psston broke..

[WDE_BDY]

DELETED

[Gaz]

Yeah I added that in. Shows their dyno isnt quite accurate, which you would assume anyway... or that particular engine was a lot tired.

But yeah 105hp stock down to 85hp makes all the figures a bit on the low side so yeah.

Would be interesting to see what the extra capacity did up the top end of the NA tune of these engines.

[nismo.capri]

It has been stroked.

Has it had a stroker crank fitted or has the crank been off set ground?

Reground Camshaft (nice and lumpy)

High pressure valve springs

Classic case of old school thinking. The pinto suffers in the cam bearings on the 2nd and 3rd posts. These bearings should always be replaced and the smallest possible valve springs run. In a street car I always run about factory pressures as they are good for 7000 rpm. With a std dizzy the points start bouncing around 5500-6000 rpms and at these rpms valve bounce isn't an issue so there's no need. The best set up is double valve springs running around factory pressure as the double springs do't suffer from harmonics like a single spring can.

Stanless steel valves (bigger and lightened)

Port and polish

Polished is the worst thing for any port as it fucks with the boundary layer. Simple example of this is if you blow a drop of water on a piece of glass it sticks to the glass. Do this with a piece of sand paper and the drop breaks up and lifts off the sand paper.

Stroked and balanced crank

On the 2L you can drop the centre of the big end out ward a few mm by using a rod with a smaller big end but this weakens the crank becasue it removes material, especally if the fillets aren't rolled back in. A stroker implies a new custom crank with bigger a bigger throw. google "strokert Kit" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroker_Kit

But yeah its sold now for $700. I think a good idea even if its a gamble.

I gave up buying misterey engines long ago. The amount of bullshit 2L's is amazing. I'd rather have a std 205 bottom end as it will do 6800 rpms all day long and getting a 2L to actully use those revs requires a properly setup head that are few and far between.

Read Des Hammils and Dave Vizards books as everything I've said here is in them (even tho they dis agree with each other)

There is so much BS and so little proof when it comes to 2L pintos. Ever wonder why no one has a dyno sheet?

I think it's becasue the 2L makes crap numbers in todays world of multi valve jappers.

[nismo.capri]

Yeah perhaps your right. I was talking at the fly tho which is around 140 at the wheels. When ya take away 30% drivetrain loss thats 104.398kw@wheels.

Personally I don't believe the 30% losses. I think of it this way 30% of 200 HP = 66.6 HP (49kW) so that means you are loosing the same amount of energy of 20 fan heaters in friction, heat and noise. Most if that energy is lost as heat so the gearbox and diff would be frying not just warm.

2 of the NA cars in your list have that and a few more are close to.

Did you have a look at the specs of the cars?

Dannys 115kW spins to 9500 and makes power there. I'll let you imagine the cost of that engine. It took him about 10 years of R&D to build that himself.

But yeah your prob right, it would prob be quite a cunt on the street. Id do it more for the torque advantage or as a start for a tourqey turbo setup.

The 2L ports are crap partly becasue theyare too big which is why they love forced induction. Loads of power loads of response for the least amount of cash.

Added the ist as its quite good as a reference regaurdless.Would be good if we knew what was done to each engine. Are they all 2l or 1600? I notice it says RS2000 in places but just Mk2 in others.

Yeah it's a pain as you have to search for each car in the project section. I asked if they could add a quick spec list but got the usual "check the forum" reply

3. Jon Tarr - Turbocharged Mk2 Capri - 132.7kW

I did the head for this one and base tune for this engine

18. Simon (nismo_capri) - N/A Mk1 Escort - 69.92kW

This is my daily with a $50 2nd hand bottom end, a ground cam (which is not what you do with a 2L becasue the base circule get too small and fucks with the rocker geometry) and the TBI it's a classic example of why you don't use a ground cam. I used it becasue I got it for free and it's better than factory but not much

[nismo.capri]

Yeah I added that in. Shows their dyno isnt quite accurate, which you would assume anyway... or that particular engine was a lot tired.

But yeah 105hp stock down to 85hp makes all the figures a bit on the low side so yeah.

Would be interesting to see what the extra capacity did up the top end of the NA tune of these engines.

I hate to tell you guys but the HP dyno of the day was with out anything else connected the engine no alt no water pump it's basicly the most the engine could make. The factory started with the BS numbers.

That "factory" dyno engine wasn't high kms from memory.

I don't know why anyone works with fly wheel HP as fuk all people dyno just the engine, I don't know about you guys but I drive a car not a flywheel. To me flywheel power is pointless, it's like looking at what you get paid before tax. You can't spend it, you've already lost it, same with HP what's important is what's going down to the road not some number with a mystic modifier added in.

How many of you have seen a proven NA 200+ HP pinto?

Proof as in Dyno or quarter mile times?

I think there's a reason everone calls them 200 hp but can't prove it, it's becasue they aren't.

