Well - enough now.

[jiffy]

But Barry, they're all '70 cars, it doesn't matter what you've done to them because none of them are red, so in spite of me seeing or driving them, I'd still rather have my box of '69 parts... ;-)

[blackthunder1970]

very funny jeff
you just remember who cars you get to play with
when you come over for a visit to get your fe fix
barry

[68pony]

Wow this thread still going, i'm still sticking with my theory, GEAR  RATIOS CAN ALTER TORQUE FIGURES ON CHASIS DYNO , Hmmm dyno run in third gear, says it all.

[Muzzy 66]

Sell the car minus the engine.

Then let Mack or Kenworth sell the engine with them figures.

[428 Cobra Jet]

hi darryl
the dyno sheet shows third gear
by the way i read books and also have built fe s
i have grown up with 428 cj since i was thirteen
i own 6 fe powered 1970 mach1s
1 with all ali 427 sohc stroker (482 cubics)
1 w code 428 scj  1 0f 26 made
4 428 cj mach1s
i have owned around 15 big block machs
so i think i have learned a thing or 2
barry
s  

Obviously not enough!!!   Darryl

[blackthunder1970]

yes you are correct 68 pony
by the way  boss 427 it is not a true cj car but a m code 351 car

[428 Cobra Jet]

hi darryl
the dyno sheet shows third gear
by the way i read books and also have built fe s
i have grown up with 428 cj since i was thirteen
i own 6 fe powered 1970 mach1s
1 with all ali 427 sohc stroker (482 cubics)
1 w code 428 scj  1 0f 26 made
4 428 cj mach1s
i have owned around 15 big block machs
so i think i have learned a thing or 2
barry

 Barry, I know you didn't build any of these engines did you, didn't want to answer any of the hard questions in my last thread to you, don't want the big job in motorsport either. Plently of guy's buy their engines, that's not a sin, but don't pervey that you have done the hard yards building it either. This is what happems when you try to be a the all knowing guru, because there are guy's that will stand up from time to time and call you out and it then shows the true level of ones knoweldge. What I have a problem with, is the crap that you and your .... (friend, whatever) try to pervey. Anyway i certainly won't loose sleep over this.   Darryl  


Barry
I wouldn't waste my time answering him. He's a wanker.

Oh, so dam typical, I'm sure the forum will make up its own mind on you two.  Darryl    

[428 Cobra Jet]

yes you are correct 68 pony
by the way  boss 427 it is not a true cj car but a m code 351 car

Yep, how terrible "Blackjack" is only a M Code, who the hell cares, it has never been perveyed to be anything else. This is the type of crap killing off new members and the like of the clubs at present. Some of you guys may need to rethink your names though, you guy's are truely amazing. I have now officially had enough of this thread.  Darryl

[428 Cobra Jet]

Wow this thread still going, i'm still sticking with my theory, GEAR  RATIOS CAN ALTER TORQUE FIGURES ON CHASIS DYNO , Hmmm dyno run in third gear, says it all.

Oh, I couln't help myself.......Maybe you need to try to read a dyno sheet correctly, if you look at the engine speed and revs (thats the Speed/klm / Engine v Speed RPM) at the bottom of the page you will see clearly that the car is in 4th gear, because as the graph shows the test went to 170klm/p/hr @ approx 5300rpm thats top gear in a 3.89 ratio, buddy not third, as I previously stated it was registering the 3 of the 3.89 gear ratio,(oh I should mention that there is tyre slippage and tyre growth that also should be considered within in the final figures shown) I know its hard doing calcuations, maybe you should contact Blackthuner he seems to have a calcuator stuck to his hand constantly. If you need a lesson on reading dyno sheets U2U me and I'll try to break it down for you as easy as I can, oh you can read I hope so. You are a truely another amazing person, this forum must be so proud...... Darryl    

[boss 427]

There is one FACT that remains. 852 ft/lbs of torque is all B/S

[428 Cobra Jet]

There is one FACT that remains. 852 ft/lbs of torque is all B/S

Run out of facts and statistics, dont tell me you cant read the dyno sheet either, I'll tell you the same thing, you down the page look at the speed (KPH) / Engine speed (RPM) and see that given the test went to approx 170klm and 5300rpm that is top gear with a 3.89 ratio diff. (if you had half a brain you would of worked that out very easily. the 3 seen in the gear/ratio coluum was 3.89 ratio, Can you work that out. I know it's hard given you still fail to answer any of my previous questions put to you, hard to answer aren't they.   I think you've just proved to us all the guru yor are......best of luck......Darryl....... Gotta go now, I look forward to more of your informed guru comments

[boss 427]

Anyone can type in figures and draw red lines. You forgot to alter the Motive Force or Tractive Effort!!!!
As to some of your questions. I used Venolia Pistons. The US Boss 302's prduced 480 HP on a single 4 barrel Holley. The 427 GT 40 that won Le Mans had a single 4 barrel plus many others.
My small block 427 has 706 HP and a genuine 653 ft/lbs and I did do all the designing and most of the build. Engine building technology has changed a lot since I was last involed.

