Jump to content

Welcome to 205GTIDrivers.com
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
 
 

Photo

Bhp Levels


  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#21
DrSarty

DrSarty
  • Drivers
  • 4,983 posts
Joined: 27 Aug 2006
  • Name:Rich
  • Location:Peterborough
Garage View Garage

hey sorry didnt mean to come accross with an atitude.

for me its bhp that counts but for many others its torque, thats fair enough


Ok then. What we are saying is that BHP simply doesn't exist without torque, i.e. it's another way of explaining the same thing.

Think: the simplest function and component of an engine, whether it be rotary or traditional 'piston in bore' internal combustion engines, is to ROTATE a crank. That manner of force is a 'moment'.

Two typical units of measure are used, pound/foot (lb-ft) and Newton/metre, i.e. one imperial one metric, but ultimately describing a rotational force described as a mass wanting to act at right angles to a fulcrum or pivot. This is all an engine produces, a crank shaft rotation. Everything else an engine produces such as extra heat caused by friction and sound is effectively energy wasted, similar to a typical light bulb, which should produce light, spending most of its time producing heat = highly inefficient.

Sorry for the lecture, but BHP is just a tool to package up torque, by relating it to RPM which makes it more tangible, sexy and saleable. That's my humble opinion anyway.

If you prefer the sexiness of BHP, then that's fine. But all you're really liking is torque and a rate at which it is produced, aka, where it is in the rev range. But again that is subjective, because an engine could produce the same peak BHP at two different RPMs, i.e. a lower torque figure at high RPMs, or a higher torque figure at lower RPMs. Those are both in BHP terms equally high, but totally different in terms of driveability.

Edited by DrSarty, 07 December 2008 - 04:22 PM.


#22
vickiw106

vickiw106
  • Drivers
  • 146 posts
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
  • Location:Wolverhampton
bloody hell where did all this come from

all i wanted to know if my engine was performing or not

thanks for everyone's input

after looking at what everyone has said i am happy with my engine

ps i will still try and get the graph on later

ta

#23
Anulfo

Anulfo
  • Drivers
  • 543 posts
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
  • Location:Bridgwater, South West
If its a full on group A cam you have im assuming the head is more heavily modified than just the big valves???Otherwise your head might not last too long.

#24
GLPoomobile

GLPoomobile
  • Drivers
  • 7,334 posts
Joined: 19 Apr 2005
  • Name:Barnaby Worthington-Titwank III
  • Location:Edinburgh
I don't think any of our heads are likely to last long with the way this topic is going. But it keep it up chaps, you've given me a laugh :blush:

And Rich, please cease your incorrect use of aka :(

Edited by GLPoomobile, 07 December 2008 - 06:29 PM.


#25
welshpug

welshpug
  • Pitcrew+
  • 30,025 posts
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
  • Name:Mei
  • Location:Bridgend

BHP is for pub banter. Torque is what makes me grin.

I've seen 1900cc 8vs running up to 177bhp (Someone from here I am assuming?)


That's chris penrose, 309pug :blush:

#26
Rom

Rom
  • Drivers
  • 998 posts
Joined: 12 Mar 2006
  • Location:Bristol
Fun fun :blush:

Im not overly bothered by bhp figures, for all the reasons outlined. Bhp is top end screaming, torque is low down grunt. Hence diesels have a fair bit of pull mid range, but lack up top.
Both are valid measurments, but in my opinion, bhp is more for kids who just 'got 10 bhp from this backbox'

#27
Anulfo

Anulfo
  • Drivers
  • 543 posts
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
  • Location:Bridgwater, South West

Fun fun :blush:

Im not overly bothered by bhp figures, for all the reasons outlined. Bhp is top end screaming, torque is low down grunt. Hence diesels have a fair bit of pull mid range, but lack up top.
Both are valid measurments, but in my opinion, bhp is more for kids who just 'got 10 bhp from this backbox'


Ooooh yeah baby!! That fantastic Peco big bore back box that gave me another 40bhp on my E-reg SR Nova!!!Hehe

#28
Jakob

Jakob
  • Drivers
  • 168 posts
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
  • Location:Denmark

on the road is seems supurb no dips in power or anything and it pulls like hell but that could be down to the gearing i am running.

the ingnition was adgjusted on the rollers

dont get me wrong i was happy the the job the the rolling road company did, as they increased the power by 30bhp and it does run good

i was just expecting a little more bhp out of a 1900 as there are 1600 running more power



1600 will always make more power (hp) than 1900 if you have the same head-flow and everything else equal.

