The thing I don't get is that i understand how you can get same or a slight increase in hp with less fuel by being more efficient but how do you make more power without bring in more oxygen . If your gizmo adds that much more of a complete burn in the chamber won't that make an extremely rich condition if no extra oxygen is brought in to the process ??
How Gearing Effects HP from 1-3rd in 727's
- Thread starter 70DusterBob
- Start date
-
Or to say it in another way almost every power mod we do that especially with those kinds of increasing are by added more oxygen into the process first which then allows more fuel to keep proper fuel to air ratio. Eg.. carb size, intake, breathers, heads, cam, exhaust, turbos, blowers, nos etc all add oxygen as there primary function and fuel is add to balance out to maintain proper ratios.
frosty_the_punk
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2010
- Messages
- 785
- Reaction score
- 202
Interesting to point out, and i get what you are saying but it's not very relevant since i wasn't talking about acceleration through an engine's RPM range.
I was talking about and 84 horsepower gain @ 2600RPM. which is what OP claimed his device achieved.
The only way a set of wheels can accelerate when the engine is doing a constant 2600RPM and making 84hp is when a variable speed transmisssion is used. and in this case it wasn't.
So i'm happy to leave acceleration out of this discussion.
Back to OP's original question.
Let's say you have an engine with 100hp @ 2600 for example. and a theoretical transmission gear ratio of 12:1 (first gear on a torqueflite is 2.54:1 for a relative comparison) and you will make HUGE torque at the wheels but as everyone knows you aren't going to go very fast in low gear @ 2600RPM. the tires aren't going to be turning SUPER slow. with a gear ratio of 12:1 and they will be very powerful, this is because torque has been multiplied by use of a low gear ratio.
But lots of torque doesn't mean lots of horsepower, you need to have both lots of torque AND lots of RPM to have lots of horsepower.
You see, because those tires are turning so slow. the horsepower at the wheels is still the same 100hp.
This is because the speed at which the tires turn, and the amount of torque they have are BOTH what is measured when finding out how much horsepower they have.
Another way to look at it is hammering in a nail.
You can hit the nail as hard as you can, swinging the hammer as high as you can, and pounding the living hell out of the head of that nail.
But that is going to be slow.
Or you can give the nail lots of taps that are just hard enough so that the nail is moving into the timber.
both methods get the job done, and both take the same amount of effort/energy/power.
It's the same with torque and RPM, except they are measurements for rotating objects like an engine's crankshaft or a car's wheel.
Torque is how much strength the rotating object is able to apply. like how hard you hit the nail.
Rpm is how often you hit the nail.
If you hit the nail REALLY hard, REALLY often, that means you have a lot of HORSEPOWER
yellow rose
Overnight Sensation
Interesting to point out, and i get what you are saying but it's not very relevant since i wasn't talking about acceleration through an engine's RPM range.
I was talking about and 84 horsepower gain @ 2600RPM. which is what OP claimed his device achieved.
The only way a set of wheels can accelerate when the engine is doing a constant 2600RPM and making 84hp is when a variable speed transmisssion is used. and in this case it wasn't.
So i'm happy to leave acceleration out of this discussion.
Back to OP's original question.
Let's say you have an engine with 100hp @ 2600 for example. and a theoretical transmission gear ratio of 12:1 (first gear on a torqueflite is 2.54:1 for a relative comparison) and you will make HUGE torque at the wheels but as everyone knows you aren't going to go very fast in low gear @ 2600RPM. the tires aren't going to be turning SUPER slow. with a gear ratio of 12:1 and they will be very powerful, this is because torque has been multiplied by use of a low gear ratio.
But lots of torque doesn't mean lots of horsepower, you need to have both lots of torque AND lots of RPM to have lots of horsepower.
You see, because those tires are turning so slow. the horsepower at the wheels is still the same 100hp.
This is because the speed at which the tires turn, and the amount of torque they have are BOTH what is measured when finding out how much horsepower they have.
Another way to look at it is hammering in a nail.
You can hit the nail as hard as you can, swinging the hammer as high as you can, and pounding the living hell out of the head of that nail.
But that is going to be slow.
Or you can give the nail lots of taps that are just hard enough so that the nail is moving into the timber.
both methods get the job done, and both take the same amount of effort/energy/power.
It's the same with torque and RPM, except they are measurements for rotating objects like an engine's crankshaft or a car's wheel.
Torque is how much strength the rotating object is able to apply. like how hard you hit the nail.
Rpm is how often you hit the nail.
If you hit the nail REALLY hard, REALLY often, that means you have a lot of HORSEPOWER
I put acceleration into the discussion because that is the way the dyno he used measures torque. How fast it accelerates a load. So the same TQ and a lower gear (lower ratio, higher numerically) the engine WILL turn the drums quicker and we all know that time is HP. So it very much figures into the discussion considering the OP's testing methods.
