Loads of good stuff from Jason here thanks for posting
This stuff takes a huge amount of time to do, it's not two mins work to write it up either, so I can't believe those asking for the same n other engines lol!
Loads of good stuff from Jason here thanks for posting
This stuff takes a huge amount of time to do, it's not two mins work to write it up either, so I can't believe those asking for the same n other engines lol!
Brilliant write up and loads of contributions added. really enjoying this thread.
Only thing I thought of when reading was the need of some turbulence within the inlet port to mix the air and fuel to give a better combustion....
I may stand to be corrected but thats what these discussions are all about.
Always learning.
I have no idea how much difference in power you can get with this new cam towers but I had exact the same Brook head a few years ago. Standard cam towers, Welded, raised head etc... just the same, Newman 4,75 and we only received 185 bhp. It did had a very nice torque spread. To be honest, I don't think the Newman 4,75 is aggressive enough to produce 200 Bhp in any Pinto head. I do believe with A8 or more aggressive Kent GTS cams you will see over 190 Bhp.
Jason,
This downdraught head looks very well. Only question, do you thing you need a super large valve as in a normal head? I should say it will now flow more to the bottom, so the smaller the valve disc, the less restrictive? Air now has to pass the valve in a normal direction, not flowing over it.
Hi Jason
very intristing work,
about the D port have you ever tried to run any engines with that shape ? I know they flow well but do they work in real engine ? I am think on low air speed because off the big area
what filler do you use for the port and welding ?
and any experience on a working engine ?
Just to follow up, the engine was set-up today with the Newman 4.75 cam. The engine has done a couple of events since the new cam was fitted
On Wynfields rolling road it made 199.7 BHP flywheel. This was with the old Newman 4.5 cam before the head repairs.
It was set up today at Mosleys rolling road (well respected rolling road in the rallying world) & it made 207 BHP (Flywheel) & 177 ft/lbs torque. Its very easy to drive & doesn't bog down
22 Bhp more as what I could get out of the same head and cam combination. 240 Nm from a 2 Ltr 8V engine. Mine made +/- 215 Nm.
I must have received a very bad head.
These cams are indeed very easy to drive. Lots of torque for a rally spec cam. And for this reason I still advice them together with some other good cams. But I can hardly believe they are aggressive enough to keep the engine going up long enough to make such big Bhp numbers.
Last edited by Dyno; 16-04-2015 at 20:52.
The operator did say it was one of the best two 2 litre pintos he had seen. It has a Brooks inlet manifold & twin 48's matched to the head, Tony Law Exhaust.
I also had a Jondel dry sumped pinto that was a very similar spec except slightly larger bore. On the same rolling road it made 188 BHP (flywheel) that was good but nowhere near as good as this!
Strange to see a big jump in power from 34° to 38° advance. My engines usually don't make any more power once over 28°. As a matter of facts, they start to drop power when I advance so far. Was this on some kind of race fuel or E85 ?
OK, now I see, I would have dropped more to round 28 - 30°. He probably set max advance before power dropped (pinking). Must have been pining because the drop in power is serious. I set ignition MBT (or minimum best timing). Unless using E85 or exotic fuel, 34° still sound a lot to me.
I'm still surprised he can get 240 Nm out of a 2 ltr Pinto where I got stuck at 215 Nm.
Just to add my twopenny worth, i find the pinto engines here only want to run on 26-28 deg when they are running over 12.1 cr and closer to 13.1. From my experience the Brookes engines run best around 33-34 deg max advance.
The best drivers have dead flies on the side windows.
For comparison, here is the dyno printout from when it was set up before.
199.1 BHP Flywheel.
144.8 lbft torque
Different cam (slightly).
Different rolling road.
& most importantly different operator.. Even ignoring the numbers on paper I Consistently get a quicker more drivable car afters using Mosleys rolling road.
[IMG][/IMG]
I have tonight been looking at a dyno sheet from another rolling road but of another Brooke's engine that ran the 4.5 cam and produced 206bhp 171lbsft . Another customer has bought the car the engine is in and I will post the results once I've checked it out on the dyno, as a comparison.
The best drivers have dead flies on the side windows.
