Another bogus hp rating.
 

Just so you guys in some of the lower classes think you're immune form the new crate motors take a look at the 2010 4.6l motor from Ford rated at 235hp. Also look at the 2007 Ford GT 4.6l motor rated at 300hp. These motors are basically the same except for two things, first the crate motor is 11 to 1 compression and the GT motor is 10 to 1, and the throttle body on the crate motor is 2 @ 62mm and the GT motor is 2 @ 57 mm. This is basically legalized cheating. A motor that probably should be 310 or 315 rated at 235. How much more bogus can it get?

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

I think the 07 300hp is over rated it is a dog, however the 10 is under rated and will cause a stir in the lower classes.
Dale

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

This is just proof that corporate money can buy most anything. It is also an sign that the technical people do not understand what is printed on thier technical spec sheets. Its is the way things are going in this country today. I have to deal with similar situations at my work place on a regular basis. The accounts have become the guiding force in most matters today.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

Corporate money does not have nothing to do with it. It is the factoring the OEM when the OEM submits the specification sheets to NHRA. Do you think NHRA's front office tech department knows the difference in the specs between the years and models? No. It is the tech guys that works in the field such as Travis that know because they are familiar with the books on a daily basis and not just typing data in to the books.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

Greg how is the 4.6 at 235 any different then the 1990-1991 carmao or corvette when it was at 260

281ci at 310hp give me a brake Greg if that combo is rated 310 then your combo should be 375HP.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

Charley, calm down. I made the assumption based on Ford's own rating of the 2007 motor. With a larger throttle body and a full point more of compression it should be 10 or 15 more than the 2007. As far as my motor I think it's a pretty tough combination. I might be able to go a second under the new index in killer air but that would be it. I would also add that I've thrashed on it for 20 plus years and spent a lot of money trying to make it run fast.
I do agree with one thing you said, the 350 fuel injected motor was probably 15 or 20 hp soft to start with, but the intake on those motors is terrible and they won't rev up.

There is a big difference in being 15 or 20 soft and 75-100 soft. If you look at stocker motors a really good one should make about 1.5 times it's rated horsepower. I just got my motor off the dyno and it didn't do quite that well. It was closer this time but still a little short..All that 4.6 l motor would have to do at 235hp would be352. That may not be a 475 hp motor but I bet it will make 425-450. So lets compromise and rate it at 290. That's 10 less than the 2007 GT motor.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

Hey Greg Hill

Might be a dumb ? but the 1.5x hp are you talking top reading or an average??

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

Greg come on 290hp. 245hp maybe.

Compare it to a 283ci Chevy like Wade Owens which is rated around 220HP (NHRA). Wade went -1.10 (11.75) at Belle Rose. There is no way the Ford 281ci with a little bigger throttle body and cam can make 75 more hp then say Wade Owens car. The 235 hp 281ci in J/SA is no better the Wades combo in M/SA. Heck I will take it one step further by comparing it to Johnny Fishers 360 dodge. Fisher car ran 11.65 @101mph in K/SA at INDY. Which means he could have ran somewhere around 11.50. I fail to see how this ford combo is any softer then these two combos.
Just so I’am getting your point right. You feel that a 281ci motor will make the same HP as your 350ci motor with a Holley. That is too funny. If that ford motor makes with in 25hp of yours you need to find a new engine builder.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

You should take a look at the flow numbers on these Ford 3 valve heads. (About 225 intake and 190 CFM exhaust ~ Stan Weiss Head Flow Database) Factory stock they flow better than the Chevy LT1s. At these flow numbers these engines are capable of 450+ HP.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

Have to agree with Greg and Fred here. Small inch comp motors have been flying for years with good heads and alot of gear.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

My question is who's going to build one? Last I looked no one wants to run those "slow" classes! The trend seems to be C/SA and faster?

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

Greg, I think Charlie's trying to get one together. That's why he's so defensive about this.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

Could be?

