Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Car Chat => Topic started by: Webby the Bear on 14 January 2017, 17:36:39
-
Hi boys. Not been around for a while as I mentioned last time works so busy.
So got the old girl booked in with Northampton Motorsport for two weeks time. Someone on here recommended them so thanks for that.
I've spoken to them and they've assured me they can dyno test it being an auto box no problem. So out of interest how will they do this without a tech2? Well, that said they may have one who knows.
Anyways..... predictions..... ;D
-
165 bhp and about 195lb/ft, oh and about 9.5 seconds :D
Edited, as I forget it's actually a 2.5 ::)
-
Ps to add re the history of the motor....
It's clicked over (today coincidentally) to 117k miles. I got it with 69k in 09 on the clock and an unknown service history. Ever since then its had oil changes every 3-5k. All other items serviced every 6 months or so.
Sometime ago TB drove it and said it was a bit underpowered. I then found a fault with the multi ram that I fixed. I then started driving it a lot harder and the gearbox drops a cog at will now.
I then took it to serek who thought it was "quite nippy" for an omega.
I've tested compression and all cylinders are within spec. I've done vacuum tests and not a hint of exhaust blockage or anything untoward.
To tell the truth the only issues I've had in the last few years is cam cover gaskets.
-
135 bhp and about 165lb/ft, oh and about 10.5 seconds :D
After doing quite a bit of research on this I think you're about right :y
Pray tell though why you think that. Bearing in mind that it had 170 out of the factory
-
135 bhp and about 165lb/ft, oh and about 10.5 seconds :D
After doing quite a bit of research on this I think you're about right :y
Pray tell though why you think that. Bearing in mind that it had 170 out of the factory
See above :-[
:D
-
135 bhp and about 165lb/ft, oh and about 10.5 seconds :D
After doing quite a bit of research on this I think you're about right :y
Pray tell though why you think that. Bearing in mind that it had 170 out of the factory
See above :-[
:D
lol I'm thinking you were closer with your first answer ;D
But we will see. Out of interest have we seen any other non modified autos on the dyno, results etc? I can't be the first nutcase to take their slow unmodded sh*t box to the dyno..... can I? ;D ;D ;D
-
135 bhp and about 165lb/ft, oh and about 10.5 seconds :D
After doing quite a bit of research on this I think you're about right :y
Pray tell though why you think that. Bearing in mind that it had 170 out of the factory
The dyno measures the power at the wheels. Vauxhall's figure is at the flywheel. There's a big difference! And 40hp loss from a well-used automatic transmission (and the rest of the drivetrain) would be reasonable.
While you're there, get them to show you what other cars make on the same machine, as a single figure won't tell you anything useful.
-
135 bhp and about 165lb/ft, oh and about 10.5 seconds :D
After doing quite a bit of research on this I think you're about right :y
Pray tell though why you think that. Bearing in mind that it had 170 out of the factory
The dyno measures the power at the wheels. Vauxhall's figure is at the flywheel. There's a big difference! And 40hp loss from a well-used automatic transmission (and the rest of the drivetrain) would be reasonable.
While you're there, get them to show you what other cars make on the same machine, as a single figure won't tell you anything useful.
Will do nick cheers :y
Did Vauxhall ever give a figure at the wheels as I couldn't find one?
-
Will do nick cheers :y
Did Vauxhall ever give a figure at the wheels as I couldn't find one?
I doubt it. Why would anyone care? ;) Especially as they don't publish the torque curve, which would actually be of some use.
-
Yeah I couldn't find it anywhere.
If you had to guess (to give me some basis) what do you think would have been the HP at the wheels from a brand new 2.5?
-
Before you take it, give it a service, plugsx6 new air filter, New fuel filter, oil change and filter, and new leads., clean throttle bodies, gearbox oil change, should do.
-
If you can wait few weeks will come with you
-
Before you take it, give it a service, plugsx6 new air filter, New fuel filter, oil change and filter, and new leads., clean throttle bodies, gearbox oil change, should do.
