N/a Dyno 318 H/p 279 Ft/torque

[egroce11]

Went to the dyno on 09/02, car is very untuned with af/r all over the place.
PURE MOTOR (sorry for the large pictures) Two runs 3rd gear with one quarter mile run.

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

Engine is a 182.3 C.I. SHO
You wouldn't believe the rush this was when I saw the numbers.
Ernie

 

[tripleblack90]

modlist?

 

[Jarrod]

Christ...

 

[thecrew2999]

that much wheel power with n/a sounds crazy... you pushing bigger pistons or something ?

 

[SASHO91]

this motor is B.U.I.L.T !!!!!! de-stroked, PP heads, plus all the bolt ons.... and IIRC the comp. is bumped too.

 

[Toolman]

That is insane, and on a mustang dyno!?!?! Are those numbers corrected? If not that car is making more power than most of the turbo and SC SHO's. Im-freakin-pressive!!

 

[40BelowSummer]

Ernie, I still owe you a steak......and now it looks like you owe me a ride in this N/A beast.

Rhett

 

[Jonny Cash]

That is insane, and on a mustang dyno!?!?! Are those numbers corrected? If not that car is making more power than most of the turbo and SC SHO's. Im-freakin-pressive!!

why do mustang dyno's read slower?

 

[SinisterSHO]

Holy crap. And thats out of a 3.0. Who said 300 whp wasn't possible? That thing needs to be tuned, that torque curve is flat!

IIRC, Mustang dynos read lower because they add a load into the rollers. The numbers are more often lower, but closer to what you would actually be making on the street.

 

[Mr95Gl]

Wow, that truely is unbelievable. As biased as I am towards the SHO motor, reaching the 300 WHP mark N/A seemed highly impossible. Definately no longer the case. Doesn't that equate to 370 - 390 CHP? Very very very impressive!

 

[F-22 Raptor SHO]

I went to work the other day and got there right on time (by my watch). Everyone else had been there for 1/2 hour already and were looking at me strangely. Turns out my watch was 1/2 hour slow.......get my point?

Nice numbers, but there is the fact that dyno to dyno variability, calibration, the estimation of hp at the crank by back calculation from wheel hp, etc, all have an effect on what the graph will say.

FWIW, Tom's buggy with a perfectly tuned 3.2 motor, 6 psi blower, and a 35 shot of nitrous only dynoed at just shy of 300 hp and 300 lb/ft of torque....prior to those mods, on the same dyno and same conditions dynoed at a mere 140 hp. The dyno was set up for evaluating the results of modifications.

 

[38SHO]

all I can say is, that must be fun!

good work

 

[SuperHO]

this motor is B.U.I.L.T !!!!!! de-stroked, PP heads, plus all the bolt ons.... and IIRC the comp. is bumped too

can we be a bit more specific on the mods? Specifically, which bolt ons?

 

[drivinhard]

~280 ft/lb (at the wheels) from a 3.0L n/a engine? Impossible.

 

[Toolman]

A 3rd gear run will net slightly different results, but still, that is crazy. Even if those are corrected numbers, that is insane power.

And Mark, keep in mind that the BMW 3.2 liter makes 330hp/262 ft lbs, granted from an inline 6, but I think the 280 number is possible. Again, if it is corrected. If uncorrected, then those numbers represent approx. 365hp/322ft lbs, which I indeed think is a bit hard to fathom. Perhaps we will learn more about this engine from the owner. If those indeed are uncorrected numbers, I want to know how they were attained, and whether or not this engine would be a candidate for a turbo. Best way to make more FI HP is to make more NA HP first.

 

[drivinhard]

The posted numbers were at the wheels no? 280 ft/lbs @ the tires is a heck of a lot more than 262 ft/lb at the crank (per the M3 engine).

An N/A engine can only make so much torque (VE) period. Even a $5 million 3.0L V10 F1 engine, best estimates put those at about 270 ft/lb peak (granted the short stroke ain't what you want for big torque numbers but you get the point).

hp per cube (RPM) is a LOT different than torque per cube (VE). 300+ ft/lb from 182 CI (n/a) with a SHO stroke/bore is going to need VE out of this world to get 1.65 ft/lb + per cube.

 

[egroce11]

Mods

Toolman: Thanks Tim, I don't know if the numbers are corrected or not, they are what was on the screen. I really think a small turbo would work on this setup.
F-22 Raptorsho: If the dyno operator can do that than do we dare believe any numbers ever posted. You don't always have to stay with larger bore and stroke numbers to make power.
40belowsummer: I'll be in Wendover the 13th thru the 17th of Sep. T-BONE steak sounds good.

Modifications: Slightly condensed with a lot of sweat, blood and tears:
Block: The block is a 3.0\183 C/I bored/ destroked to 182.3 C.I. Milled to .005
Pistons:Wesco forged with 3 CC dome, Pin location Dropped. Final measured comp. 11:1
Rods: Casting marks were removed, lightened, shot peened resized,
Crank: Offset ground, lightened heads were ported and polished, bowls blended, 1 mm larger valves, Secondary valves and Rods removed, bored to 40 mm. Intake and Exhaust ports finished to a carbide finish. SS Stage 2 Cams (Cams still need to be timed) Fidenza flywheel (lightened) complete rotating asembly balanced to 55% Piston side, 45% crank
Intake At 400 lift CFM, Intake measured 263.7 @ 2.8 through the manifold, All ports and part opening matched, 65 mm throttle body, 76 MM C&L maf with 55 MM electronics, A/C delete. TB bypass, Underdrive pulleys, SS headers (No cats)
Exhaust Equeal length exhaust into Dr. Gas X Pipes then into Dr. Gas Boom Tube
Engine managment TWEECER
Fuel Red X fuel 112 octane
Tires: 26/15/4.5 Goodyear Eagles, around 18lbs per rim and tire at 70 lbs pressue.
Things can only get better with tuning.
That is a shortened list of the modifications to the car. I can assure you the car is 100% NA no nitrous, turbo or supercharger.

 

[shomesomesho]

Holy cow! Is this for real?

 

[SinisterSHO]

~280 ft/lb (at the wheels) from a 3.0L n/a engine? Impossible.

So, what your saying is that he's lying about his engine and drew his own dynographs, right?

 

[SeanMc]

It only looks like a sho engine from the outside.