So, what else is needed for a NA engine to give big bhp???
OK, from my calculation the engine made 198,5 Nm and max power was 199 Bhp. Means, max power was over 7300 RPM and torque still going high (not dropping of). Can you send the graph? I've never seen a Pinto which only made 200 Nm making 200 Bhp. This is all very new to me. I can only imagine the cam was so fast it only made a spike of torque and power at very high RPM and nothing in the middle.
The graph did not show up this morning when I opened the website. I don't get it anymore. A Pinto running strong up to 8000 RPM that's already not easy, making 200 Bhp but not able to make more than 200 Nm? Sure the engines RPM range was measured correct compared to the roller speed? And all with a camshaft less than Newman PH4,75 ? What cam was in this engine?
I had exact the same head and Newman Ph 4,75 cam. We did all we could and engine's max power was never higher as +/- 7000 RPM and torque was over 213 Nm (wide torque band).
Well, the Newman 4,5 is close to an RL31 and at least softer as a PH4,75 and will not make the engine climb up to 8000 RPM. I'm wondering how they did it.
The older dyno run was done just before I had the engine, that is the one I posted (2nd ) for comparison. It was running the Newman 4.5 cam & made 199.1 BHP Flywheel.
144.8 lbft torque @ Winfield motors.
The newer graph (posted 1st) is the current cam & & new cam tower setup. The cam is a Newman 4.75. It made 207 BHP (Flywheel) & 177 ft/lbs torque & Mosleys rolling road.
It is without doubt the best rally 2.0 pinto I've driven. I have a few driven (including Brooks) including my own old engines below:
Its better than the home built 2.0 with an Emerald head & cam @ 133 BHP.
Its better than the JRE 2.2 Pinto I had with a Crane cam @167 bhp.
Its better than the 2.0 Jondel similar spec pinto to the Brooks (similar except the Jondel I had was dry sumped)@ 188 BHP & difficult to drive.
Onyd - I don't why is makes the numbers it does, it is not something I'm really in to.
I does have a full Brooks set up- block, sump, inlet & carbs & not just the head. The head is the absolute latest spec.
Vince at Mosleys rolling road has been setting up rally engines for 30 years, I always ask for a torquey set up & I can drive this engine like a road car engine & it doesn't bog down.
I'm only posting this stuff with sharing info in mind. The numbers are irrelevant really, I'm rallying so the clock is what I'm competing against.
Hi,
the first graph (Mosley's) displays torque and bhp at the wheels: 142 lbft @ 5000 rpm and 172 bhp @ 7500 rpm.
Second graph (engine with 4.5 cam) gives bhp at the wheels as 169 bhp @ 7600-8000 rpm.
Calculating back from the highest torque point and loss in the drivetrain this gives approx. 128 lbft of torque @ 6400 rpm.
So powerwise there is not much difference, the newer engine gives alot more torque.
Have to read the thread back but has the carburation / ignition been changed?
Regards, Leon.
Merged the 2 powergraphs into 1, see photo.
I know you cannot compare rolling roads / operators but it gives a good idea what the difference in engine characteristic is.
Normally a 4.5 should give more middle-range torque but maybe the camtiming was a bit off, or the ignitiontiming was not spot on or the carbs where too big (hence the bigger bhp a high revs).
The "brook head" just as the Vulcan and CNC-head all made approx the same power. One slightly better here, the other there. Very easy engines to drive and out performed almost all others I've dyno tested. Good spread of torque, specially the Brook head but was not the most powerful.
But I can tell you honest, the rolling road curve looks to "smooth" for and engine making peak power at 8000 RPM and "only" making 200 Nm. Something is wrong with the graph but yes, they do run very well that's for sure and is not the part I want to go into discussion. Unfortunately, I'm not stupid, this graph can't be true. Correct measured graphs always have bumps and drops. These rolling road graphs look to smooth.
even with fuel injection, I never get "straight" graphs. Running so nice up to 8000, I've only seen with 16V engines. Still dip's in lower RPM, usually round 3000 RPM.
