Brainstormin' 440 vs 5.9 ...

[318willrun]

My 360 in my grey van has 550 hp. It runs 9.90s in the 1/8 at 70 mph. It's 550 hp but just too many variables to show up at the track. It's not spinning, running good actually. You all got my back, right?? LOL

 

[318willrun]

@TT5.9mag, and the rest of you on my guess list, when something is done on the RV 440, I will start a new thread and move the list over there. This has what, 13 pages in a row on 100% irrelevance. Alright, the few that haven't guessed but aren't going to let it get back on track... have at it!! It's now a "DYNO" thread LOL. I'm fine with that. Start laying out the dyno sheets, post the next dyno meet and at what track, what's the runner up payout, and does dyno racing have a no-box class???

 

[fishmens67]

11.50 @ 117

 

[fishmens67]

9.20's @ 145

 

[92b]

But because it was dynoed, the narrative must be upheld regardless of how idiotic it looks in the result column.

You missed my point completely. This motor hasn't been dynoed in it's current configuration. You're saying it looks ridiculous because of a number that is being made up. Maybe even two numbers that are being made up if you don't believe the Wallace calculator to be correct in every combination or situation.

Let's look at this another way. If Joe takes this motor back to the dyno and it dynos at 500 hp. He doesn't believe that number so he takes it to another reputable dyno and it dynos at 500 hp. He still doesn't believe that number so he takes to a third dyno and it says 500. So it's possible that all three dynos are wrong but not likely. Now Joe has real data. He is using the scientific method to find the reason for the poor times at the track. He now puts this motor in another vehicle and the new vehicle runs a number that corresponds with a motor that makes 500 hp. Joe still isn't convinced so he puts it in another vehicle and it too runs the number. Still not convinced he puts it in yet another vehicle and gets the same results. Now he has real data to come to a conclusion. Either all the data is wrong, the calculator does not apply to the truck or there is something wrong with the truck. In any case he has data from diagnostic testing to support a conclusion. We don't have that in this case.

If you don't like this example then use this scenario. Joe takes the motor back to the original dyno and the motor is making 375 hp
He takes it to another dyno and 375hp. Etc. He puts the motor in another car and it runs a number consistent with 375hp. Etc. Again he has real data and it is backed up. He might conclude that the motor is indeed not making the 500hp he guessed it was making or the dynos are all wrong and the calculator is wrong which might lead to more testing etc.

You can imagine any scenario and even data that may support your conclusion that the number off the dyno doesn't ever show up at the race track acording to the Wallace calculator. If the tesing shows data that supports that conclusion the so be it. At least you used the scientific method to test and come to a conclusion based on real data. We don't have that in this case. We have little data and it has not been verified.

 

[92b]

My 360 in my grey van has 550 hp. It runs 9.90s in the 1/8 at 70 mph. It's 550 hp but just too many variables to show up at the track. It's not spinning, running good actually. You all got my back, right?? LOL

If you could show me testing and data ( more than one set of data points) that verifies this conclusion I would be more inclined to believe it. Especially if it defies industry wide accepted results. A common saying among researchers is extraordinary results require extraordinary proof.

 

[92b]

If you could show me testing and data ( more than one set of data points) that verifies this conclusion I would be more inclined to believe it. Especially if it defies industry wide accepted results. A common saying among researchers is extraordinary results require extraordinary proof.

It starts with this. Wow! That's not what I expected. I wonder if that's right. How can I verify to make sure it is?

 

[318willrun]

TT5.9mag --------- 16.90
jrc4y4 -------------- 15.30
dirty white boy-----15.15
71GSSDemon ----- 15.00
Sharpone ---------- 14.85
Killer6----------------14.81
69conv---------------14.80
496 polara --------- 14.78
Turbo440Dart ----- 14.70
70SwingerGuy------14.65
Mopar44134--------14.605
mopowers---------- 14.53
Curious Duster ---- 14.50
red67gts ----------- 14.40
MOPARMAGA ------ 14.32
a-bodyguy --------- 14.319
67/6barracuda ---- 14.20
skep419 ------------ 14.12
junkyardhero ------ 14.00
440 Mike ----------- 13.90
fishmen67 --------- 13.80
sr71mopar---------- 13.75
273 ----------------- 13.70
Garrett Ellison------13.58
331MP ------------- 13.40
Illahe——————— 13.30
RustyRatRod ------ 13.016

 

[Illahe]

If you could show me testing and data ( more than one set of data points) that verifies this conclusion I would be more inclined to believe it. Especially if it defies industry wide accepted results. A common saying among researchers is extraordinary results require extraordinary proof.

92b said; "A common saying among researchers is extraordinary results require extraordinary proof."

I was just watching a special on the NHRA channel about this exact subject: Wayne County...

 

[318willrun]

I now want more tin grills. Here is mine at the Dyno

 

[Garrett Ellison]

Thats not it right there. I spent over 5 years at a shop with a wheel dyno and we used it almost every day.

Once I figured out how the numbers worked on that I could get within a couple of tenths what a car would run.

Especially if I ported and flowed the heads and Cam Motion ground the cam.

And that was using the Moroso slide rule calculator.

If you understand the numbers and you k Im about the chassis you can take honest dyno numbers and get very close to what the car will run.

And thats with a wheel dyno where I had to figure in tire slip and converter loss. We built a dyno car that we started using so we could run a tight converter and take that part out of the equation.

Dyno’s dont lie. People lie, make errors and dont learn for themselves how the tool works.

The dyno, any dyno is a calibrated tool (it should be calibrated) when used correctly is very accurate.

The sad thing is the dyno and the dyno operator are getting heat for a car not performing when it’s not the dyno that is wrong.

This is an end user issue.

Well, the simple FACT is, no one knows what it will run ...and that's what makes it fun!

I had actually intended to edit Rusty’s original quote in like manner. I agree that if you’re using a properly calibrated and operated dynamometer and paying for the testing, then you should be maximizing your investment by tuning and modifying to replicate the results get the most out of it, even if that requires putting the engine onto the dyno as it’s going to be installed in the vehicle to get the actual as installed hp reading. And you should be able to predict the et & mph with a good degree of certainty with that information and make adjustments accordingly.
But, being this engine is probably never going to make it onto a dyno before going into the truck, that does make for more of a guess here. I’ll go as far to admit that my guess is a typo made by sausage fingering the touch screen of what I was originally trying to post, but I thought it’d be more fun to own it and didn’t want to edit it.