You need a lot more to understand your graf and your engine output. What seems like a disapointment could turn out to be quite interesting.
As mentioned tourge is what matters AND where you have it in your rpm!!!! Same tourghe will give you more hp when peak at high rpm than if peak at lower rpm.

What are the figures of your cam in regards to lift @0.1mm and duration. That will tell you a lot.
AND the big valve head - would that be the XU10 head on a XU9 bore??? (valve shrouding...) I doubt with that tourge figure.

Anyway your engine is running somewhat 85% of it potential. If you are seing 145hp at 5800 rpm, then you are to have a happy surprise going into the 6000 rpm scale and with the right cam going into the 7000 rpm. You have lots of potential with your tourge that high in the rpm and with that figures. Try a aggressive came ...

#29
DrSarty

DrSarty
  • Drivers
  • 4,983 posts
Joined: 27 Aug 2006
  • Name:Rich
  • Location:Peterborough
Garage View Garage
GLP> Yes master...so sorry, aka ram it! :lol:

And Vicki: you had a concern about some results concerning someone measuring the performance of your engine, so you got some answers. You can't really criticise what you've got as it's become very interesting, and some of the best threads have started like this.

It pains a lot of people on this forum, and elsewhere I guess, that some people get so hung up on horse power. You had a concern as it was - rightly or wrongly - important to you, so we helped and you should now know quite a lot more than when you originally posted.

So a bit more info for you is that what is actually important, is that from your graph we can see HOW your engine spreads and delivers the torque. This is supreme info because it truly shows how well your engine is working.

What I mean is, say you or anyone buys one of these super duper Peco back boxes for their car, and then takes it to a rolling road and it really does 'on paper' make 10bhp more, then the rest of the engine's rev range outside of where the new higher WOW 10extra BHP shows itself might be complete dogs*it and the car's a bitch to drive. That's an extreme example, because you could take your car to 5 rolling roads and get 5 different results. In that case, would the highest result make you the happiest?

So if we can see that graph then we as a forum, which includes people far far more clever than I, can offer some true insight and advice into perhaps how to make you happier and eek more performance HOW YOU LIKE IT from your engine.

Trust us, we're actually on your side. Rants and strong opinions voiced now and again actually does us all a favour, so please just let it happen. Thanks to you and WeeJimmy, we're where we are now.

Rich B)

P.S. And Jakob:

1600 will always make more power (hp) than 1900 if you have the same head-flow and everything else equal.

That is a fascinating comment, and I'm not arguing with it one bit, but I'd like it explained please.

Edited by DrSarty, 07 December 2008 - 07:46 PM.


#30
DrSarty

DrSarty
  • Drivers
  • 4,983 posts
Joined: 27 Aug 2006
  • Name:Rich
  • Location:Peterborough
Garage View Garage
Please excuse me for posting again, but I've borrowed the below from the extremely knowlegdable (and most importantly experienced) Sandy, from the last post in 'Big Valves...are they really needed' thread which is also in this topic category. This may help make my point, particularly the last bit:

Many experts will tell you that big valves = more flow and therefore less cam duration is needed to achieve the same cylinder filling, so the engine will work well over a wider rpm range; in theory that's true. My experience however, is that bigger valve engines are more sensitive to cam profile and timing and the undesirable side effects of a less than perfect cam profile with bigger valves are more pronounced than with smaller valves (mostly a boggy and unresponsive engine, that seem to make the numbers at the top, but feels horrible low down and thin in the mid range and at part throttle). Since most of the engines we're talking about on this forum are one offs, using off the shelf cams, without the facility or budget to experiment with a wide range of cam profiles and complementary inlet/head/exhaust designs; it makes more sense to me, to get to an ideal set up quicker and easier with standard valves.