Well ahead of you bg lol all done last week. Well, except the gearbox fluid. But did that 6 months ago. :y
-
If you can wait few weeks will come with you
Yeah I can rearrange mate. Pm me your number cos my phone broke last night and I got no numbers at all :'(
-
Ps is EMD still on the forum? Could get Martin and steve up and we can
all laugh when my car blows up on the dyno all celebrate when it produces over 300hp :y
-
Do all dyno read the same or can the figures be 'massaged'?
Webby's particular example probably throws out the same power and torque as a 1966 Austin Cambridge.......and then there is Mr Bear's bulk to be added to the equation. ::) 8) 8)
-
Do all dyno read the same or can the figures be 'massaged'?
No, all dyno operators are straight up, honest, cherry tree growers who would never consider adjusting their results. Never. Not until the customer turns up, at least ;D
-
Regarding my bulk I can confirm I have dropped a good stone and half since doing this for a living. However still very much a portly Bear. I blame my over active pie-roid :-\ :-\ ;D
Anyways....
If I brought in my remapped 16 plate mustang then I see a benefit from giving me some great stats to talk about down the pub.
However I'll have a chat to him and basically explain I'm not looking for stats to massage my ego (hardly going to happen with a 16 year old mig) and to tell him I won't be upset if it under performs, just do it honestly and see what we get. :y :y :y
So having researched it seems to be that 15% for a manual and 25% for auto is the magic figure when comparing BHP and WHP.
-
Regarding my bulk I can confirm I have dropped a good stone and half since doing this for a living. However still very much a portly Bear. I blame my over active pie-roid :-\ :-\ ;D
So having researched it seems to be that 15% for a manual and 25% for auto is the magic figure when comparing BHP and WHP.
I don't know how much I've lost since I started working again, but my trousers are so much looser I have had to punch new holes in all my belts. It's got to be 3 or 4 kilos.
A 25% loss is a common figure for autos, which would be about 40hp in this case. I wouldn't expect a modern fully managed engine to be noticeably down on power, even with a lot of miles on it.
-
Thanks Nick. So doing the maths the 2.5 when new would have produced 127.5 WHP. So this is the magic figure from the dyno.
As I've never had a dyno run done before... is there any questions that would be useful to ask?
-
Thanks Nick. So doing the maths the 2.5 when new would have produced 127.5 WHP. So this is the magic figure from the dyno.
As I've never had a dyno run done before... is there any questions that would be useful to ask?
Yes, have they anchored it down securely. ;D Don't want it flying off the dyno at full tilt. :)
Look forward to your findings, whatever the results. :y
-
Thanks Nick. So doing the maths the 2.5 when new would have produced 127.5 WHP. So this is the magic figure from the dyno.
As I've never had a dyno run done before... is there any questions that would be useful to ask?
Who gets to clean up the mess if it blows up?
-
Thanks Nick. So doing the maths the 2.5 when new would have produced 127.5 WHP. So this is the magic figure from the dyno.
As I've never had a dyno run done before... is there any questions that would be useful to ask?
Who gets to clean up the mess if it blows up?
EMD and TMF for encouraging him :D
-
;D ;D ;D cheers YZ :y
Following the 0-60 thread I've now finally understood it's not only impossible to recreate the conditions of the run but also that different folk at Vauxhall were telling me different things (i.e. One guy told me they do the run two up with x amount of fuel etc. Another said one driver, everything removed to make as light as possible etc. So as you all said (and I should have listened :-[) its all 'dangle berries' at best. A made up figure entirely I'm guessing.
Anyways now I have a tangible goal I'm excited.
I don't know how it will work in terms of them locking the tranny. But I presume it won't be in sports mode when they do it as it will always want to kick down? Anyone have an idea how they're going to do it?
-
Thanks Nick. So doing the maths the 2.5 when new would have produced 127.5 WHP. So this is the magic figure from the dyno.
As I've never had a dyno run done before... is there any questions that would be useful to ask?
Who gets to clean up the mess if it blows up?
If it blows up I'll stick a 3.0 in it. That will put a smile on tb's face at least :) :y
-
Thanks Nick. So doing the maths the 2.5 when new would have produced 127.5 WHP. So this is the magic figure from the dyno.
As I've never had a dyno run done before... is there any questions that would be useful to ask?
Who gets to clean up the mess if it blows up?