That combo is rated the fairest of all the new combos. The 235hp combo is not as good as the 5.? hemi, 352 ford, 428 ford, DP, super CJ or CJ combo. The 281ci 235 motor hp will make around 390hp. And will run an estimated time of 11.20s in I/SA. I have done all the homework on this car and 1.10 under the new index is about all it will go. 10.80s in I/SA is out if the question.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

Most small-inch Comp motors, which don't make a lot of torque, don't have to move 3,000-lb.-plus Stockers. The Three-Valve head may flow a lot, but it is still a 281-inch engine and won't make anywhere near the torque of an LT1. A good LT1 make 480-plus hp and 450-plus torque. Anyone who knows how to build a Stock engine knows how important torque is and without cubes it's hard to make torque.

I would guess that 375-400 hp could be achieved with the Three-Valve CJ engine after some R&D. Greg, I would say that a good Stocker engine has to make more than 1.5 times the factored rating to be above average.

The Stock Three-Valve at 300 is a joke and is not competitive. Not NHRA's fault, but people will have to run it and invest in a program before the rating can come down. This engine is very efficient from the factory and will not respond like many other engines. I'll agree that the 235 rating on the CJ version might be a little light, but not by 75-to100hp.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

Give the guy a break, he is off the clock. :)

I don't always agree with Even for sure, but at least he hangs his name out there.

What do you do for a living?

Maybe you should let us know so Evan can go Poop in your oatmeal. LOL.

Besides, this underwater factoring is all good to it lands in your class. There won't be any real crying until the dudes with a 2008 CJ DP or whatever similar deal gets smoked by the 2010 version. Then those guys will be upset.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

Greg

Mark McKeown had a 4.6 2V(?) motor at Engine Masters Challenge last year with a Factory FI intake, still had the factory injectors on it but not hooked up, but with I believe a 750 Holley on it that made 465 peak hp. I talked to him about the motor and he told me it was a pretty basic piece. Now remember they are limited to compression (10.5 max) and we check the finalists. Based on his performance I would say you are very close in your observation.

We all know that the New Combo's are bogus both Ford and Mopar and probably soon to be Government Motors. The problem is how to fix it. I don't believe that the powers that be will pay much attention to anybody unless there is a plus side for NHRA. Hope to see you somewhere

Later RJ

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

Two people now have mentioned the 1.5hp to factory rating to be above average. An engine that averages 500HP and has a top number of, say, 540HP is the 1.5 # used on the 500# or the 540#?????

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

You guys still don't get it. In 2010 when the factory advertises an engine makes say 300HP. It must dyno 300HP +/-3%.

Now look at the evolution of engine manufacturing and performance technology improvements over the last 40 years. Take a look at how 200ci V-6's are making as much horsepower as 400ci V8's were in the 60's. Do you really think that in Stock eliminator trim both engines have the same max power potential. If you do your morons. Current OEM technology is wringing HP out of engines the same way guys building stockers have done it for years. So an OEM engine which already comes with good valve springs, good flowing heads, roller cams, far better tuned intakes, larger TB's and a factory rating of 425HP (new car rating, not NHRAshould have an equivalent amount of inefficiency in the OEM design and power to be gained? Some of the performance vehicles offered today have tubular exhaust manifolds that rival the flow performance of a set of headers - not some junk cast iron log exhaust manifold that was designed for a utility truck 40yrs ago. Aside from the LS & LT engines from GM, prior to the CJ's and Drag Paks, what other engine combinations that have gone in the books the last 15 or so years have been able to compete when entered with the OEM advertised HP ratings? Most get submitted by someone that has no idea how NHRA's HP rating system works, the NHRA guys I doubt spend the effort to challenge an OEM submission if they think its overfactored.

I'm not defending the final numbers assigned to some of the combos as correctly factored. But if anyone thinks that they should go in with the 2010 OEM advertised HP ratings, i repeat - your a moron.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

And this little rant comes from the er uh gentleman who claimed the CJ's could never make 800 hp with those little tiny throttles. Consider the source when reading this guy's stuff. He, of all people, is no positon to be calling people morons.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

Acceleration is the key to low ets. Anyone who knows anything about drag racing knows that acceleration is what moves the car down the track from the leave to the interval between gear change. Part of acceleration is the lightness of the rotating and reciprocating assemblys and the amount of friction associated with larger surface areas.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

I know it's it's a DUMB ? but both Greg Hill and Evan Smith refered to the 1.5 factor. Can someone answer it please.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two people now have mentioned the 1.5hp to factory rating to be above average. An engine that averages 500HP and has a top number of, say, 540HP is the 1.5 # used on the 500# or the 540#?????

