Actually its basically engine max hp and torque produced AFTER power/torque loss in drivetrain. Just to be sure I had mine test in 2nd 3rd and 4th (have kickdown issue in fourth, but numbers still looked like the same) No matter what the gearing was max hp and max torque were nearly identical <0.5 deviation. For the only stick to show up, it was done in third gear and fourth gear and numbers were identical too. This is a true test of rear wheel torque and horsepower. This is what finally gets transplanted to the pavement (provided traction is not an issue) and what gets you moving. Exceed the amount of traction you have available and you spin your tires.

For my results its either a)I have very little drivetrain loss(I have a 700r4 like that's gonna be true) or b) which is I have improved my engine setup quite a bit over stock.

 

Well, I guess I'm gonna go back to my buddy at the engine shop and see if he can explain the rpm.
I'm not dissatisfied with the readings. I figured 180 to 190hp. It got 182, but at 3650.
The torque was just over 300ft lbs at around 2800rpm.
I'd just like to know why it starts dropping off so early.

 

thanks to kev for organizing this event, i had a great time and now have a baseline from which to work.

I guess i was fairly happy with my results, and thanks to kev for loaning me his k&n to try out, seemed to pretty good.
275 RWHP and 319 ft.lbs of torque ended up being my best, i dont have the sheet here though so im not sure of what rpm it was at, but i remember it being fairly high anyway.

look forward to meeting up again sometime
jon

 

Thanks Kev for sticking you neck out to get this all organized.. I hope everything went well with the money end of things. Let me know if you didn't cut it...

But I was fairly happy with my results 287lbs Torque and 221 horse for my 305 ... So I am doing something right..

As for my g/f brother he's got a slow burn going on as I was rassing him to no end last night about being more than him.. without trickflow heads and a cam in a 350... hehehehe but all in good fun.. he's got the credit card out today looking for something to buy.....

Thanks again Kev

 

Kev deserves a round of applause for a great and fairly successful day

I'm quite surprised by the 305 TPI setup as the drivetrain's efficiency totally blows away the auto's by miles. By my calculations, even with the 10 HP typical boost of underpulley's he has only an 8% loss at the drivetrain. Don't count the underpulley and its even less. That means he has 311 ft/lbs of torque at the engine which pretty much correlates to a gain 11 ft/lbs over stock from the underpulley's. So who's up for a swap to the 5 speed stick? That's definitly a mod for me in future.
Your setup is pretty much stock? It's well in line for the numbers of 230 HP and 300 ft/lbs from the factory rating. With how you kept with the 350's, I'd have to say that without a doubt that I'd be pleased with that setup. 350's beware.. the 305's are coming.. the 305's are coming...

 

Ahhh 92 Zeddar shut your cake hole!! 317.6 foot lbs of torque...
and look at you hp curve..TARD!!

 

Hey Sissy Sostar...!!! just because you don't belong to the Rage Engineering Projects.. doesn't mean you can diss me.... I'm not the one that invested in Aluminum Heads and Cam.... just goes to show big numbers aren't everything.. gotta have stuff that matches...and flows together... If you invest in a Intake and runners and a little Rage Engineering your 350 will blow me right off my pedistal.. and deflate my head... hahahaha but you should, you know 350 and all.. and i am just a little 305... you puss!


FYI- Rage Engineering is what I call my Garage where I do my mods.... I am know for having no patience and start ripping and porting things to the max...

attached picture is for Sostar18 only.. I am not dissing anyone else on here so this pic is for him! This is what real man and a real engine looks like...
anyone else feel free to diss me because I have a great sense of humour.. hahahaha

 

Hey Slade.. how do you know all these calculations.. ?? I have only 8% drivetrain loss?? Nice.. thanks man!

 

92zeddar :sillylol: :sillylol:

Slade1 8% seems way off. they said you should have about 15% loss in the drive line. how did you get your # of 8%. is it based on rated HP compared with what he got on the dyno?

 

Well the general consensus among dyno programs is that f-bodies in general have 15-20% drivetrain loss. With most stock cars tested, it averages on 18%. The loss usually is basically what happens after the flywheel. For cars without a lockup, the torque converter, then main transmission, driveshaft weight, differential, brakes, rims and tire all contribute to drivetrain loss. Variance b/w disc and drums can be as much as 2%. Differentials account for a good amount. A posi sadly loses more power than an open differential, but makes up for it in gain in traction. Tire type can have a dramatic effect with slippage and weight. Driveshaft variance between aluminum and steel have shown diffrences even to carbon fibre as steel will lose some power to its lower half-critical rotational speed which causes energy loss as vibration (at critical velocity rotational masses tend to launch their force in all directions except torque therby shattering driveshaft itself). This has been known to account for 1% loss.