I've achieved 97lbft/litre and 133bhp/litre from XU 16v engines I've built and set up so far, on standard valve sizes; with (if I say so myself ) immensely flexible power delivery and very sharp throttle response. To me, the way the power is delivered is more important than the numbers (but harder to convey!)


As for Jakob's interesting comment: these are specs (non cat) taken from CarFolio for me to try and get my head round what he's saying:

1.6 GTI Ex Works - 1580cc

Maximum power 115.0 bhp (85.8 kW) @ 6250 rpm
Specific output 72.8 bhp/litre
Maximum torque 98 ft·lb (133.0 Nm) @ 4000 rpm
Specific torque 62.1 ft.lb (84.18 Nm)/litre
bmep 1057.8 kPa (153.4 psi)
875-900kg 14" wheels: 0-60mph 8.9secs

1.9 GTI Ex Works - 1905cc

Maximum power 130.0 bhp (96.9 kW) @ 6000 rpm
Specific output 68.2 bhp/litre
Maximum torque 119 ft·lb (161.0 Nm) @ 4750 rpm
Specific torque 62.5 lb.ft (84.51 Nm)/litre
bmep 1062 kPa (154 psi)
875-900kg 15" wheels: 0-60mph 7.6secs

So is this an 'all things being equal' situation? The heads are the same aren't they? Same inlet but with different injectors. Only other difference being displacement due to longer stroke on 1.9, or have I missed something?

This does indeed show (unless there's an error) the specific output of the 1.6 being nearly 5bhp per litre greater than on the 1.9 engine. This to me matches what Jakob is saying, i.e. it is 'more powerful' per litre. But with larger wheels (and more torque) we have a much quicker 0-60mph from the 1.9. Note that there's only a gnat's cock in the specific torque measurement, which shows the 1.6 seems to be being as efficient as the 1.9.

So what happens if we put 15" Speedlines on a 1.6 acceleration wise? Whilst specific outputs are either in the 1.6's favour or matched, what difference if any if the wheels are also equal does 20lb/ft peak torque make?

And before anyone gets excited, this is NOT me saying 1.6 is better or worse than 1.9, I'm just exploring Jakob's comment further to play around with perceived POWER and how it translates into real world speed & fun, which surely is partly what this whole thread is about? Or is it purely about results on rolling roads, which aren't the most exciting places to drive?

Edited by DrSarty, 07 December 2008 - 09:03 PM.


#31
Rom

Rom
  • Drivers
  • 998 posts
Joined: 12 Mar 2006
  • Location:Bristol
Ive always thought smaller wheels = better acceleration. Bigger = slower , but higher top speed (negligable, sp?)
Something to do with the rolling radius.

Of course, i could be completely wrong. Or just mis read your post..im tired and cranky :lol:

#32
VisaGTi16v

VisaGTi16v
  • Drivers
  • 1,620 posts
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
  • Location:East Sussex
That is very strange that the 1.6 has more bhp/litre, never noticed that before. Smaller wheels will help acceleration if you dont have the power to pull long gears. 0-60/62 figures are often pointless as lots of cars need 3rd to hit 60 like my zx 16v for example. A Xsara vts also needs 3rd for 60 whereas a Gti6 can hit it in 2nd iirc giving it a lower 0-60 time but slower to 55 than a Xsara.

On a different note and back vaguely on the original subject. I agree Torque is good as ive been in my friends 350bhp/600kg Seight, unsure of torque figure but it has something silly like 180ft at idle and 300 odd peak but diesels are all about torque and I hate diesels so therefore bhp is the winner! :lol:

#33
Batfink

Batfink
  • Drivers
  • 4,802 posts
Joined: 02 Jan 2004
  • Name:Kev Self
  • Location:Aylesbury!
the engines would be more similar in relative bhp/litre if they were different bores to change the capacity, but there is always going to be a difference when the stroke is different.

#34
DrSarty

DrSarty
  • Drivers
  • 4,983 posts
Joined: 27 Aug 2006
  • Name:Rich
  • Location:Peterborough
Garage View Garage

On a different note and back vaguely on the original subject. I agree Torque is good as ive been in my friends 350bhp/600kg Seight, unsure of torque figure but it has something silly like 180ft at idle and 300 odd peak but diesels are all about torque and I hate diesels so therefore bhp is the winner! :lol:


This is kind of what I'm saying though. BHP is frankly meaningless. An engine, diesel or petrol only makes torque, that's all it does. Diesels, particularly diesel turbos make sh1te loads of torque, which some find sexy, others, you and I included don't. I know Maturin loves it. But it arrives in only a small area of the usable rev range which makes it a killer for acceleration if they're in the sweet spot, occasionally I suppose making us look silly.