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

It's the NHRA rated HP. So an engine rated at 350HP by NHRA needs to make 525HP.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

But is the 525 in your example an average accross a range or just a top number??

ps thanks in advance

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

That would be the peak HP number.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

Thats what I was looking for.

Thanks again

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

Bruce the non Super CJ makes way less then 800hp to the rear wheels. What is you point.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

It's interesting how people throw "torque" around.

HP=Torque x RPM / 5252

So HP is nothing other than a mathematical derivative of torque.

It's been a long time since I've seen a normally aspirated car in Stock Eliminator (especially when you get above L,M, or N) run less than about 5500 RPM stall, or leave at less than 5500 if it is a stick car.

So, 5500 RPM is above the point at which torque is a higher number than HP, as torque and HP will ALWAYS be equal at 5252 RPM, and torque will ALWAYS be greater than HP below 5252 RPM. That also means HP will ALWAYS be greater than torque above 5252 RPM.

In this modern era of efficient high stall converters that yield in excess of 2.0:1 torque multiplication at their flash stall speed, and trick clutches, when someone tells you that it is necessary to have "torque" when "moving a heavy Stock Eliminator car", remember that in order to make HP, you must have torque to begin with, since torque is the actual force, and HP is merely a mathematical derivative of the force called torque.

Two engines that have "X" HP at 6000 RPM have the same exact amount of torque at 6000 RPM, regardless of how many cubic inches they displace, what their bore/stroke ratio is, or what their rod/stroke ratio is.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

You can tell this is a slow news day....

Do the OEM numbers come from the max that the combo makes or can the Manufacturers pick the RPM they rate it at? You make this sound like they flogged it out for a number that WE as racers would chase. I would think that the Manufacturers would play the same game they always did in the past with this number.Then they could low ball the rpm pulse width, timing, etc. if they wanted to.

When they are "certified" does the certification look into this also? What if your 300hp deal makes 400 at 1000 rpm more? Does the certification process include the sniff test on the dyno?
Tim, you seem to look at this closer than I have, do you know?

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

The point is you need to keep up with these threads if you want to brow beat folks. Read some of the old threads on the CJ's and you may learn something.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

Bruce - you find me a dyno sheet from a Cobra Jet Stocker that makes over 800HP and I'll issue a formal apology to anyone wrongly accused of being a moron. Until then my statements stand.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

Yeah, I'll buy that one OK. Dyno sheets on the CJ motors can not be found; even with a search warrant. The Ford Racing Staff made that very clear to me. This is about as close as we non Ford guys can get on the Horsepower numbers for these cars. 145.57 MPH @ 3,465 pounds equals 820 horsepower.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

Performance sells in the US market, any class car you always see the ads listing how the GM or Toyota or whoever makes more power than the other cars in its class. Every marketing advantage an OEM can get they take. That said, advertised Horsepower is the Peak power that the engine produces. Now with respect to engine durability targets some engines are limited in max RPM where in a race application you may turn the motor 1000 or even 2000rpm more (I turn my motor 3500rpm over the factory rev limit). This of course will allow more power production if the rest of the combination (throttle size, valve springs, head flow, etc) can support it. Pretty sure for example when GM rated any of their small blocks they weren't turning them 9000rpm.

Fuel curves and timing are also softened to allow 87 octane uleaded fuel, etc. But putting race gas and 10deg more timing in an engine isn't worth 100+hp.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

It damned well might be if the engine is supercharged.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

The trick Bruce is they are not making 800+HP. The advantage they have is a flat torque curve. In a 3400+lb car, torque is king and a boosted engine will outperform a NA engine at the same peak HP every time. So who do you fault for the factoring on that? It's a variable that wasn't in the equation previously at the mainstream level but each year going forward your going to see more boosted engines in the OEM's and NHRA is going to have to find a way to deal with them and adding classes isn't the answer, that dilutes a category that already struggles. They need to find an improved analytical calculator that accounts for the full power/torque curves and then employ someone with the engine development know-how to be able to dissect an OEM engine and identify its race prepped power potential and resultant 1/4 mile performance. There are softwares like GT Power that can do it, now who's going to pay for this level of analysis.