If it blows up I'll stick a 3.0 in it. That will put a smile on tb's face at least :) :y
Or save up for a 2016 5.0 v8 'stang :-X
-
I don't know how it will work in terms of them locking the tranny. But I presume it won't be in sports mode when they do it as it will always want to kick down? Anyone have an idea how they're going to do it?
Perhaps they'll move the shifter to 1 so it will stay in first gear?
-
I don't know how it will work in terms of them locking the tranny. But I presume it won't be in sports mode when they do it as it will always want to kick down? Anyone have an idea how they're going to do it?
Perhaps they'll move the shifter to 1 so it will stay in first gear?
Oh I thought they had to lock it in fourth?
I don't really know anyway so I'll just wait for them to do it ;D
-
Thanks Nick. So doing the maths the 2.5 when new would have produced 127.5 WHP. So this is the magic figure from the dyno.
As I've never had a dyno run done before... is there any questions that would be useful to ask?
Who gets to clean up the mess if it blows up?
EMD and TMF for encouraging him :D
Ah dont want to see that engine blow up again after the last time id did :P I can see it now or should i say hear the squealing of the bottom end when it hits the rev limit :-X
Not heard from Martin for a while steve ;)
-
So I understand that horse power is for top speed. And torque is for acceleration. So what was the original torque of the 2.5? And is this more the figure to look at? Do we expect this to be equal or around equal compared to original torque figure?
-
Be around 200lbft, less gearbox tax :-\
-
So that's 200lbft at the flywheel. Minus the "drivetrain loss"
-
Officially, 168bhp and 167lbft, so I suspect 140-150 on both at the wheels :-\
-
HP = (RPM * Torque) / 5252
So if you get a pretty graph, check that HP line crosses the Torque line between 5200-5300 RPM. If it doesn't then something is wrong (the operator is fudging the results!).
For a N/A petrol car, torque is usually flat-ish from around 2000 rpm to about 5000 rpm. Therefore, as the RPM rises, the power output rises fairly linearly between 2K and 5K RPM. Power usually reaches a peak somewhere around 5500 RPM because the torque curve starts to decline above 5K RPM quicker than the RPM is increasing.
Torque is basically determined by the amount of air you can get into the cylinder (hence the saying that there is no replacement for displacement) - For your car is 2.5L/6 times the VE (Volumetric Efficiency) of the engine. VE is a measure of how good the inlet and exhaust manifold design are at allowing air into and out of the cylinder. At low RPM there is plenty of time for the cylinder to fill with air. As the RPM increases there becomes les and less time for the air to enter (and exhaust to exit) the cylinder, so VE starts to tail off above a certain RPM, and this is what causes torque to decrease. You can tune the inlet/exhaust to try and improve VE (which is effectively what the multi-ram bagpipes is), but if tuning is taken to extremes it tends to result in a very peaky torque curve, and a big spikes in BHP at certain revs.
A nice wide flat torque curve makes for excellent drivability and acceleration. However, maximum BHP is achieved by tuning everything to produce a spike in the torque curve. You may win a Top Trumps bragging war with higher BHP by doing this, but in the real world the car with the flat torque curve will pi$$ all over you.
-
Which is why the smaller 2.2 dti produces as torque as the 3.2... VE being 0.55 plus turbo vs 0.533 8)
-
Had my 2.5 Elite RR'd and the resukts was quite impressive....
Operator got 235BHP FWP and 195BHP WHP :) was happy with that result....
This was after changing a few components etc... not a standard factory engine or heads....
-
thanks for input guys.
just to clarify in simple terms (so i dont get boggled with science) any loss between BHP and WHP will have the exact same loss (percentage) in torque (between flywheel torque and torque at the wheels)?
-
thanks for input guys.
just to clarify in simple terms (so i dont get boggled with science) any loss between BHP and WHP will have the exact same loss (percentage) in torque (between flywheel torque and torque at the wheels)?
Yes. The Dyno actually measures torque - the turning force that the tyres exert on the rollers. It can't measure power directly, and can't know where in the drivetrain the losses are occurring. The headline BHP figure is calculated by multiplying the torque on the rollers by the RPM of the rollers.
