Well built RHS502...What hp/tq expect??
09-13-2011, 05:04 AM
#41
I find it very interesting that we have very similar engines, almost the same displacement, (except mine has a smaller bore, longer stroke) I have less cam duration (251 @ .050"), we make almost identical power, but my engine with a Fast 102 makes peak power higher at 6300-6400? That tells me your cam is either advanced too much (mine was a 115 lsa on a 114 icl) or that Harrop is still restrictive on that size engine even after porting. I also find it interesting that I lost 100 lb/ft of torque going from engine dyno to chassis dyno (630 tq vs 530 tq), yet Stage 7 made 630 tq at the tires, that would suggest 730 tq at the crank, just doesn't add up in my mind.
Thanks for sharing, and sorry to the OP for the highjack!
BTW, I've seen 502's make less than 700 hp, you would be getting it done to make 800 hp on pump gas with a hyd roller cam and would require something like a Mast intake or a Holley LS3 intake with dual TB's and some large heads flowing over 400.
Thanks for sharing, and sorry to the OP for the highjack!
BTW, I've seen 502's make less than 700 hp, you would be getting it done to make 800 hp on pump gas with a hyd roller cam and would require something like a Mast intake or a Holley LS3 intake with dual TB's and some large heads flowing over 400.
https://ls1tech.com/forums/generatio...l#post15383806
Brian you and Shawn have far more head and engine experience than I will ever have, though I have been trying to learn as I go, and have paid for the privilege with time on flow benches and engine dyno's. So far I have learned a lot of what not to do's and a few what to do's.
Last edited by RAMPANT; 09-13-2011 at 07:23 AM.
09-13-2011, 01:12 PM
#44
09-13-2011, 02:29 PM
#45
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it very interesting that we have very similar engines, almost the same displacement, (except mine has a smaller bore, longer stroke) I have less cam duration (251 @ .050"), we make almost identical power, but my engine with a Fast 102 makes peak power higher at 6300-6400? That tells me your cam is either advanced too much (mine was a 115 lsa on a 114 icl) or that Harrop is still restrictive on that size engine even after porting. I also find it interesting that I lost 100 lb/ft of torque going from engine dyno to chassis dyno (630 tq vs 530 tq), yet Stage 7 made 630 tq at the tires, that would suggest 730 tq at the crank, just doesn't add up in my mind.
Thanks for sharing, and sorry to the OP for the highjack!
BTW, I've seen 502's make less than 700 hp, you would be getting it done to make 800 hp on pump gas with a hyd roller cam and would require something like a Mast intake or a Holley LS3 intake with dual TB's and some large heads flowing over 400.
Thanks for sharing, and sorry to the OP for the highjack!
BTW, I've seen 502's make less than 700 hp, you would be getting it done to make 800 hp on pump gas with a hyd roller cam and would require something like a Mast intake or a Holley LS3 intake with dual TB's and some large heads flowing over 400.
A couple of things you are leaving out of the equation:
1) You are running through an automatic. Mine was through a C6 M6 with lightweight clutch. You are going to show more drivetrain loss than I would.
C6 m6 corvettes have been proven to show a 50-65hp loss from engine dyno's to dynojet chassis dyno (when both dyno's are corrected to SAE). That would put my old engine setup (theoretically) to 720-735 SAE at the crank, or 750-760hp STD at the crank, and 680tq SAE, or 705ish tq STD.
Again, this is all theory as I never re-dyno'd the engine on an engine dyno when Erik made the cam swap. Of course add in the fact we dyno'd on different dyno's 800 miles apart and on different days and there is going to be more variance.
2) HKE built my entire longblock. Rampant built his engine himself, using different pistons, dyno'd w/smaller headers, and installed my old top end himself. Not to knock Dale as he is an incredibly intelligent and capable person, but my money is on a HKE fully built motor to outperform most self built motors with equal specs. Especially motors that are less than mainstream cookie cutter builds. No offense Dale!
I have 13 more cubes too which may not mean much, but may mean a little as well.3) Besides the fact he dyno'd in Canada (where everything is slower and makes less power--just kidding Dale
) that again is 700+ miles away, it was 90 degrees in the dyno room when he ran. His run was corrected *up*. My chassis dyno run was on a cool 60 degree night. Although my IAT's were in the 80's, my dyno run was corrected *down*. My *actual uncorrected rwhp* was 696rwhp with 650+rwtq (I have to dig up the sheet). I'm no dyno expert, but I've had some fast cars (in their day) that both ran the # (respectable et and crazy mph for a complete street car you could drive cross country like it was showroom stock) and dyno'd high. However my cars have always dyno'd better on cooler/better weather days than hot and humid days even when correct SAE. I'm not saying this is gospel but it is what I have seen over the past 12 years with my personal cars fwiw.All that said, I am as guilty as anyone in comparing dyno #'s from different setups across the country, but I also know it doesn't mean much. There are many variables to consider when it's on a different dyno with different weather, etc. But really it's no worse than comparing track #'s across the country on different days, etc. High powered cars run 3-6+mph better her in the NEast in the fall than they do in the summer depending on the setup. Same track, different weather.
All of this comparing only serves as a data point, nothing more.