Let's be pessimistic - NHRA enters overfactored combos into the database, no one ever builds one and nothing ever happens. NHRA let's in underfactored combos, as many people build them as there are people who are chased away by them. The OEM's get great PR, same number of race cars show up at the track so NHRA isn't out anything but they've gained OEM favor. The sport actually benefits. Welcome to business. We should all be thankful that the OEM support isn't stronger and another wave of model year limits have never been enforced - Just think if Stock was 1980-newer only. It happened once.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

It easily makes well over 700 at the flywheel, and it makes as much or more at the rear wheels as some of the very best and fastest traditional combinations (that are rated within 10-20HP of the CJ) make at the flywheel.

It does not matter what formula you use to factor them, correctly factored they are not legal for Stock. So either a) they go to Super Stock, b)another class is added, c) or you take enough off of the other combinations to level the field. We know "c" is not an option. So that leaves "a" or "b".

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

nhra staff does not need improved analytical calculators or any new statistcal methods. They know exactly what is going on here.

BUT, nhra does need honest men to run the shop. No engineering calculations can replace talented, honest hands on the wheel. nhra does not have that right now.

Finally, I will rely on the FRP staff who told me that these motors made 800 hp. Of course they would not provide the dyno sheets so we'll just have to watch the performance of these new cars for fair indicators of the power they make. The CJ's have proven the engineers numbers todate.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

Tim,

SAE net h.p. is just that. The "production certified" engines are tested with production intent full hardware. Front to rear, they "must" have the production intent induction system, complete with the air cleaner and and all associated ducting. The "complete" accessory drive with pumps, compressors and altenator. Complete production exhaust that passes federal noise passby. And oh, said engine must also pass federal emission requirements.
I think most of the conversation here would suggest that the nonproduction engines would neither fair well, or for that matter ever be available for street use. Given that, the advertised horspowers vs. the factored horsepowers are somewhat irrelevent.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

Spoon, you're right on the money. Since 1972 all American made motors have had SAE net horsepower ratings. Prior to 1972 they were SAE gross hp ratings. The difference is net is with all accessories including the full exhaust. It seems to me I've seen some low to mid 14 second times in the magazines for the GT Mustangs which would indicate the 300 hp factor would not be far off. That's the rating Ford gave the motor before they were trying to take unfair advantage of the rest of us. They add a point of compression and larger throttle bodies and all of a sudden it's 235.. Give me a f@#%ing break.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

After reading many of the postings, I wonder if GM had offered a new Camaro with the SC engine, and if the CJ's and DP's were not available, if the controversy would be the same?

I feel the solution to all the controversy is for NHRA to re-introduce the F.I. classes and isolate the F.I. cars from carb class cars like they did some time ago. The reality is that Chrysler benefited from new technology and way of engineering thinking under the umbrella of the Germans.

Ford has benefited by having a CEO that was a career engineer and has given his engineers an open door to be creative. He also brought a lot of aerospace technology to Ford. As an example, the new blocks used on the 2011 Shelby are aluminum with no sleeves; just an aerospace coating on the walls, saving a lot of wait on the engine. The new 5.0 engine for 2011, has headers that were designed by an engineer at his hobby shop located at home.

By the way, for those that are quoting the SAE testing methods, there are formulas when SC, turbos and intercoolers are used.

Like I said in a previous post, the guys in Glendora, just know to put the specs that are provided to them by the OEM and do not have the knowledge to figure out potential performance from a combination. That is why many of us miss the days of Farmer running the tech office. The OEM's could not fool Farmer.

Re: Another bogus hp rating.
 

They wouldn't have fooled Bob Lang or Wesley Roberson, either.