The usual way to measure losses in transmission is to rev the car up to red line on an unloaded roller and then lift off the throttle completely. If there were no losses, then the wheels would continue spinning at the same RPM for ever (that bloke Newton). However, in the real world the losses will cause the wheels to slow down, and the quicker they slow down the more the losses must be. The rate of slowdown can be converted to a power figure. Unfortunatley this isn't a perfect science, because there are losses in the engine which should be included in flywheel BHP which are cancelled out by the coastdown technique.
I've never really understood the obsession with flywheel BHP though. What really matters is available torque at the wheels over as wide RPM range as possible.
However, one tip that seems to work in getting good BHP figures is to pump the rear tyres up hard - 40psi. And make sure all your electric fans are working. :o
-
Had my 2.5 Elite RR'd and the resukts was quite impressive....
Operator got 235BHP FWP and 195BHP WHP :) was happy with that result....
This was after changing a few components etc... not a standard factory engine or heads....
235bhp from an originally 170bhp Omega engine? :o And you are not running any forced induction? If accurate, it's impressive indeed. Please do tell which mods you have made to your engine to get these figures. ;)
-
Had my 2.5 Elite RR'd and the resukts was quite impressive....
Operator got 235BHP FWP and 195BHP WHP :) was happy with that result....
This was after changing a few components etc... not a standard factory engine or heads....
235bhp from an originally 170bhp Omega engine? :o And you are not running any forced induction? If accurate, it's impressive indeed. Please do tell which mods you have made to your engine to get these figures. ;)
See, this is the sort of claim that rings alarm bells.
A 4 valve per cylinder NA engine will do very well to produce 90lb.ft per litre of capacity. Physics sets this limit, and we're talking race tuned engine here. For a road car engine, 80lb.ft/m is more like it. Even then, it's a trick engine on individual throttle bodies, not a plenum.
On that basis, then, a 2.5 will make a maximum of 200 lb.ft.
Factory specs say 167 ft.lb, so it's a bit off the theoretical maximum as we would expect for a production car. Anyway, let's say we tune it to get 200 lb.ft torque.
Maximum power always occurs well past the torque peak, especially on the V6 where the torque peaks quite low in the rev range. Let's say it's at 90% torque at maximum power. I suspect we're being generous here, but stay with me.
As LC0112 says, HP = (RPM * Torque) / 5252
Rearrange this and you get (HP * 5252) / Torque = RPM
If we plug the numbers in we see that our 2.5 will have to rev to 6856 RPM to produce 235 BHP. The factory rev limiter is around 6700. :o
If we try it with the manufacturer torque of 167, we get maximum power of 170 bhp at 5952 RPM, which is about right, so the maths looks plausible.
The final test would be to look at the dyno plot to see if the torque output defies the laws of physics and to see if power actually peaked at over 6800 RPM. If not, it's likely BS.
Look at any tuned NA engine where the output is genuinely substantially above standard and you'll see forged pistons, steel rods, lairy cams and it'll rev to kingdom come. This is because NA engines are basically torque limited and to make more power you have to make them rev higher.
It's so easy to fiddle the corrections on a rolling road for a "pub figure" but "Ye cannae change the laws of physics". ;)
-
I'm not in to the figures malarkey myself. If, hypothetically, I floored it off the lights and the car next to me outruns me, and I can't catch him, then he has a faster car. No maths involved there, quite ingenious really isn't it. :)
But ....Webby is an inquisitive chap so I look forward to his findings. :y
-
Kevin, to be fair to Minifreak, and perhaps in context he wasn't explicit enough... he did say not a factory standard engine, with modification...
If it's the engine I think it is, it's from a Vectra B racing series, so the rev limiter might be set a little higher , and the tune rather more aggressive ;)
-
For the record, I didn't mean to doubt him. I'm genuinely interesting in learning about the mods of his engine. :)
-
Kevin, to be fair to Minifreak, and perhaps in context he wasn't explicit enough... he did say not a factory standard engine, with modification...
If it's the engine I think it is, it's from a Vectra B racing series, so the rev limiter might be set a little higher , and the tune rather more aggressive ;)
I'm also not aware of the spec of Minifreak's engine so I didn't mean to cast doubt. I can see how my post could be read that way. I'm merely stating what the physics of a 2.5l engine producing that power are. If it's had cams, porting, an increased rev limit and so on, it's quite possible that that's a genuine figure.