A "fake graph" is a graph received from someone who want to steel money from you or for any other reason has "modified" the results. I don't think this is the case, not at all. Only, rolling road dyno's, because of the mass and the gearing in between can give a result, not exact what's really going on. For example, because of the mass you can't see the small dips and bumps. That's seldom an advance. I'll give you an example, from time to time I need to fit a gearbox in between the engine and my dyno (dyno is sometimes to strong so I measure in 3th gear). If I take a graph in 3th gear and later in direct drive (4th gear in a Ford box) I not seldom receive a different shape of graph (not totally different of course). It's not the "lost" in power over the box. I can tell you, the lost is always very low. Just because the speed of operating in slightly different and the mass of the water brake's wheel is different, I get a different shape. But if you keep the same gear, it's very repeatable.
As long as this rolling road is repeatable, all will go well and result will only vary from operator to operator. And if you got a good one, engine will perform well and it's all we need. But, if you start comparing with others, whole new story. I'm not saying my dyno is most correct, far from but all we could ever compare with original engines seemed to be close. And to stay realistic again, 200 Bhp but not having 200 Nm in a Pinto sound weird to me, specially if this engine in running in one line straight to 8000 RPM.
Correct, for sure not "fake". Fake would mean sheeting and I'm sure these guys had no reason to do so. Indeed, also my software has different levels of "filtering". This is needed to filter out what they cal "noise". But most important with rolling road is the mass. As long as the dyno has a brake they take the torque measured and calculate the time need to accelerate the mass of the rollers. They know the mass and to accelerate from 1000 RPM to 1010 RPM in this short time you needed example 5 Bhp. But when you talk about mass you talk about a giant flywheel. This on is own "smooth" out the spikes and dips.
I've only used my rolling road at steady RPM reading and noted the power. Time consuming but I always felt it was more correct. But this way you only plot a few points and again does not see the correct graph (like the one from the first test).
Just for the record re accuracy of rolling roads , I have mapped two cars recently , the first was a X16XE with the SBD 210 kit which made 209.8bhp and the second a normally aspirated cosy 2.4 which made 303bhp . When customer collected the car he produced the original dyno sheet 304bhp.
The best drivers have dead flies on the side windows.
Onyd I don't know why you can't get the figures on a pinto , but I had never seen more than 202 bump froma 2ltr pinto till this one turned up, so I was as impressed as anyone . Normally I see 198 from the best on Newman 4.5 but only on Brooke's engines . I have a Holbay running 4.75 which will make 202 but it's running 198 for better torque to suit the drivers style.
The best drivers have dead flies on the side windows.
I take offence at the fact there is an insinuation that the graph is faked ! My machine is an old Sun ram3c that has been updated but does not have a dyno plot set up , i hold the revs to log the power hence the large increments to start with and the smooth graph effect .
Last edited by dynoman; 01-05-2015 at 22:00.
The best drivers have dead flies on the side windows.
You said previously that the Newman cam isn't aggressive enough for 200BHP & the graphs are both too smooth.
It was dynoed on two different rolling roads by 2 different operators & came out in the region of 200 BHP. It also has similar graphs from both rolling roads.
The older graph was done before I even owned the engine & I did not show Dynoman the printout or tell him the power from the previous session.
My three previous pinto engines have been on same rolling roads & none of them went near 200bhp & the graphs are nowhere near as smooth as this engine.
Do you really think that both dyno operators separated by 60 miles, have 60 years of experience between them and are business competitors decided to get together & produce similar dyno printouts 2 years apart? What would be the point of that & why didn't they do it for my other pintos too? It might have made them easier to sell!
I have used 3 rolling roads for competition pintos, each operator has a minimum of 20 years tuning competition engines.
My old Jondel Pinto was set up at all three dyno's & ignoring ignoring printouts and BHP figures the differences in performance was genuinely remarkable. Without any doubt whatsoever the best results by a very long way have been on Dynomans rolling road & I'm not just talking about bits of paper.
Onyd might just have been unlucky or perhaps he's more like the operators of the other rolling dynos I've used. One thing is for sure, years of experience alone is no guarantee of results!