I've studied the effect of critical rotational velocity. A test disc weighing roughly 1000 kg was rotated around 50 RPM. The force it generated caused the floor around the machine to crack and litteraly submerge 1 inch. This in turn launched bricks and debris through windows and even bricks walls as far as 500 m away.

I could get even more technical on the matter but with all said and done, on average its about 18% loss for us automatic drivers and supposed to be 15% for a stick, but if you calculate that with your numbers, it makes it look like your engine gained a lot over stock even though you said you've done nothing to it. At 8% correction, it shows what the underpulleys give perfectly.(which is advertised as 10-15 HP gain). Now since I noticed you said you ported the heads/intake on that thing, that totally throws my numbers in the garbage and you should be at 15% drivetrain loss as porting would help a lot and make the 350 guys feel worse as that means your engine is making a lot more power. I'll leave you to figure out the numbers hehe.

How I came to 8%...

Totally stock engine 230HP / 300 ft/lb
Numbers achieved 221 HP / 287 ft/lb
Drivetrain corrected at 15% 260 HP / 338 ft/lb

Slade looks at number remembers all stock comment and thinks at his calculated numbers since when did GM give someone an engine with way high numbers like that.

Notes mods
Underpulley gain 10-15HP at the rear wheels
Reworked engine with 10-15 HP gain = 240-245HP
Checked 15% loss with 240HP ends up with 204HP which is not 221HP Even if gained 15, would still not add up to 221 HP. Thought maybe stick makes difference, reworked on that concept
221/240=92% 221/245=90% giving 8-10% loss
consider underpulley giving 15 HP?
consider underpulley giving something? 10HP
Conclusion on calculations stick is making difference

Now this is all done in my head with a calculator on hand in a few mins. Stick efficiency hasn't been checked in awhile while autos are supposedly gaining in efficiency as of last 20 years. Then again since he ported heads All that thought went to waste and he probably has 15% loss and his engine has been boosted quite a bit (Beware 350 owners the 305 cometh). I know I've gained a lot, proof is in the fact I'm getting the stock number at the rear wheels and all I did was pop in K&N, polish some heads/manifold and add the crankshaft pulley from the March kit. That's it and its made a big difference.

 

Hey Slade1, it was nice to meet you.
I have a problem with the numbers. Are you using the factory numbers of 230hp and 300 ft/lbs ?
I'm just going on what I was told at the engine shop here in town, so don't flame me for it.
They say, factory specs are generally waaaay off. That they have seen increases of up to 60 hp (flywheel) just by building an engine to factory specs. In other words, assembly line engines are rarely what is advertised.
Guess I'm still stewing over my RPM thing.

 

I agree with 16thowner There is a variance in power when it comes out from production..The other thing you have to consider is the torque converter efficiency..Autos usually have high torque numbers and low(er)HP ratings..As the RPM goes up and its not locked(third gear) more slippage occurs..Health of the TC also pays a big part..In a race peak horsepower dont mean much Although one could have perfectly working auto and a manual with a slipping clutch..lol

Daz

 

Hey all, I am glad everyone had a good day. As for the money, it all worked out perfectly. If anyone is interested in doing it again, I would have no problem organizing another Dyno Day for either the end of summer or the same time next year.
BTW welcome to the board Sostar18.

 

Now that all is said and done I would really have liked to have seen how my lowly 305 + stick would have pulled. I have questioned the power output on my Formula since I replaced the injectors and the car started running properly (ran like crap with the bad injectors). It now makes 5800-6000 rpms without a hitch (unless it is really humid). You guys with the LB9 TPIs is this similar to your top end ? Is this normal for these engines ? Not sure what normal is for a 305 TPI.

If there is a variance in production at the factory (which I think most of us agree on) does that mean balancing & blue-printing the motor would return the engine to stock output (eg: factory hp and torque numbers) or increase it ?

RP.