[Spencer]

^ nice post, nice to see your living in the real world with your figures 200hp is no easy feat for some 2l engines with 4 valves and 30% drive train loss is ridiculous. Your gearbox would be cooking http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/trans.htm nice article and says 17% loss at a maximum for rwd. Also has a article about pinto shit but cant comment not my thing

[Unclejake]

I don't know why anyone works with fly wheel HP .

I can answer that one (apart from big noters who like bigger numbers of course).

I will be using an engine dyno in a few months for the Cortina as a development tool to gain more HP/Torque. The engine dyno is a big hassle but less of a hassle than trying to change venturis etc. with the engine in the car. Engine dyno vs. hub dyno is going to save several hours of dyno time (although it will take 10s of hours more of my personal time).

I will be changing exhaust primary tube lengths and secondary pipe lengths as well. Hard to do in the car (but not impossible) but easy on the engine dyno.

It is unlikely that the car itself will ever get onto a dyno. Just the engine - so all I will ever know is flywheel figures (correct or not - it doesn't matter as long as I use the same machine everytime).

, I don't know about you guys but I drive a car not a flywheel. To me flywheel power is pointless, it's like looking at what you get paid before tax.

Are you suggesting that you adjust your driveline on the dyno? I am assuming not so I can not agree with the above.

I am not trying to start a fight - I am just offering the view for 'the other side'. You and I agree on pretty much everything else

EDIT: I am trying to build (or more correctly have built with lots of my input) a 160 plus HP Pre-crossflow 1500. We will see if I can do it or not soon I guess.

[Steelies]

I will be changing exhaust primary tube lengths and secondary pipe lengths as well. Hard to do in the car (but not impossible) but easy on the engine dyno.

Jason, are your extractors 4-1 or 4-2-1?

[mikuni]

A transmission will never loose 30% of your power sure, but rolling road dynos do have losses associated with them aswell. All that inertia and friction of the large rollers take some power to turn, though I'm unsure of how much - probably only around 5% the power figures being quoted if that but could be significant when dynoing lower power engines.

[Unclejake]

I will be changing exhaust primary tube lengths and secondary pipe lengths as well. Hard to do in the car (but not impossible) but easy on the engine dyno.

Are your extractors 4-1 or 4-2-1?

Currently 4-1 but the new ones may not be

[Jay GTi]

Before this goes any further, could it be clarified if we are talking about 'corrected' at the flywheel power and not engine dyno at the flywheel power, when discussing the difference between at the fly and at the wheels?

Agreed that no serious engine tuner would ever use a corrected/calculated at the fly figure that was measured on a rolling road dyno, because there is so much scope for 'adjusting' the calculations for favourable results. Shit, when I was dicking about with my old GTIR in the UK, I could make 30bhp just by driving 45 minutes from one well-respected rolling road operator to another that was well-known for dubious bhp claims*. So from that perspective, yes at the fly figures are pointless if they are derived from the at the wheel figures.

*Interestingly when I sold the car, I had no problems quoting the latter's power figures...

[nismo.capri]

I don't know why anyone works with fly wheel HP .

I will be using an engine dyno in a few months for the Cortina as a development tool to gain more HP/Torque.

For sure but you are measuring flywheel HP not wheel hp then multiplying with a BS factor.

The engine dyno is a big hassle but less of a hassle than trying to change venturis etc. with the engine in the car. Engine dyno vs. hub dyno is going to save several hours of dyno time (although it will take 10s of hours more of my personal time).

I will be changing exhaust primary tube lengths and secondary pipe lengths as well. Hard to do in the car (but not impossible) but easy on the engine dyno.

I'll be interested to hear if you have to pull some timing through the mid range. Every time I've had mine dyno'ed (hub) I find that it pinks a bit around 3000 rpms once on the road so I usually pull a few degrees therough there.

It is unlikely that the car itself will ever get onto a dyno. Just the engine - so all I will ever know is flywheel figures (correct or not - it doesn't matter as long as I use the same machine everytime).

Yep which is actually what they were designed for. As you know people seem to think a dyno is like a tape measure and they are all calibrated the same.

, I don't know about you guys but I drive a car not a flywheel. To me flywheel power is pointless, it's like looking at what you get paid before tax.

Are you suggesting that you adjust your driveline on the dyno? I am assuming not so I can not agree with the above.

Sorry if that was mis leading. All I'm trying to point out is that HP measured at the wheels is exactly that. Saying my car makes XXX RWHP is the most common way of compairing engine power. It's a measured amount why ad in a BS factor for flywheel power?

At the end of the day a dyno is only a tuning tool and it's really easy to make them read big numbers. The easiest way with a chassis dyno is to tell the guy you have a taller diff

I am not trying to start a fight - I am just offering the view for 'the other side'. You and I agree on pretty much everything else

Takes more than disagreeing with me to start a fight I like a bit of healthy arguing the point

EDIT: I am trying to build (or more correctly have built with lots of my input) a 160 plus HP Pre-crossflow 1500. We will see if I can do it or not soon I guess.

I'm not saying that everyone is full of shit and you can't get the old Fords pulling good numbers I'm saying that a lot of people are full of shit and call crazy numbers with out proof.