As a result I guess diesels don't normally display large BHP figures, because a lot of that oomph (peak torque) has gone as they approach the red line, whereas petrol engines seem to deliver that spread of true power, i.e. torque, over a much more usable rev range. Petrol turbos are a half way house I guess, where they make masses of boost enhanced torque at a certain rev range which tends to be higher up the rev range to still deliver the sexy, high BHP figures.

If someone can prove me wrong about BHP, I mean about me saying it doesn't really exist and only torque does, then I will gladly eat humble pie with custard and learn. But I feel confident that BHP is just torque looked at through rose tinted glasses and is a rate of doing work rather than a measure of an engine's capability to rotate a crank.

I have mentioned many times on this forum that a far more realistic rating for an engine would be something like this:

'Using 80% of the rev range (between 0rpm & rev limit), 95%+ of peak torque can be delivered over what percentage of this band?'

EXAMPLE:
Let's say we have an Mi16 with PeterT's stage I road cam & his chip mod.
A PeterT chip on an Mi16 gives a rev limit of 7,500rpm. This means we have the 6,000rpm band of 1,500-7,500rpm to look at (i.e. 80% of the rev range)
Peak torque is perhaps 140lb.ft, so 95%+ is anywhere on the torque curve equal to or higher than 133lb.ft.
If the engine produces 133lb.ft for a band of 750rpm, then that is 12.5% of the 80% band in question.

> This means that engine would have a 133 / 12.5 rating, meaning it generates at least 133lb.ft over 12.5% of the practical rev range.
> This means a peak figure could be shown (or worked out)
> And this means this true power is accessible for 12.5% of the usable rev range, which in comparison to a 133/10 motor would be 'better', and provable so.

This really only compares engines and not cars, as I appreciate that there are so many other contributing factors in grading performance. But this method could be used on an engine dyno or on a rolling road, where I think with the latter it should be done using only ATW figures. In a shoot out however i.e. a rolling road day, providing the calculation back to fly was consistent it would still produce comparitive results.

But realistic ain't sexy, although I think for example a 120 / 40 engine would be mega impressive. It may produce less peak torque (which is where skewed figures come in - like horse power I'm afraid) but the top 5% of true engine power would be on tap for nearly half the rev range from tick over to red line. Now that's SEXY!!

Edited by DrSarty, 08 December 2008 - 10:09 AM.


#35
VisaGTi16v

VisaGTi16v
  • Drivers
  • 1,620 posts
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
  • Location:East Sussex
I think I need another cup of tea before reading your post a few more times to understand it B)

A friend has a remapped Bora TDi thats 197bhp and 292 ft/lb, the kick in the back when he accelerates is just mad and for normal every day driving and overtaking its all you ever need but then it only has 2000rpm power band. Diesels were marketed back in the day as being torquemiesters (er) where you never needed to change gear but these days thats just not true. They bump the turbos up so much that most quickish ones dont get power until almost 2k then run out of steam just over 4k. I much prefer a smooth power delivery from idle even if I have less outright power, rather have a much wider power band. Ive never driven a fast petrol turbo but in the wet they must be awful unless absolutely on it and correct gearing, at least when sprinting the Visa I know whats going to happen when i touch the pedal. Clearly super chargers are the way forward :lol:

Back to the original post. If the car feels quick and you are happy then the figures are not that relevant. All rolling roads read differently. I see people on here claiming well over 180bhp for the spec of my Visa yet I only had 168 on the rolling road where I took it. You could go somewhere else and see 160 odd from your 8v. I think you said you have 40's, they should be fine for your power, take a look here 35mm chokes which I presume they can take are good for 169bhp so more than enough. People fiting 40's to 16v's however always baffle me as its almost impossible to get any more power out of them compared to the standard injection!

