26 replies to this topic

[Richard Astacio]

Jim, 

 

  I noticed the HP and Torque ratings on your motors, and I was under the impression that the VVT motors had a bit more torque therefore they pull out of the corners a little better than the 99, I am not second guessing you, I am just trying to educate myself.  

Or are these just the Hp ratings and they can range between those numbers?

 

Here is what I found:

 

01/05 engines 127/129 hp dynojet sae $6500.00
99/00 engines 128/130 hp dynojet sae $6500.00
94/97 engines 124/126 hp dynojet sae $5950.00
90/93 engines 123/124 hp dynojet sae $5950.00

[James York]

Yes you are correct.  VVT motors have more torque (peak).

 

The numbers you are quoting are NOT HP/TQ.  They are HP range (hi/low)...  I sure hope a 1.6 does not make 124 TQ. (talk about an overdog!)

 

Jim is saying the HP range will typically fall between those two numbers above.  The TQ values are around 120 for a 99 and 125 for a VVT, give or take.

[Jim Drago]

 
Here is what I found: fixed for you
 
01/05 engines 127/130 hp and 124-126 Ft Lbs TQ dynojet sae 
99/00 engines 128/131 hp and 120-122 Ft Lbs TQ dynojet sae   

 

 

[Richard Astacio]

Thanks.

[rayce13]

dumb newbie question, are the numbers above at the wheels or crank and if at the crank, what is "standard" factor for reducing to actual wheel HP?  I am confused by a lot of the numbers floating around and the common assumptions to reach them.

[Steve Scheifler]

Note that they are quoted Dynojet sae (corrected), meaning at the wheels on a Dynojet chassis dyno and corrected for environmental conditions to the sae standards.

[Tom Sager]

I believe that the 94/97 numbers posted are 2016 numbers with restrictor plate.  Under current rules (no restrictor plate) the horsepower is increased about 5-6 HP.

[BlueJay73]

Are these numbers with or without a restrictor plate?

Without, I hope!

[rayce13]

Thanks! 

[callumhay]

I've always thought the numbers are with restrictor plate.

Also have understood that having 120 + hp in any car will get you a car that you should be able to be in the front pack of a decent size field and achieve the goal of it being about skill. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but the calculation of weight in the 1990-1993 cars does not assume these cars have as much as 120 hp. The high 120 numbers are pro motor getting the last bit out of the engine to make up that last second (s) or fraction of a second to be at the top. Also the hp numbers are going to change from Dyno to Dyno so some understanding of that is important.

[chris haldeman]

Numbers are with plate on Jim's dyno. His is a high reader others read low. My personal car has been on many dyno's and I've seen more than a 12hp difference from time to time. My new dynojet reads atleast 2-3 lower than my old dyno. Number are for comparison only

[JRMarchand]

Talking to Chris H before the runoffs, we both agreed that Dragos dyno is on the high side for sure,  mine has always been 7-9hp < than Dragos and Chris is seeing 4hp< than Drago.  We all have the same dynojet( 224xlc) but none of our numbers correlate.   Ralph uses the same dyno that I have and our numbers are spot on as we have shared some info over the years. 

 

One thing is that Drago may or may not have the alignment on the car while on the dyno,   I think he mightve once said to run zero toe and maybe camber straight up and that is how maybe the numbers are higher on his dyno.  

 

The other factor may be what tires are being used and psi,  I normally run very used R7's @ 40psi but pretty sure numbers would be higher with a passenger threaded tire.  I will do back to back  as good as possible, of dyno with and without alignment and R7 vs a sumitomo (same circumference)

 

my 96 with fresh bottom and XF head did average 123.5 and 115, but sure as shit did not feel that way at indy. 

 

Maybe Jim can tell us if he in fact is using a passenger tire with 700 treadwear and no alignment on the dyno, ))       thank you

[Bench Racer]

And then we have the Dyno-Pack which mounts to the hubs. Over the years as the software was changed my Dyno-Pack numbers changed on my car. As someone stated earlier, use same dyno and the numbers are for comparison.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

I think the 1.6 needs a little more umph

[Caveman-kwebb99]

I think the 1.6 needs a little more umph

[Danica Davison]

Drago just makes his read higher so it looks better on mazdaracers when he puts the numbers up there

[Bench Racer]

I think the 1.6 needs a little more umph

MAN, don't start this $hit, they'll think your my ghost writer. Yer beaching which makes me ask, have you been on track with your 1.6 fully prepped? Or do we need Jason (speed engineer) to school you.  

[Danica Davison]

MAN, don't start this $hit, they'll think your my ghost writer. Yer beaching which makes me ask, have you been on track with your 1.6 fully prepped? Or do we need Jason (speed engineer) to school you.

 

Man I tell you what ... I saw how fast Jason's car was first hand at Indy. Very fast 1.6! I thought my car was down on power

 

(No ... I am not calling him a cheater)

[Steve Scheifler]

Man I tell you what ... I saw how fast Jason's car was first hand at Indy. Very fast 1.6! I thought my car was down on power

(No ... I am not calling him a cheater)

Is anyone still saying the 1.6 got too much help and is an overdog? I wish there had been a few more with good drivers at Indy but I expected Jason to be closer.

[Danica Davison]

Is anyone still saying the 1.6 got too much help and is an overdog? I wish there had been a few more with good drivers at Indy but I expected Jason to be closer.

 

Idk ... but it did what 1.6 and 1.8NA things do when it gets hot and slowed down after a few laps