You, as usual and doing it the right way by measuing and testing to get what you want. How many people do you think spend 10 hours with their engine on a dyno most of them aren't as nuts as us and just go for a japper which is soooo much easier

[nismo.capri]

A transmission will never loose 30% of your power sure, but rolling road dynos do have losses associated with them aswell. All that inertia and friction of the large rollers take some power to turn, though I'm unsure of how much - probably only around 5% the power figures being quoted if that but could be significant when dynoing lower power engines.

Yup which is why I like hub dynos. You can also suffer traction issues with a rolling road

[nismo.capri]

Agreed that no serious engine tuner would ever use a corrected/calculated at the fly figure that was measured on a rolling road dyno, because there is so much scope for 'adjusting' the calculations for favourable results. Shit, when I was dicking about with my old GTIR in the UK, I could make 30bhp just by driving 45 minutes from one well-respected rolling road operator to another that was well-known for dubious bhp claims*. So from that perspective, yes at the fly figures are pointless if they are derived from the at the wheel figures.

Thank you for saying that better than I did

*Interestingly when I sold the car, I had no problems quoting the latter's power figures...

Of course

[Unclejake]

For sure but you are measuring flywheel HP not wheel hp then multiplying with a BS factor.

Ahh - now I get what you were meaning. That is yuck.

I'll be interested to hear if you have to pull some timing through the mid range. Every time I've had mine dyno'ed (hub) I find that it pinks a bit around 3000 rpms once on the road so I usually pull a few degrees therough there.

Interesting. I can't think why that would be - but my timing is (unfortnately) not as flexible as yours sounds. I now regret the path I have gone down. If I had my time again I would run a crank angle sensor and coil pack etc.

[nismo.capri]

Interesting. I can't think why that would be - but my timing is (unfortnately) not as flexible as yours sounds. I now regret the path I have gone down. If I had my time again I would run a crank angle sensor and coil pack etc.

I put it down to the hub dyno not loading the engine up as much as the car + aero drag. It happend with my supercharged 2L, and 2 NA pintos I've done.

I love EFI for ease of tuning. Being able to tweak the timing is handy with a Link LEM ver 3 as it doesn't have an intake temp sensor so I can run a bit more timing in winter than summer with the denser air.

[sholdowa]

Finally got a vernier, and measured some stuff up. I'll have to work some of the stuff out...

Standard bore ( it still is but needs fixing ): 90.8mm

It's common to use 93mm ( 2.8i v6 pistons in the uk ) as a max rebore.

Stroke: 76.9mm

Main bearing centreline to top of block: 191mm

Big end dia: 51.7mm

Big end bearing width: 21.1mm

So I think that the length big end cl to top of piston needs to be 191-(76.9/2) + width of gasket = about 153mm.

Forgot to measure height of gudgeon pin, sorry. Happy to offset grind the crank for a suitable combination.

Any suggestions gratefully received.

[eke_zetec_RWD]

Interesting. I can't think why that would be - but my timing is (unfortnately) not as flexible as yours sounds. I now regret the path I have gone down. If I had my time again I would run a crank angle sensor and coil pack etc.

I put it down to the hub dyno not loading the engine up as much as the car + aero drag. It happend with my supercharged 2L, and 2 NA pintos I've done.

I love EFI for ease of tuning. Being able to tweak the timing is handy with a Link LEM ver 3 as it doesn't have an intake temp sensor so I can run a bit more timing in winter than summer with the denser air.

theres no reason why it shudnt load it up the same, spose it depends on dyno software.

one i use can set the time it takes to get from to x to y rpm.

eg 4 seconds to go from 3000 to 7000 rpm at any fixd throttle opening.

or make it limit engine rpm to anything you want at any throttle opening assuming its reving that high.

[nismo.capri]

theres no reason why it shudnt load it up the same, spose it depends on dyno software.

one i use can set the time it takes to get from to x to y rpm.

eg 4 seconds to go from 3000 to 7000 rpm at any fixd throttle opening.

or make it limit engine rpm to anything you want at any throttle opening assuming its reving that high.

I agree, it's happend consistantly I'd really like to know why

[Guest vvega]

Finally got a vernier, and measured some stuff up. I'll have to work some of the stuff out...

Standard bore ( it still is but needs fixing ): 90.8mm

It's common to use 93mm ( 2.8i v6 pistons in the uk ) as a max rebore.

Stroke: 76.9mm

Main bearing centreline to top of block: 191mm

Big end dia: 51.7mm

Big end bearing width: 21.1mm

So I think that the length big end cl to top of piston needs to be 191-(76.9/2) + width of gasket = about 153mm.

Forgot to measure height of gudgeon pin, sorry. Happy to offset grind the crank for a suitable combination.

Any suggestions gratefully received.

yeah pin height and rod length ...how much offset can you do before you hit the block on rod swing....and how much more of a drop can the pistons take before they will exit the bottom of the bore...

see if we cant get you some semisolid's and forged rod's out of something stock

keen to do head work ??

what induction you gunna use ? s/c maybe ?