Here's a true story that is somewhat relevant, and quite interesting. Back in 1981 (I remember because it was my senior year in HS) I was talking to the local speedway track champ, two or three years running. He is a friend of my dad and owned a wrecking yard back in the day when you could actually get something cool out of one.
Anyway, we were discussing engine dynos as he was getting ready to put one on the pump. He wasn't excited because as he told me, we may make more HP on the pump, that won't assure me it's faster in the car. Hell, two engines with 500 HP on the same dyno can and will have much different lap times, even if the torque and RPM range is the same. Then he said the most thought changing thing to me I'd heard up to that time, and for many years to come. He said a dyno will not measure an engines ability to rev. I about fell over. A conventional dyno that uses a water brake won't measure the ability to rev. And that's a big deal. Also, I learned later that BSFC is an important number and that accounts for some of why two engines with the same power can have incredibly different ET's.
You have to be able to measure the ability to rev. A chassis dyno does this. You can learn a lot, if you have a dyno operator who knows what he is doing.
BTW, at one time Mike Laws built a dyno that was an inertia dyno for engines. I think they are still being made. Almost had one. But a crook and shyster came along and went down a rabbit hole. You know who you are if you are reading this. PM me if you have the hair on your ***.
Ok , back to the regularly scheduled fun and games.
then you get to the track and car weight, corner weights, suspension tune, torque converter stall come into play. Between 3 converters and a gear change I'm honing in on a decent combo with the help of a Racepak Sportsman. Have tons to learn.
yellow rose
Overnight Sensation
AJ/FormS
68 Formua-S fastback clone 367/A833/GVod/3.55s
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2014
- Messages
- 24,956
- Reaction score
- 12,306
Well here's something;
Say you have an engine EDIT; a theoretical engine, on an engine dyno and its putting out a 84hp at 2600. And you hold it there. But suppose that engine was running pretty fat, and so you started pulling out fuel. And so the rpm rises,cuz the engine gets to putting out more torque. So you load the engine up some more, so we get the rpm back down to 2600,and now shes putting out 94hp, but she's still fat. So you repeat as often as necessary until the power drops off and eventually she tops out at 100hp@2600. That would be a 100/84=1.19 or a 19% increase in horsepower,wouldn't it?
No it wouldn't, the engine was actually suffering from a 84/100=.84 or, 1 minus .84 = a 16% power loss due to a fat mixture.
So if the engine on a chassis-dyno was thus handicapped and and it went from fat to correct during the tip-in, well, you can see where this is going.....
Some of our street engines have to be fat at lower rpms to stay running down there..And some are fat for other reasons. But by 2600 there's no excuse for that.Even a pretty big street cam like the 292/508/108, in a 360, vacuum peaks below 2600, so can be leaned out to where it needs to be, quite a bit before 2600. I think mine vacuum peaked at about 2000/2200.That was in year 2000.
Say you have an engine EDIT; a theoretical engine, on an engine dyno and its putting out a 84hp at 2600. And you hold it there. But suppose that engine was running pretty fat, and so you started pulling out fuel. And so the rpm rises,cuz the engine gets to putting out more torque. So you load the engine up some more, so we get the rpm back down to 2600,and now shes putting out 94hp, but she's still fat. So you repeat as often as necessary until the power drops off and eventually she tops out at 100hp@2600. That would be a 100/84=1.19 or a 19% increase in horsepower,wouldn't it?
No it wouldn't, the engine was actually suffering from a 84/100=.84 or, 1 minus .84 = a 16% power loss due to a fat mixture.
So if the engine on a chassis-dyno was thus handicapped and and it went from fat to correct during the tip-in, well, you can see where this is going.....
Some of our street engines have to be fat at lower rpms to stay running down there..And some are fat for other reasons. But by 2600 there's no excuse for that.Even a pretty big street cam like the 292/508/108, in a 360, vacuum peaks below 2600, so can be leaned out to where it needs to be, quite a bit before 2600. I think mine vacuum peaked at about 2000/2200.That was in year 2000.
Last edited:
RAMM
Well-Known Member
Aside from sweep rates, if you really study the dyno servo position/percentage as it controls the engine you can get a pretty good idea of how strong the engine really is. Using the playback function along with the tone of the engine also helps form a better opinion of the engine's rev-ability.
Also a thought on BSAC--I find BSAC a really good indicator of "trapping effeciency". Engines that make big power but have BSAC's in the high 6's-7's is going to be a mutt. Insert best Forrest Gump impression here--"And that's all I'm going to say about that" J.Rob
70DusterBob
Well-Known Member
There are a lot of replies here over the weekend. This is the reason I am going with a different dyno shop and operator. I didn't put my foot in it to know just how fast or slow the operator did it, so I think you are right that the rate his foot hit the floor makes all the difference.
