,

 

I second thaw408's opinion - the dynos in question clearly state flywheel hp in their header and there is no way of making 300 whp without cams etc.

A few sites earliery I had posted a real 300+ whp n/a dyno but it found little attention in this thread.

 

You would state that if don't understand how the dyno works. Are you saying that the only 300whp plots are all on Dynopacks?

Jermaine~

 

As shown mjedens car already broke it without huge cams...Tomei 268's are far from huge...in fact, relatively mild for this motor

 

who even cares anymore. its only 300whp. its not like thats really that much. id rather see an n/a z that breaks 12.5 in the 1/4, than 300whp on a "dynojet".

can we use a more fair basis for our assumptions here?

 

Yeah, but didnt het also have higher CR? I stated that a mix of both will hit 300rwhp. I should of clarified that with higher CR you probably would not need as radical of a cam.

 

I didn't want to sound unfair at all - my point is that you will not be able to create a 50 whp gain on stock cams on a n/a 350Z. I don't say huge cams, but I say not on stock cams.

 

Ya he had the Tomei cams but also as stated before he had 20 over pistons and higher CR, we are tring to break 300 without boring the motor.

 

Nearly 300whp, 3.917 FD and slicks, that shouldn't be a problem.

 

Ok now listen up guys. To get 300whp from the 287 motor is very hard as you guys can see. Doug Crawford is coming close there but he is trying to keep the car emissions legal. Andy from PN has a Rev-Up motor with special STR headers which no one else has. And he also has a MD MREV and a Technosqare Rev-up reflash. Now without cams, heads, hih CR pistons, the closest we will get is 270whp. Like Rickdogg's awesome track Z. The most I have seen with cams and a good tune is 285. Alot of you are posting 295, 290 but those are not SAE corrected. Now my car is making 262 SAE corrected whp and I don't have cams, headwork etc. The only tuning I have is a reflash. Even Tony from PN was making 25 with bolt-ons, cams, reflash. Show me one SAE corrected dynojet besides Doug's car because he is the only one who is close to that sweet spot of 300whp.

 

Correction...300whp is EQUAL to 351BHP not 362 as you mentioned. 362BHP is about 310whp. Just wanted to clear that up.

 

How much were those NA Ferrari, Porsche, and BMW engines putting out per liter 17 years ago in 1989 when Honda was mass producing the B16 at 100 hp/liter?

The JDM S2000 made 246 hp from 1997cc back in 2000 putting it at 123 hp/liter.


You may not like Honda but one certainly cannot dismiss their engineering excellence, especially when considering the simple fact that their engines will outlast any and all from the manufacturers you have on your "finest" engines list.

 

its funny how ppl throw around hp numbers like that. a hp number is not indicative of an efficient engine. it is a factor but not necessarily the best.

i.e. hp is a function of tq @ rpm. so a high revving engine will have high hp if it holds tq at a higher rpm. but will make little tq before then.

look at the f1 cars. 18000rpm redline, huge hp, but low tq. compare that to a v8, huge tq but low hp and redline (<7000).

does having a low hp number mean the engine sux? not at all. it just means the characteristics of the car are different.

when comparing hp/liter ppl try to compare a "highly efficient" 4 banger vs a "highly inefficient" 8 banger. does this mean the 4 banger is superior?

-take into account entropy, the bigger a system gets the less efficient it is. therefore the larger engine can never be as efficient as the smaller one can be.
-also dont compare a high revving engine to a low revving one, its not fair.
-dont use hp numbers, these are not an actual rating of engines power. but rather the amount of "work" the engine can do when moving a certain weight over a certain distance.

hope this helped.

 

He is not alone.

 

We emphasis the wrong engine performance measurement.. "Torque wins races while Horsepower sells cars" ..The concept of Torque seems to not be well understood..Horsepower is an almost arbitrary and unitless concept..Cars develop Torque to make them go..Unfortunately the so called muscle cars of the past have over time caused our brains cells to fixate on Horsepower..It's truly unfortunate because we spend lot's of money to brag about having it when we should be spending it to gain Torque..my $02 cents

 

here's something I've been curious of for awhile. Has anyone ventured into the possiblity of a ITB set up? I know that right now it's popular for most high reving inline motors but, nothing is impossible to fab. It might be really expensive to fab but, for the gains from ITBs it could be worth it instead of engine internal/stroking/boring. Just a thought, I could be crazy.

 

Might want to cheeck the math again buddy. 351x.83 = 291.

 

Damn! Nice numbers and very impressive torque.

 

It's not torque, its whp before TS-Reflash.
Thanks anyway.

 

O, lol. I can't read.