 

"If there is a variance in production at the factory (which I think most of us agree on) does that mean balancing & blue-printing the motor would return the engine to stock output (eg: factory hp and torque numbers) or increase it ? "

RP.
____________________________________________________
Palric: Just my .02 cent's in answer to your guestion, Completely Blueprinting and to a lesser extent Balancing can and will Greatly increase power and torque output.
All factory's based there "Factory Power Output's" on an average of production line engine's dyno power (With a few recent glaring exception's......Are you listening Ford???)
Getting clearences (spl?) deck height's,cam degree,oil passages,intake volume etc,etc ,etc correct for the application make huge differences in output.
You don't have to look any further then "stock" form's of racing. (of any type) The power plant's may have the same part #s as your basic production vehicle but the performance isn't even close to the same.
One last thing ,Blueprinting is kind of an overused expression, To be done properly it is expensive and time consuming ,as an example , the cost for a Oval race" Late model" chevy engine can exceed $25,000 dollar's (theoretically a stock type smallblock) with a large portion of this going toward's machine/assembely work.
Later SR

 

My guess would be an increase ..On paper airflow/fuel/cam numbers say 300HP(crank)IMO..balancing alone can gain some RPM over stock..It should be at least the same as factory rating ..
Also maybe average horspower should also be considered at max torque..

Daz

 

I was always of the understanding ( and I'm not certain of this ) that the manufacturers use numbers of the perfect engine. A totally balanced and blueprint engine, done exactly to the specs.
And we all know they're not.
Example, Compression ratios are generally off by up to 0.5
The blocks are not square decked, so they use thicker head gaskets to avoid leaks, thus lowering the ratio. There are many others.

Just my 2 cents.

 

Well let me be the first to say that I have the proof of a technically sound and true to spec LO3 engine and proud of it. I personally tested compression at a whopping 9.5:1 ratio a few months ago(if you wanna borrow my compression tester to get a guage of your engine's compression feel free to ask). I have the heads and intake polished somewhat as best my hands could do and was very meticulous on the whole engine rebuild. To ensure it was running at peak. The numbers speak for themselves as I managed to achieve the factory flywheel torque at the rear wheels. Total time it took was 4 days. You think after all that i'd remember to change the gasket on my coolant pump? So am I up to the big guys in performance, not even close.

I just realized something, if hot the compression would go down most likely and hit only 9.3 like the factory specs say

 

Hey Slade, I'm not attempting to knock you or anyone else.
Just stating facts that I've picked up over the years. Some engines are definitly better than others, right out of the factory.
Porting or polishing or anything a person can do to help flow, is gonna benefit.


Kevin. Last summer or early fall, would be a good time for another dyno day.

 

Nah I'm not feeling knocked at all (cept by GM who sold a crappy engine to begin with, what were they thinking creating an economy engine?) I think all our engines can do with a nice cleanup of the inside. Like you said whatever can be done to help flow. I also picked up a little tidbit, the equivalent engines not on a Camaro are to be downgraded (I know it sucks) a whole 5-10 HP and ft/lb because of specific intake differences. So take those stock numbers downgrade them 5-10 HP and ft/lb and realize that the work you did actually did make a difference in your car and it was worth it.

I'm looking to jump my HP numbers a good 30 this summer, maybe not a whole lot in torque so another dyno day is welcome mid to end summer. I also suggest a small drag day or something sooner than that to see how whole setups compare in 1/4 mile as those 350's are definitly more killer in the 1/4 mile than numbers predict.

 

Actually, Firebird and Camero specs are different from the factory ( by 10hp ) Firdbird being less,because of the air intake systems.

 

Amazing what a few feet of tin ducting will do for cold air. I tossed the factory system and now have a Home Depot special which works pretty good... even if it looks out of place. I'm sure I got atleast 10hp out of this setup you'd have to try the before and after to appreciate the difference.

So if the factory spec on my car is 230/300 is that just on paper ? Assuming 10hp out of the cold air did I increase hp to 240 or return it to factory spec, 230 ?

thx,
RP.

 

I think its returned to factory spec. Is that stock intake really that bad?

Also I noticed something, Kev noted it too that my Camaro sits a whole lot lower than Firebirds and Trans Am on the stock springs. I checked with my other friend and he had around 2 inchs from tire height to fender edge as well. I knew that Camaros of the 3 f types had the best handling characteristics (dad owned all 3 and 2 Camaros and only has fond memories of the Camaro for handling) so I can only guess its because they sit a lot lower. Can any other Camaro owners with stock springs verify this?

 

I can only speak on the 1987 (my year) numbers.
In that year the Firebird L98 was rated at 210hp.
The Camero was 220hp and Corvette was 230hp.
The only difference between any of these engines, was the way the air was supplied to the engine.
If the Camero rating in 1991 is the same as yours, you would probably be bringing it up to that. If yours is 10hp lower, than you just increased it.

 

the vett had different heads on it and i think the power was a little more too.

 

I'm only going on what they say on the GTA website. Lots of info.