Starting at 1000 RPM and flooring it within 1/2 a second, the rate would still be in question unless a machine did it exactly the same on all the pulls. But this test is to see if there is a difference, approximately how much is it, not precisely down to .5 hp. I am getting a substantial boost in HP and TQ out of the device. It is not yet possible for me to get an engine dyno test yet.
The results of an 84 hp boost were during acceleration from 2,000 to 4,000+ Rpm. At 2,600 it was 84 greater HP and 50 if I remember right, greater Torque. This could only come from two things, better atomization or the guy hit the peddle faster, dumping more fuel, which it was still better atomized, but also influenced by the rate at which the peddle hit the floor. I'm going to go for a different dyno, different operator, and test from 1000 to 4000 in 1st gear to see what the difference is in Mid to late Dec...
I understand everyone's doubt, and I'm not trying to state absolute facts here. I'm trying to figure out what happened so I can know where I stand with this thing. But I do know it definitely pulls stronger with it than with out it, and I mean "A Lot"! I will post when I get the results from the low to high end test, rather than a mid to high end test that was all dependent on someone else's foot.
Thanks
He stated his gizmo added 84hp at the wheels 2600rpm which he stated equals a 35% increase in horsepower at 2600rpm though....
Using these numbers means his engine started out with about 240rwhp and ended up with 324rwhp(240hp x 35% = 84hp / 240 + 84 = 324hp).
This means using his numbers his 360 would have 654ft/pounds of torque at 2600rpm according to the math using the hp and rpm numbers after he added his gizmo. Before his gizmo his engine would have had 484ft/lbs of torque at the rear wheels.
I would love to have a 360 that is capable of these outrageous numbers at 2600 rpm without his gizmo. Just imagine the numbers it would produce as the rpm rises.
Add the Gizmo and watch out.... even the 405 could be in trouble...
An 84hp increase at 2600rpm = 169.68ft/lb increase in torque at 2600rpm. They go hand in hand.
Btw what is stall speed of your torque convertor?
yellow rose
Overnight Sensation
You said enough that you should send out a bill! It's little things like this that get blown over, but have an incredible value, just like BSAC does.
Following RAMM's best Forrest Gump "And that is all I'm going to say about that too".
IIRC high BSAF and VE can indicate your cam may need a wider LSA or a few other things.
"And that is all I'm going to say about that too".
yellow rose
Overnight Sensation
AJ/FormS
68 Formua-S fastback clone 367/A833/GVod/3.55s
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2014
- Messages
- 24,956
- Reaction score
- 12,306
This is getting more and more interesting with every new post! Well, except for mine.
70DusterBob
Well-Known Member
Here are the dyno results so you guys will stop coming up with strange figures...
This is what I'm looking at, now you are too.
On the last run, the one that got the 84hp increase, the dyno sensor quit working at 2800 RPM. I could see the guy not stepping on it exactly the same way once or twice, but there was always an increase with one of the two protos on it. The run labled "Proto_001" was the first proto. The run labeled "Proto2_001" and "Proto2_002" were with the second, better designed proto.
Now please don't go saying that the because the sensor quit at 2800 RPM that it was faulty. He said it had gotten dirty and he had to clean it and it worked fine again. Besides, there was still a 72hp increase on the first run with the second proto.
Does this help?
This is what I'm looking at, now you are too.
On the last run, the one that got the 84hp increase, the dyno sensor quit working at 2800 RPM. I could see the guy not stepping on it exactly the same way once or twice, but there was always an increase with one of the two protos on it. The run labled "Proto_001" was the first proto. The run labeled "Proto2_001" and "Proto2_002" were with the second, better designed proto.
Now please don't go saying that the because the sensor quit at 2800 RPM that it was faulty. He said it had gotten dirty and he had to clean it and it worked fine again. Besides, there was still a 72hp increase on the first run with the second proto.
Does this help?
Sure. It clearly shows the engine is running extremely lean on it's baseline run which skews all of the results and information you have told us. According to what I see those results aren't worth anything. First you need to start with a properly tuned engine as a baseline, not one that is so lean it's in the danger zone. Until you do that, throw away those results and completely retest everything your claims don't mean squat.
The A/F sensor was working fine, it got so lean it couldn't measure anything leaner. Of course adding fuel increased power dramatically because of this. Your test results for hp and torque match what that A/F sensor is reading. Dirty sensors don't read too much oxygen.
Last edited:
myduster360
Well-Known Member
tbd
70DusterBob
Well-Known Member
The sensor I was talking about was the sensor in the drum that determined the speed of the drum. That what I was talking about. It stopped reading at 2800rpm, on the second proto run. If you look at the HP and Torque 2nd proto run, you will see it just stops at 2800rpm. You don't get 84 horses out of a lean engine just because it is lean. I put something on it. It made a difference. Why are you so vehemently against any positive results?
