Another bogus hp rating.

[Bruce Noland]

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.

[Tim Kish]

Originally Posted by james schaechter

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?

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.

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Tim Kish

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.

It damned well might be if the engine is supercharged.

[Tim Kish]

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.

[Alan Roehrich]

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".

[Bruce Noland]

Originally Posted by Tim Kish

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.

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.

[Bruce Witherspoon]

Originally Posted by Tim Kish

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.

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.

[Greg Hill]

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.

[SSDiv6]

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.

[Alan Roehrich]

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