 

The Camaros where allways rated at 5hp more than the Firebirds. The L98 in the 'Vettes made more power due to the improved exhaust system they used. The heads may have been aluminum but they didn't flow that much more than the cast iron B2L heads.

 

I think I will try for a "Dyno Day" sometime this summer. I got a response from Brant Performance and they are going to get me another carb this Saturday and I should be looking at getting an Edelbrock intake manifold in the next week or so. Depending on the money, there could be a couple of other mods in there too. I would be very interested in the gains I achieve in comparison to the last dyno run.

 

Hey Kev sounds like a good plan. Hope you get the whole carb thing soted out and cleaned up. I'm in the hunt for a performer TBI with EGR, think you can get a quick quote? The only prices I've found so far will set me back $500 with the import from the states being cheapest at only a measly $400... so no help there.

 

Hey Slade, I priced out the Edelbrock with EGR for my LG4 at K&K Racing in Stratford for $339.00 + tax.All total with the gaskets and silicone I am looking at just over $400.00. It's the EGR that is the killer, otherwise I would be paying about $150.00 less. I noticed on E-bay that there was a Performer TBI intake but it was for a 454 BB. I would keep an eye on e-bay, you never know.
Once I get the new carb on, I will let you know if it worked out. My faith in these carbs has made me a little leary of them.

 

My stock air intake setup was interesting but I don't think as well designed as the IROC. The IROC gets air from in front of the rad correct ? The only restriction being the width of the inlet between the rack and the hood ?

My stock Formula got it's air from behind the rack where the battery sits on the Camaro. Nothing but dead air as far as I am concerned. This explains why the Firebird responds so well to a cold air mod. The before and after effect was very surprising I got way more than I expected.

It will be interesting to see results the next time we do dyno day (count me in Kevin) and compare my Formula with 92Zeddar -- our cars are similar in config with very similar mods.

RP.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by palric

[B]

The IROC gets air from in front of the rad correct ? The only restriction being the width of the inlet between the rack and the hood ?


Actually I took that intake off during the dyno.. I made 1 extra horse.. thats it.. so as far as K+N's getting in the way and restriction... there is nothing...

305's FOREVER!! hahahahaha even though I am working on a 350... makes me think though...

 

Kev, another TBI owner with similar mods like me except for headers which he had Edelbrock TES heads, produced 13 more HP than me and 25 ft/lb more torque at a dyno RWHP. I think I know what we both have to do next... free the exhaust! There's an extra 25 ft/lb and 13 HP of the stock intake we haven't yet taken advantage of! If we go with intake before exhaust, we get burned because the exhaust seems to be much worse off than the intake if there's that much of an increase. Another issue is no matter how much air we can get into the engine, if the exhaust is heavily restricted, that's the best it'll get you can't have 670 cfm intake with 400 cfm exhaust. See where I'm getting at? Intake mods won't do nothing for us because the stock headers are useless. I think we've hit the limit of a stock header. I'm gonna start looking into a header swap asap.

 

I hear what you are saying, but if I was to change my manifolds, then I would have to change my entire exhaust in order to free up the extra horses. By the time it is all said and done I will be looking at a bill of atleast $1000-$1300. I can't afford that right now. The intake and cam will only run me about $650.00. That fits into my budget.Once that is done, I will have to start saving for the exhaust system. Who knows what will happen, maybe I'll get lucky and find a set of headers cheap.Maybe what I will do this winter, is start buying a piece at a time. Get the actual headers and then the Y-pipe and the cat etc....Come spring time I will be all set to install it. Time and money will tell.

 

Ah I think I see. Even if you don't do the rest (cat back), that'll still hold you back. Damn everything has a catch. I got mine replaced outta necessity last year (everything dropped after the cat lol) that's why I never thought of it. Still I guess its just something to keep in mind that even if you do the intake, with the restricted exhaust, you won't see the gains your supposed too, but they're there just waiting. Money always seems to be a major factor. I just never realized how low the flow rate of those headers were until I read those numbers off a similar TBI setup to mine.

 

It would be awesome to be able to do it all at once. The gains would be very noticeable, to say the least. Even with the restrictive exhaust, you will still see a difference with the intake and cam. Hell, I noticed a difference when I put the Holley on yesterday. I drove to Flamborough with my buddy last night, and he said he could feel the difference in the cars response. So there is definitely a gain there, even if it was bottom end torque.

 

I'm gonna go the exhaust first route, then intake and cam. I already have the 3 inch cat back to flowmaster and dynomax cat so a y-pipe and headers are a no brainer for me since I started. Basically I wanna max out my intake (not hard to do) first and then go from there.