For every genuine claim of the type, though, there are umpteen who have fitted a cone filter, blanked off the EGR, bored out the throttle body, fitted a 4 BAR fuel pressure regulator and de-catted it! ::)
-
Kevin, to be fair to Minifreak, and perhaps in context he wasn't explicit enough... he did say not a factory standard engine, with modification...
If it's the engine I think it is, it's from a Vectra B racing series, so the rev limiter might be set a little higher , and the tune rather more aggressive ;)
I'm also not aware of the spec of Minifreak's engine so I didn't mean to cast doubt. I can see how my post could be read that way. I'm merely stating what the physics of a 2.5l engine producing that power are. If it's had cams, porting, an increased rev limit and so on, it's quite possible that that's a genuine figure.
For every genuine claim of the type, though, there are umpteen who have fitted a cone filter, blanked off the EGR, bored out the throttle body, fitted a 4 BAR fuel pressure regulator and de-catted it! ::)
Wait, wait, wait! How much extra power would all that get you? At least 5bhp? ;D :P
I know what you mean. And dyno houses also exaggerate numbers to make the customer feel good.
-
Engine spec....
2.5 Litre V6 24valve blueprinted Vectra Challenge engine...
ECU remapped...
Pipercross cams x 4, basically reground G cams...
Heads ported polished and port matched to inlets... with slightly bigger valves...
Saab V6 injectors....
Ported and polished throttle body (made no difference TBH but meh...)
3.0 litre longnose plenum
Decatted with custom freeflow SS custom exhaust system with X pipe to balance exiting gasses.... (skiving system I believe its called)
EGR removed....
AC system removed...
3.0 bottom pulley (not quite as light as a Courtney alloy pulley but damn near)
RR figures might have been 'massaged' a bit, as it was done with another club at a RR day that they used to hold every couple of months.... but operator couldn't get the full power onto the rollers as the gearbox kept changing down a gear when he booted it to get the power figure, but by god he tried for almost an hour.... LOL
-
With that work done I could well believe it's accurate. :y
-
Dave Walker's web site has a nice article for those who want to discover the strengths and weaknesses of rolling road testing...
http://www.emeraldm3d.com/rolling-road (http://www.emeraldm3d.com/rolling-road)
-
Interesting read guys. Due to work commitments ive changed it to the 9th Feb.
As said I'll be having a word with the chap and stressing tat I don't want to be flattered. I want the true result.
so as to absorb all what's been said.....
The 167ftlb of torque at the fly wheel... does anyone know what rpm that's at? I'm assuming I'll see this figure (minus drivetrain loss) at the rpm that vx got it at?
-
Engine spec....
2.5 Litre V6 24valve blueprinted Vectra Challenge engine...
ECU remapped...
Pipercross cams x 4, basically reground G cams...
Heads ported polished and port matched to inlets... with slightly bigger valves...
Saab V6 injectors....
Ported and polished throttle body (made no difference TBH but meh...)
3.0 litre longnose plenum
Decatted with custom freeflow SS custom exhaust system with X pipe to balance exiting gasses.... (skiving system I believe its called)
EGR removed....
AC system removed...
3.0 bottom pulley (not quite as light as a Courtney alloy pulley but damn near)
RR figures might have been 'massaged' a bit, as it was done with another club at a RR day that they used to hold every couple of months.... but operator couldn't get the full power onto the rollers as the gearbox kept changing down a gear when he booted it to get the power figure, but by god he tried for almost an hour.... LOL
Looks like a lot of work indeed. Well done on getting that extra power without resorting to forced induction. :y
-
Interesting read guys. Due to work commitments ive changed it to the 9th Feb.
As said I'll be having a word with the chap and stressing tat I don't want to be flattered. I want the true result.
so as to absorb all what's been said.....
The 167ftlb of torque at the fly wheel... does anyone know what rpm that's at? I'm assuming I'll see this figure (minus drivetrain loss) at the rpm that vx got it at?
This site : http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=198759
says 168 bhp @ 6000 RPM, and 167 ft/lb @ 3200 RPM
No Idea where the data comes from.