The cars need to be lined up against each other on the track (then weight, tires, setup, and drivers are factors) or dyno'd on the same dyno on the same day back to back to really gleam a lot more imo.
Here was my uncorrected dyno sheet:
Doesn't answer anything, but it is a data point.
09-13-2011, 05:00 PM
#46
^^^^To Stage 7^^^^^
I did not build the motor myself this time around. I had a small shop up here do it. They are best known for SBC stuff. I figured they could bolt it together, since the combo on top was spec'd by Erik, as I bought yours.
Mine made more torque in the mid range than Brians. I do know from owning and test both TEA 245s vs the Mast 275, the exhaust port on the 245 was better than the 275 and the intake on the 275 out flowed the 245. Brian had a different exhaust port than I did so it likely flowed even better. I think a 2" header will pick up across the board.
Roberto, do you know what header was on the engine dyno run on yours with the smaller cam? It would be interesting to see. I know you had 2" on for the chassis dyno.
I think it is all interesting and hp does hide in the details, and if enough are missed it makes up a sizable number. I missed 3 that I am aware of and plan to correct what is likely the biggest one. Though I think a Napier 2nd ring would have helped reduce a fair bit of friction, which consumes hp.
Anyway, carry on!!!!!
Where is the OP?
I did not build the motor myself this time around. I had a small shop up here do it. They are best known for SBC stuff. I figured they could bolt it together, since the combo on top was spec'd by Erik, as I bought yours.
Mine made more torque in the mid range than Brians. I do know from owning and test both TEA 245s vs the Mast 275, the exhaust port on the 245 was better than the 275 and the intake on the 275 out flowed the 245. Brian had a different exhaust port than I did so it likely flowed even better. I think a 2" header will pick up across the board.
Roberto, do you know what header was on the engine dyno run on yours with the smaller cam? It would be interesting to see. I know you had 2" on for the chassis dyno.
I think it is all interesting and hp does hide in the details, and if enough are missed it makes up a sizable number. I missed 3 that I am aware of and plan to correct what is likely the biggest one. Though I think a Napier 2nd ring would have helped reduce a fair bit of friction, which consumes hp.
Anyway, carry on!!!!!
Where is the OP?
09-13-2011, 05:52 PM
#47
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^^^To Stage 7^^^^^
I did not build the motor myself this time around. I had a small shop up here do it. They are best known for SBC stuff. I figured they could bolt it together, since the combo on top was spec'd by Erik, as I bought yours.
Mine made more torque in the mid range than Brians. I do know from owning and test both TEA 245s vs the Mast 275, the exhaust port on the 245 was better than the 275 and the intake on the 275 out flowed the 245. Brian had a different exhaust port than I did so it likely flowed even better. I think a 2" header will pick up across the board.
Roberto, do you know what header was on the engine dyno run on yours with the smaller cam? It would be interesting to see. I know you had 2" on for the chassis dyno.
I think it is all interesting and hp does hide in the details, and if enough are missed it makes up a sizable number. I missed 3 that I am aware of and plan to correct what is likely the biggest one. Though I think a Napier 2nd ring would have helped reduce a fair bit of friction, which consumes hp.
Anyway, carry on!!!!!
Where is the OP?
I did not build the motor myself this time around. I had a small shop up here do it. They are best known for SBC stuff. I figured they could bolt it together, since the combo on top was spec'd by Erik, as I bought yours.
Mine made more torque in the mid range than Brians. I do know from owning and test both TEA 245s vs the Mast 275, the exhaust port on the 245 was better than the 275 and the intake on the 275 out flowed the 245. Brian had a different exhaust port than I did so it likely flowed even better. I think a 2" header will pick up across the board.
Roberto, do you know what header was on the engine dyno run on yours with the smaller cam? It would be interesting to see. I know you had 2" on for the chassis dyno.
I think it is all interesting and hp does hide in the details, and if enough are missed it makes up a sizable number. I missed 3 that I am aware of and plan to correct what is likely the biggest one. Though I think a Napier 2nd ring would have helped reduce a fair bit of friction, which consumes hp.
Anyway, carry on!!!!!
Where is the OP?
Regarding the headers on the engine dyno: As far as I know, dyno headers were used to dyno it. If Shawn rejoins the thread maybe he can chime in as it was on his dyno. I am not aware of the specs.
09-13-2011, 08:17 PM
#48
FormerVendor
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Virginia Beach,Virginia
Posts: 2,991
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Sorry Dale, I know we spoke a lot about your build, but I had in my head that you assembled the motor after the machine work was one.
Regarding the headers on the engine dyno: As far as I know, dyno headers were used to dyno it. If Shawn rejoins the thread maybe he can chime in as it was on his dyno. I am not aware of the specs.
Regarding the headers on the engine dyno: As far as I know, dyno headers were used to dyno it. If Shawn rejoins the thread maybe he can chime in as it was on his dyno. I am not aware of the specs.
09-13-2011, 08:23 PM
#49
FormerVendor
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Virginia Beach,Virginia
Posts: 2,991
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
500 inch engine with Kinsler making 701 hp, I hope yours does much better than this one.
https://ls1tech.com/forums/generatio...-pump-gas.html
https://ls1tech.com/forums/generatio...-pump-gas.html