Edited by VisaGTi16v, 08 December 2008 - 10:16 AM.


#36
Batfink

Batfink
  • Drivers
  • 4,802 posts
Joined: 02 Jan 2004
  • Name:Kev Self
  • Location:Aylesbury!
I think all peak figures are pretty meaningless, especially when looking at the engine in isolation. At the end of the day its what is outputted after the gearbox that matters.
Different engines will be better in different situations, A big flat torque curve is great for a car with less than optimum gearing and may overcome certain disadvantages, though a car with a peaky power band, a good gearbox can keep the car on the powerband better and just as effectively.

#37
DrSarty

DrSarty
  • Drivers
  • 4,983 posts
Joined: 27 Aug 2006
  • Name:Rich
  • Location:Peterborough
Garage View Garage
Very true Kev, hence me mentioning that the peak torque, or even worse BHP figure would only momentarily describe an engine in isolation.

It goes zero distance to explain the car and its performance in the real world. The engine should very much be matched to the application, and in non-track, non-strip work, i.e. road & rally, I suspect that my sort of 'availability of true engine power' rating would reflect quite clearly how drivable the engine/car was.

Edited by DrSarty, 08 December 2008 - 11:10 AM.


#38
weejimmy

weejimmy
  • Drivers
  • 543 posts
Joined: 21 Jan 2008
  • Location:Edinburgh, Scotland
"If someone can prove me wrong about BHP, I mean about me saying it doesn't really exist and only torque does, then I will gladly eat humble pie with custard and learn. But I feel confident that BHP is just torque looked at through rose tinted glasses and is a rate of doing work rather than a measure of an engine's capability to rotate a crank."

that is what bhp is, the rate that the torque is produced, thats the point.
ok imagine a boxer he can have 400lb/ft punch, but if he only punches at 1mph its not going to mater.
but if a boxer that can only punch 200lb/ft punches at 200mph its gona hurt.

so a high torque car may be able to tow a tractor etc which is great but not what your after.
a lower torque higher bhp car may not be able to pull much but it can make the torque faster so can accelarate the car faster.

theres a milion difrent arguments/ angles to look at this.
this is just my atemt to explain how i see things.

torque = tractor bhp = f1 kinda thing

ill say no more on this thread.

#39
DrSarty

DrSarty
  • Drivers
  • 4,983 posts
Joined: 27 Aug 2006
  • Name:Rich
  • Location:Peterborough
Garage View Garage

ok imagine a boxer he can have 400lb/ft punch, but if he only punches at 1mph its not going to mater.
but if a boxer that can only punch 200lb/ft punches at 200mph its gona hurt.


The punch IS the torque. A boxer who can't punch at all isn't a boxer.

You said that torque is irrelevant earlier. Do you still think this?

BHP (in horse power) = Torque (in lb.ft) x RPM / 5252

As Alex said, the 5252 is just a conversion constant, which means BHP doesn't even exist without torque. It is just a function or factor or description derived from it, and explains absolutely nothing.

Back on topic again (and sorry Vicki if you think we/I've trashed your thread; but I actually think it's very interesting) this is why I'm saying don't 'worry' about the horse-power reading. Get the graph up so we can see the torque curve which shows how the engine is truly performing. If the rolling road guys also have shown you your AFR (air to fuel ratio) graph too that will help us help you. And don't forget, if you're loving the car, then spend more time hooning it.

Yes, there will be a BHP curve, but that's just a mathematical function of the torque curve, it's IMHO not actually a measurement. Still waits to be shot down in flames...which I'm sure will happen, but I simply cannot see now what else an engine produces.

Edited by DrSarty, 08 December 2008 - 11:38 AM.


#40
B1ack_Mi16

B1ack_Mi16
  • Pitcrew+
  • 2,775 posts
Joined: 03 Jan 2004
  • Location:Trondheim, Norway
BHP is what counts really.

For example, what would be fastest?
Either a 205 with 400lbft and 150bhp, or a 205 with 200lbft and 200bhp?

As long as you are gearing the cars in such a way that both will reach the same top speed at the maximum revs for it's engine, the one with most power would always be fastest, at least as long as you can assume both cars have a more or less flat torque curve.

Power counts, torque isolated does not.