-
Interesting read guys. Due to work commitments ive changed it to the 9th Feb.
As said I'll be having a word with the chap and stressing tat I don't want to be flattered. I want the true result.
so as to absorb all what's been said.....
The 167ftlb of torque at the fly wheel... does anyone know what rpm that's at? I'm assuming I'll see this figure (minus drivetrain loss) at the rpm that vx got it at?
This site : http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=198759
says 168 bhp @ 6000 RPM, and 167 ft/lb @ 3200 RPM
No Idea where the data comes from.
Presumably factory/production/sales literature...
Rpm figures look reasonable ;)
-
I'm not in to the figures malarkey myself. If, hypothetically, I floored it off the lights and the car next to me outruns me, and I can't catch him, then he has a faster car. No maths involved there, quite ingenious really isn't it. :)
Not that you'd ever do such things Mr YZ, as you are now a reformed character and have seen the light that speed is supposed to be evil ;)
-
Interesting read guys. Due to work commitments ive changed it to the 9th Feb.
As said I'll be having a word with the chap and stressing tat I don't want to be flattered. I want the true result.
so as to absorb all what's been said.....
The 167ftlb of torque at the fly wheel... does anyone know what rpm that's at? I'm assuming I'll see this figure (minus drivetrain loss) at the rpm that vx got it at?
This site : http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=198759
says 168 bhp @ 6000 RPM, and 167 ft/lb @ 3200 RPM
No Idea where the data comes from.
Thanks LC.
I kind of assumed that the two figures for torque and hp would be at the same rpm?
-
Nope, because they do different things... strong torque lower down the rev range is good for getting moving and keeping moving, the higher the engine revs, the more power it produces...
Look at a bike engine, 6-800 cc producing the equivalent of 500bhp per ton at 12,000 rpm, yet produce minimal torque.
-
Thanks al. Keep in mind I've never even seen a dyno report.......
So I'll be able to look at torque at 3000rpm. Measure against the above figures. And then look at 6000rpm and compare hp against the above figures?
So could I have a scenario where my horse power figure is about right but I'm down on torque?
-
Possibly, but they are related, just not in a linear way. Don't forget also that the engine is designed to perform a particular function in a reliable and efficient manner... a race tuned custom build will produce very different curves ;)
-
Nope, because they do different things... strong torque lower down the rev range is good for getting moving and keeping moving, the higher the engine revs, the more power it produces...
Look at a bike engine, 6-800 cc producing the equivalent of 750bhp per ton at 12,000 rpm, yet produce minimal torque.
Fixed. :).....but absolutely correct otherwise. :y
-
;)
-
Ok. Well let's see what the report says. All I want to do is slap a report in front of u guys and determine whether it's producing same power and torque as when it was factory fresh. Or whether it's down. That's all 👌👍😀 remember also I am a simple bear 🐻 😂
-
Ps to get this right and as simple as possible:-
I'm looking for horse power at 6000rpm to be 167 minus drivetrain loss.
And I'm looking for torque at 3000rpm to be 168 minus drivetrain loss.
Correct? 😀
-
Ps to get this right and as simple as possible:-
I'm looking for horse power at 6000rpm to be 167 minus drivetrain loss.
And I'm looking for torque at 3000rpm to be 168 minus drivetrain loss.
Correct? 😀
Correct.
But(you knew that was coming) a chassis dyno isn't particularly accurate, and so all of the figures have to be taken with a degree of scepticism.
-
Thanks nick. :y
There's no other way. 0-60 was catastrophically flawed. And I'm not pulling the engine to put it on an engine dyno. So unless anyone has another way of measuring my motors power then it's all I can do :y
-
Well it's an Omega, so if you wait long enough the chassis will rust clean off the engine and then you can stick it on an engine dyno ;) ;D
Just kidding.. you're right, there is no other way. In fact there is no 'perfect' way, you can cheat engine dynos just as easily by dynoing it without any ancillaries connected, which was the trick before SAE bhp came in, IIRC. Amazing how much power an old style alternator, water pump and PAS pump would suck off the headline figure! Or fiddle the environmental corrections; every dyno run 'should' be corrected to standard atmospheric pressure, standard air temperature and humidity so that you can compare them against each other when taken on different days .. but if you just fudge those numbers a little bit.. ;)
Anyway, Northampton Motorsport have a decent reputation so I don't think they'll be doing anything underhand, you just have the vagaries of the dyno itself to content with (grip, rolling resistance, etc). Fortunately if they can strap an ~800hp car down properly and get a decent run they shouldn't have much trouble with <200hp! :)
Half tempted to get a day off in Feb and pop along for a nose..