I have fixed the carb. It was running lean, the cork grommets that go around the air/fuel screws had shrunken due to their age and heat. I replaced them, put the screws right back where they were and it wouldn't even idle. So I know this. I fixed it, plus the timing was retarded. I adjusted it, and the carb correctly, it is ready for another test. I am going to make another run in December.
This was to settle the disputes where people were saying my engine ran stock better than any hot rod motor ever existed. It ran normal. Yeah it was lean, but if you would notice, after I put the proto on, it became more rich. Not perfect, but it was way lean. Now I'm ready for a good test.
I'm not against positive results I'm against inaccurate testing and obvious skewed results. Yes an engine can run lean enough to lose 84hp it can lose more then that especially if the timing isn't even correct. For this to be an accurate test that doesn't mislead others your carb and tune needs to be spot on. You need to nail the correct air/fuel ratio in your baseline test for any further testing is done. You say it's fixed, have you tested it unload on a dyno or with an A/F gauge to verify this? If not you will need to do this when you establish your baseline so your test results are accurate instead of be skewed and misleading. I would hate to see an investor waste there money based on inaccurate testing and baseline runs.
Judging by what I see on your dyno runs you provided simply correcting you A/F ratio and tune will exceed the gains you experienced. I have first hand experience running a dyno and tuning many cars. This is why I think you feel I'm so vehemently against any positive results, want to see accurate results done at a professional level if you have a device that actually works. I can stand it when tests are inaccurate yet are used to promote sales thus duping fellow enthusiasts and investors that don't understand what they are seeing.
I actually feel you don't fully understand what you are seeing in your dyno results and are unknowingly providing misleading information. When this thread started you actually thought horsepower was increased in different gears when in reality it's a simple math problem. You still want to test from 1000rpm and up on a chassis dyno. That puts you below the stall speed of the torque convertor. This will also effect your results.
I would recommend having a shop do basically independent testing and tuning while you just oversee the results and insure your product is properly installed. There is a ton of other information good dyno testing can provide that this test doesn't show. Things like BSFC, VE%, BSAC and more. All of these readings will accurately show the changes your product creates and should be incorporated into your test results to help prove the validity of your claims.
70DusterBob
Well-Known Member
That's fair. I am no chassis dyno expert. But, I have been working on vaporizing fuel for decades. I know this thing works, the problem is proving it on a budget. The local Research Firm wants $30,000 to evaluate it on multiple levels, emissions, hp, torque, you name it, they test it, but I don't have $30,000. Heck my house is worth $60,000! I can get the air fuel mixtures tested and set at idle, but I really don't trust the dyno I last took it too. In Spring, I had just taken it to an official State Inspection Station to get the emissions tested and the emissions equipment said it was running rich. 8 months later I take it to this dyno shop and it says it is so lean it should have burned the engine up! I don't know how quickly those grommets at the air/fuel screws can go bad or leak, but that seems awfully strange to me. The operator/owner of the dyno told me he wasn't sure how quickly his foot hit the throttle, like to me, if you "own" a dyno, you should know how fast your foot hits the accelerator. Isn't that part of the job?? He had tools and car parts all over the floor, all over the place, could barely walk around in there because of all the parts and tools lying around. Totally unprofessional.
I haven't had a chance to run the car with the proto after I adjusted the air/fuel and the timing. I don't even know any reliable shops around here that do work on these old cars. A lot of them profess to, but most of them don't know what they are doing. I will have to scour the local area and find someone with a oxy sensor that can tell me when the idle is correct. That will put me on a good playing field. Then when I go to the much more professional shop, I can have them dyno tune it without the proto for a good baseline. Then put it on. But shouldn't I have it tuned again once I put it on? It seems to me that the change in air flow would throw the balance of timing and air/fuel mixture off, right? Also, most of the power gain is in the lower RPM range. What is a good RPM to start the test at with a stock torque converter?
I understand why you would not like to see someone trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes. I am trying to figure out how to prove this device works, but I have to do it on a guitar string budget, unfortunately.
I appreciate your last post. I am trying to figure out how to get some good results. That was $390 up in smoke on that last set of tests.
Any advice is appreciated.
I´m no dyno expert but aren't you mixing up your HP and torque numbers?
70DusterBob
Well-Known Member
Mannnnnn. You are freakin' right. I asked the dip wad dyno owner operator which was which and he told me *** backwards. Daymn... Now I really look like a goof ball. ugh...
Sorry to be such a pain in the A. But like I said, I know practically nothing about dynos. Apparently that operator doesn't either...
Thanks for pointing that out. I appreciate it.
No problem hopefully that solves some of the confusion.
-