I've never say these dyno graphs where "fake" because fake is sheeting. I've dyno tested my self a lot of engines, also Pinto's, some very good Pinto's. The only part I can hardly believe is, a Pinto making 200 Bhp, running in one line to 8000 RPM (which is a very good one) but can't produce 200 Nm? This is something I would like somebody to explain to me. I'm not stupid, if the Pinto can't make 200 Nm it can't make 200 Bhp in one nice line, only when torque comes in like a bang in the last 2000 RPM. Not smooth. I would rather believe the 200 Bhp than the torque figures that comes with them. But at least one is incorrect. And that's the word I try to explain, the dyno is repeatable but reading slightly off. Almost all engine with rolling road graph I've ever tested where down on my dyno. Is my dyno correct, no it is probably not but for sure very close compared with standard engines. There rolling road are repeatable, 2 years later still the same power. And again, this has NOTHING to do with the skills of the operator which I've never said it is the case.
I'm quite sure and never have said anything else, because the engine is running very well, both dyno operators do the job right. I don't like any of them trying to let me say they are not good because I've NEVER have said something like that. So they have no single reason to tell on internet I'm the one who can't tune engines !!!!!!!!
Compare your engines with correct dyno tested Pinto graphs and you will very soon see a big difference. Yes, these engines are correct tuned but NO, you can not compare these numbers against others. You can only race and beat a lot others and of course driver will feel faster or not. Nothing to do with comparing graphs. I've never seen any 2 ltr making 200 Bhp not making 200 Nm, No 8V, no 16V engine. None. A good Pinto always make more as 200 Nm, also the Brook head. Specially if you use the 4,75 profile which is what I call a hight torque camshaft.
You may all believe what you wanted to believe but if you start to trow mud I'm out of this. At least I've never told of anyone he was not doing his job right. And I'm sure, the numbers I'm trying to explain are true.
Last edited by Dyno; 02-05-2015 at 08:34.
Onyd - Your very first response in this thread quoted my post basically saying "oh no it won't" with regard to the quoted power figures before seeing any graphs.
You might well have been right for all I knew so for useful feedback to the thread I posted the power figures from a new dyno run at a different rolling road.
Onyd - Your response once again was basically 'I don't believe it' - You keep saying it should make more torque AND you the torque is higher than you expected "I'm still surprised he can get 240 Nm out of a 2 ltr Pinto where I got stuck at 215 Nm" - read your posts back.
Miniliteman asked me to post the dyno sheets which I did (no, don't say thanks!) - the latest sheet showed 240 Nm & over 200 BHP
Onyd - Your constructive input into this thread appears to be just this: "but I do believe with A8 or more aggressive Kent GTS cams you will see over 190 Bhp." Yes, this might be useful to engine builders.
I posted the photos as constructive input to this thread, I posted the graphs because I was asked to - there you go, take it or leave it
Yes, indeed, I do not believe these numbers and never will. So one 2ltr engine is making 240 Nm+ and 207 bhp. I should say, if you really can make 240 Nm+ out of a 2 ltr Pinto you will probably be able to make 207 Bhp as well and maybe even more. But 240 Nm does sound a lot to me and if you later tell me an other 2 ltr engine also made 200 Bhp, why can it only make 200 Nm? Why is the torque of this engine, despite also nice curve so low??
From my long experiences with dyno's I know you usually move your max torque higher or lower in the rev range but it never drops from 240 to 200 Nm for the same kind of engine. As a mater of facts, for all more or less normal Pinto's you will measure approx the same max torque somewhere in the rev range. A difference of 40 Nm+ on both a 2 litre engine and still making over 200 Bhp (only 7 bhp difference in max power) ???
I think you just gave the right prove yourself. Put the numbers in your head an think about it.
But this was no longer what the tread was all about. Some tell I do not believe these guy's can tune engines and I say opposite, I've never told they where not good, not at all. But now they tell the whole world, despite I've tested over 700 engine I still may not know how it should be done. Usually when an engine leave my workshop it's running a lot better.
I can go a lot deeper in how rolling road dyno's measure power and translate it into estimated engine power and where the deformation of the tires start to offset the reading etc.. (I had a SUN RAM 12 myself) but if you can not understand the first difference in torque so far out from one engine to the other, it has no sense to start writing.
Can you please post the "dyno losses" it calculated to show the estimated engine power?
Bookmarks