[jiffy]

Hmmm, just to add some spice - Barry DID build his Cammer engine himself - he's got more CJ parts than I have (well, nearly) and that's saying something - he has built a few of these things and owned more than is morally defensible - just ask his wife!

I agree your dyno sheet DOES say the figures you quote - but I think the issue here is that few of us actually believe that the dyno was accurately measuring the torque output of this car. Don't get me wrong, the car looks great and a stroked 427 SO is the mutts nuts and the webers are a great talking point but 852 ft/lbs is disproportionately high for a 420rwhp N/A car - the latest 335KW supercharged GT's aren't getting those figures, and they have some pretty sophisticated engine management capabilities, 4V, DOHC variable valve timing and metalurgy that is 40 years newer.

I don't know a thing about dynos - apart from the fact that the one time my car was on a dyno it dodn't show anywhere near as much mumbo as I would have liked it to, but it was pretty accurate for a 160,000Km car. The name calling from any side is uncalled for - there's allowed to be a difference of opinion and bench racing is about all most of us can do.

Nice car - good luck with the sale - lets all agree to disagree. Can I have a drive???

[428 Cobra Jet]

Anyone can type in figures and draw red lines. You forgot to alter the Motive Force or Tractive Effort!!!! As to some of your questions. I used Venolia Pistons. The US Boss 302's prduced 480 HP on a single 4 barrel Holley, The 427 GT 40 that won Le Mans had a single 4 barrel plus many others.
My small block 427 has 706 HP and a genuine 653 ft/lbs and I did do all the designing and most of the build. Engine building technology has changed a lot since I was last involed.

No 1. I altered nothing, I never started the thread, some else saw the car on the dyno and the figures, and decided to comment on it. You might draw lines to impress your mates, I certainly do not need to.
No 2. Who mentioned Boss 302's previously, what are you getting at. More pointless information.
No 3. What point are you trying to make, we never discussed GT40's previously, dont tell me you had a gt40 engine (you'll know there all numbered, so what number was it, I have a list that I can marry up). Or is this more pointless information
No 4. So you are the only guy who can build a 653ft/lbs engine. Buddy and a small block at that, there are plenty of engines knocking out those figures or better, so don't get carried away with yourself. As I said you need to be building V8 supercar engines, Í can set you up. Lets see the engine dyno and spec sheet on it. Bet you wont suppy that, hey. You still havn't validated anything just filled us up with mindless information that anyone can pull from a magazine or internet. Oh and Venolia certainly never had a piston capable of stroking a 427 FE using a 428 crank and rods, certainly not 38 years ago, and I doubt they do one today unless on special order, however I have emailed them, (I'm not sure if Doug still works there, but I will find out)  at Venolia to see, anyway whats the pin height for that piston combo anyway......  Buddy I am truely over you, your waste of space...   Darryl

[428 Cobra Jet]

Hmmm, just to add some spice - Barry DID build his Cammer engine himself - he's got more CJ parts than I have (well, nearly) and that's saying something - he has built a few of these things and owned more than is morally defensible - just ask his wife!

I agree your dyno sheet DOES say the figures you quote - but I think the issue here is that few of us actually believe that the dyno was accurately measuring the torque output of this car. Don't get me wrong, the car looks great and a stroked 427 SO is the mutts nuts and the webers are a great talking point but 852 ft/lbs is disproportionately high for a 420rwhp N/A car - the latest 335KW supercharged GT's aren't getting those figures, and they have some pretty sophisticated engine management capabilities, 4V, DOHC variable valve timing and metalurgy that is 40 years newer.

I don't know a thing about dynos - apart from the fact that the one time my car was on a dyno it dodn't show anywhere near as much mumbo as I would have liked it to, but it was pretty accurate for a 160,000Km car. The name calling from any side is uncalled for - there's allowed to be a difference of opinion and bench racing is about all most of us can do.

Nice car - good luck with the sale - lets all agree to disagree. Can I have a drive???

Buddy, thank god you can admit what you know and not know, on a good day I could give you an insight into dynos, Hp and Tq outputs, but to be fare, I am over this tread, Barry and his little friend, I really don't care what you think honestly, I do care what you write about MY car though, It is so typical that when you present the facts, the story of you altered things comes up from these types, it's laughable. But what is the point, I have made my point, these guy's just have no facts just assumptions, and assumptions are for foolish people. Some people just don't get it, and they never will. I hope to meet and be enlightened by these guy's at some point. (I can't wait, it'll be like pulling teeth i'm sure)  ..............Oh, get yourself to the sunny Gold Coast in the next month I'll take you for a drive, if you then want a turn I have a place and we'll see how long it takes to get the smile off your face....... Darryl ... We'll even go and dyno it again.