-
There's no other way. 0-60 was catastrophically flawed..................
If the straps let go during the dyno you could end up with a record breaking 0-60mph. ;D
I'm not in to the figures malarkey myself. If, hypothetically, I floored it off the lights and the car next to me outruns me, and I can't catch him, then he has a faster car. No maths involved there, quite ingenious really isn't it. :)
Not that you'd ever do such things Mr YZ, as you are now a reformed character and have seen the light that speed is supposed to be evil ;)
Sadly the only print-out I get to record my cars performance is closely followed by a fine. ::)
-
Well it's an Omega, so if you wait long enough the chassis will rust clean off the engine and then you can stick it on an engine dyno ;) ;D
At least it is not a FWD bland see-one-have-seen-them-all VW (Audi, Skoda, yadda, yadda) or obnoxious BMW (which has it's own rust issues and problems. Just ask Bavarian cab drivers). PFL has personality. :y
Oh yes...just kidding. ;D
-
Nope, because they do different things... strong torque lower down the rev range is good for getting moving and keeping moving, the higher the engine revs, the more power it produces...
Look at a bike engine, 6-800 cc producing the equivalent of 750bhp per ton at 12,000 rpm, yet produce minimal torque.
Fixed. :).....but absolutely correct otherwise. :y
I miss my (original) ZX-10, as the acceleration above 6000rpm was exciting. And that's the old ZX-10, not the newer mental ones.
But I have resigned myself that I'll never ride again... ...not that I've binned my gear yet ::)
-
Sadly the only print-out I get to record my cars performance is closely followed by a fine. ::)
That's because you've used up all your naughty boy courses ;)
-
Nope, because they do different things... strong torque lower down the rev range is good for getting moving and keeping moving, the higher the engine revs, the more power it produces...
Look at a bike engine, 6-800 cc producing the equivalent of 750bhp per ton at 12,000 rpm, yet produce minimal torque.
Fixed. :).....but absolutely correct otherwise. :y
I miss my (original) ZX-10, as the acceleration above 6000rpm was exciting. And that's the old ZX-10, not the newer mental ones.
But I have resigned myself that I'll never ride again... ...not that I've binned my gear yet ::)
Same here. Given up bikes, although I'm sorely tempted during the summer months. My gear is still kept on its shelf in the shed though.
It was suggested recently that I at least put it away in the loft, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it.
I have plenty enough signs that I'm getting old, without voluntarily giving myself another one. ::)
-
Well it's an Omega, so if you wait long enough the chassis will rust clean off the engine and then you can stick it on an engine dyno ;) ;D
Just kidding.. you're right, there is no other way. In fact there is no 'perfect' way, you can cheat engine dynos just as easily by dynoing it without any ancillaries connected, which was the trick before SAE bhp came in, IIRC. Amazing how much power an old style alternator, water pump and PAS pump would suck off the headline figure! Or fiddle the environmental corrections; every dyno run 'should' be corrected to standard atmospheric pressure, standard air temperature and humidity so that you can compare them against each other when taken on different days .. but if you just fudge those numbers a little bit.. ;)
Anyway, Northampton Motorsport have a decent reputation so I don't think they'll be doing anything underhand, you just have the vagaries of the dyno itself to content with (grip, rolling resistance, etc). Fortunately if they can strap an ~800hp car down properly and get a decent run they shouldn't have much trouble with <200hp! :)
Half tempted to get a day off in Feb and pop along for a nose..
Thanks Aaron 👍
I'll have a word with the chap as mentioned earlier and say I don't want any tricks. Just an honest answer to one simple question. Is it down on power or not lol 👍
Ps mate would be great to see u if you were there. I don't think we've ever met at any oof do?