[Pedro]

Hang on Darryl ... I started this so if anyone gets a drive it has to be me. I guarantee you won't get the smile off my face.  LOL

[428 Cobra Jet]

Hang on Darryl ... I started this so if anyone gets a drive it has to be me. I guarantee you won't get the smile off my face.  LOL

Pedro, give me a call through the week, we'll have a blast, and yes you can have a drive. Maybe we should redyno it, see if I can bend another rear shock.

Darryl

[LEE H 69]

Pedro
If you have a drive in Darryl's, I reckon your GTO will be up for sale pretty quickly:cool:

Ignoring all the BS, and having seen this car in the flesh at the nationals I think it's an awesome example of someone can do, well done Darryl:burnout:

[428 Cobra Jet]

Pedro
If you have a drive in Darryl's, I reckon your GTO will be up for sale pretty quickly:cool:

Ignoring all the BS, and having seen this car in the flesh at the nationals I think it's an awesome example of someone can do, well done Darryl:burnout:

Thanks buddy, I'm trying to ignore the crap anyway, where are you located, you can come along too, !!!!!..... Darryl

[jmd1]

This has been an interesting read over the past couple of weeks, sometimes interesting sometimes embarassing.
I know nothing about the stats stated in any of these posts but feel that someone with Darryls background is not a mug. His is a beautiful car and any of us would love to have it in the garage.
The personal attacks on him are outrageous and those responsible should be regarded as the lowest of low.
Freddy anonimous hiding behind a faceless forum. Gutless!
As for the name calling that is only bad for both this forum and the long term interest in the cars.
Who is the wanker?
Darryl  I would love to drive your car,(as per Lee) but it is above my spend limit, so no point in trying what you can't have.
I am sure you don't need to sell as a fire sale, so ignore these narrow minded self opinionated, misguided and illinformed idealistic morons.

[Muzzy 66]

As for the name calling not being good....then call anyone who doesn't agree an idealistic moron...too funny.

Something with exorbitant amounts of torque over HP isnt normal.

Hense the debate.

Heres some details on Roush's puppies.


550 HP - 535 ft-lbs
560 HP - 540 ft-lbs
675 HP - 560 ft-lbs


Sure there flywheels,but you cant hide the scale they climb.


Sure put in box,diff and things vary,but there is still a "general" rule of thumb to the scale.

http://www.roushperformance.com/engines/


Bit of a yarn about HP,Torque and the general rule of thumbs,,All interesting reading.

http://www.car-videos.net/articles/horsepower_torque.asp



Hoorroo

[boss 427]

      Newton's Law
  Horsepower= Torque muliplied by  RPM divided by 5252

   Horse Power  =  853ft/lbs multiplied by 5000 RPM divided by   5252

   =    812 HP @ 5,000 RPM  = B/S = Crap = Garbage = Rubish

 You had better tell Craig to get his dyno serviced and re calibrated. Clearly, you being a mechanic/engine builder should realise this. Any secondary school child could tell you your Torque figure is not correct.

[428 Cobra Jet]

As for the name calling not being good....then call anyone who doesn't agree an idealistic moron...too funny.

Something with exorbitant amounts of torque over HP isnt normal.

Hense the debate.

Heres some details on Roush's puppies.


550 HP - 535 ft-lbs
560 HP - 540 ft-lbs
675 HP - 560 ft-lbs


Sure there flywheels,but you cant hide the scale they climb.


Sure put in box,diff and things vary,but there is still a "general" rule of thumb to the scale.

http://www.roushperformance.com/engines/


Bit of a yarn about HP,Torque and the general rule of thumbs,,All interesting reading.

http://www.car-videos.net/articles/horsepower_torque.asp



Hoorroo

More Bla Bla, What has Roush Puppies got to do with the specification of this engine, you are quoting crate engine figures by a company who builds on mass, each of the engines your mentioned with tweeking can have the HP and Tq figures moved both up and down depending on final tune (so your point is mindless, spend siome money call them, (they'll tell you the same thing), yes more internet and mindless assumptions made, well done..... Darryl

[428 Cobra Jet]

     Newton's Law
  Horsepower= Torque muliplied by  RPM divided by 5252

   Horse Power  =  853ft/lbs multiplied by 5000 RPM divided by   5252

   =    812 HP @ 5,000 RPM  = B/S = Crap = Garbage = Rubish

 You had better tell Craig to get his dyno serviced and re calibrated. Clearly, you being a mechanic/engine builder should realise this. Any secondary school child could tell you your Torque figure is not correct.

So, given you are hung up on Numbers, let me show you how wrong you are, let me use YOUR ENGINES 427 numbers that you stated.

"Newton's Law"
 Horsepower= Torque muliplied by RPM divided by 5252
 
Horse Power = 653ft/lbs multiplied by (Say)5000 RPM divided by 5252 = 621HP @ 5,000 RPM = B/S = Crap = Garbage = Surely that's not right .

Horse Power = 653ft/lbs multiplied by (Say)4000 RPM divided by 5252 = 497HP @ 4,000 RPM = B/S = Crap = Garbage = Surely that's not right

Horse Power = 653ft/lbs multiplied by (Say)5700 RPM divided by 5252 = 708HP @ 5,700 RPM = B/S = Crap = Garbage = B/S, and you know it.

Now you know as does any everyone else these figures are all bullsh#t. Your engine is not and will NEVER reach its Max torque figure at 5700rpm. That is in your words B/S = Crap = Garbage

Let us ponder why, when you stroke an engine (maybe just the rod length) we not alwas see an increase in total HP but we do see a increase of the torque curve and in most cases the total torque figure. So you assumptions based on James Watts Law on HP is not an absolute. Anyone with any engine building experience that has used Engine or Chassis dyno will tell you that, which goes to my previous comments you have no idea what you are talking about.

Let me finsh with this in language you can understand, there are no absolutes, the James Watt law on HP is not an absolute, the combustion engine is not a totally efficient animal. When I was in F1 our engines in 1979-1986 operated at approx 92-94% of it total efficency (again these figures were calcuations only and still are, as there is no way of totally addressing the 100% rule or issue), today they are higher approx 95-96%, a V8 Supercar engine operates at 90+% depending on supplier, and the typical manufacturers production line engines are just above 75% approx, so there are no absloutes. While I have taken offence to your carry on about my car, I am sure you can see that I have a mockery of your figures, so I strongly suggest you think before you decide to slander anyone, because you are no guru buddy. I think someone else stated that the forum was for bench top racing"", well buddy, you have been absolutly beaten.

Oh and I tkink you may have a litle drama with Graig now, he constantly has his as does a number of others in the area have their chassis dyno checked together to ensure that they are, as close as possible to stop these sorts of accuations being leveled to them......... Just stop the B/S,  it really is embarrasing, go back to your bench top racing with Blackthunder and the other chosen few, and if I have offended you, tuff, you persisted in carring this thread for far too long........Darryl  

[boss 427]

I expect nothing but a full apology. This is a reply from Dynolog.

Dear Gordon,

First, the example graph is produced from a DynoLog dynamometer system, not a Mainline DynoLog dyno system. The software on this system is similar, but does not have all the features of our current system. This system is on an Ex VANE 4000 chassis dyno with approximately 266mm roller diameter. Our current new dyno roller diameter is 218mm.

I can only assume that the power and torque figures quoted for the vehicle are engine numbers and  not what is happening at the rear wheels after various + and - torque multiplications.

On face value, there is nothing wrong with the recorded figures on the sheet; however you need to be aware that the torque figure is based on ROLLER TORQUE, not engine torque and not torque at the wheels or torque at the axle. Roller torque is subject to the roller diameter of the dyno. The larger the rollers the higher the torque value, but spinning slower, thus still have the same power result.

Most chassis dyno manufacturers do not display torque as it can cause some confusion as to the TYPE of torque, or more so WHERE it is being measured. Some manufacturers display FORCE (not torque). We also can display MOTIVE FORCE, but this in not TORQUE. Motive force is the linear force applied by the tyre contact patch in a forward direction and can be expressed as Lb or Newtons of FORCE.

The engine RPM displayed on the graph would be derived (calculated) from rear wheel speed vs engine RPM ratio as this system would not have had any actual RPM data logged from the engine.

On our current MDD systems, we have a function in our software called DERIVED TORQUE, where the dyno can calculate the torque "at the rear wheels" without any gear ratio influences or dyno ROLLER DIAMETER variables.  This allows an operator to compare two identical vehicles with say an auto and a manual transmission and enable a true torque comparison between the two vehicles, irrespective of gear or other driveline ratios. For derived torque to work, the dyno must also see engine RPM data logged from the actual engine.

If derived torque is used, the actual Power and Torque trace on the graph will cross each other at 5252 engine RPM as it does on an engine dyno. This is due to the Power (hp) = Torque (ftlbs) x RPM (actual engine speed)   / 5252.

I note the peak power on the graph is around the 5000 engine RPM point.

I would suggest with a recorded 412HP at the wheels, this vehicle would have more than 420 HP at the engine.

So, in summary, the graph results in your provided example are based on torque at the drive roller shaft, and not at the wheels, axle or engine.


Regards,


Craig




--
Craig Mahoney
Sales & Marketing Manager
Mainline Automotive Equipment Pty Ltd