MONZTER Posted March 4, 2009 Author Share Posted March 4, 2009 Hi Jon, No I don’t take any of this personal. There is always room to question such discussions, I enjoy it When I first built the engine I Dynoed it to have it roughed in. And then spent time breaking it in and then lots of street tuning. at that time it made 210 at the wheels. There have been changes to the intake and exhaust since then. Here is the Dyno plot from then. This time it was a different Dyno, different operator. You could be right that its wrong, but this is just what I got from them. One at 210 when first built and not fully tuned and 231.5 now. I personally do not know if this Dyno stuff is legit or not, and actually I don’t care if my car made less, I just know it runs pretty good for what it is Good discussion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MONZTER Posted March 4, 2009 Author Share Posted March 4, 2009 This is the inside of the intake and some pics of the welded N-42, and the build Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z-ya Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 As insinuated in my first reply, I agree with Jon. I've used Dynapacks (preferred) and Dynojets. Here are some of the NA L6 engines I have measured on a Dynapack (all have headers, intake and exhaust upgrades): Rebello 3.2L, triple Mikunis - 260HP Rebello 3.1L, bored SUs - 231HP 10:1 L28, medium cam, Megasquirt, no head work - 180HP Bone stock 280Z (stock manifolds, Monza exhaust) - 125HP L24 with header (stock cam, SUs, intake, air filter) - 118HP What modification do you think allow your L24 develop as much power as a Rebello 3.1L? Or for that matter as much as a Bob Sharp C production L28 engine? Thanks, Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Thanks for not taking it the wrong way. It's just sounding too good to be true. Your second 210 whp dyno lends credence to the fact that you're making big numbers for what you have, that's for sure. I certainly can't fault your work as everything that I've seen pictures of is amazing, I am just having a hard time crediting your efforts to that great a degree. If the numbers are right your motor is making more hp than an EP engine with 12:1 compression. A LOT more. Those guys are making 250bhp and revving to 8K. It just doesn't seem to add up... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MONZTER Posted March 4, 2009 Author Share Posted March 4, 2009 Hi Guys, Yep, I dont know if they are correct or not, like I said, just what I have got from my 2 dyno sessions. Why would I assume that my engine is making that kind of power? Good question, as I am not some pro builder, nor claim to be. The only thing I can think is that my idea that less can be more may hold true. Just the right size ports, cam, compression and good fuel injection, just might be luck, or maybe its all crap. Dont know. Dont some of the Rebellow Strokers make 300hp on webbers? if so is 70 less hp possible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MONZTER Posted March 4, 2009 Author Share Posted March 4, 2009 As insinuated in my first reply, I agree with Jon. I've used Dynapacks (preferred) and Dynojets. Pete The first Dyno was on a Dynojet and this last one was on a Dynopack. it was done at Church Auto in Longbeach Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Hi Guys, Yep, I dont know if they are correct or not, like I said, just what I have got from my 2 dyno sessions. Why would I assume that my engine is making that kind of power? Good question, as I am not some pro builder, nor claim to be. The only thing I can think is that my idea that less can be more may hold true. Just the right size ports, cam, compression and good fuel injection, just might be luck, or maybe its all crap. Dont know. Dont some of the Rebellow Strokers make 300hp on webbers? if so is 70 less hp possible? Rebello has a supposedly optimistic engine dyno, so all of his figures are bhp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehelix112 Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I consider a dyno is a tool for tuning, not a tool for comparing horsepower figures. Especially if you're switching between two different makes. Apples and oranges really. Lets get this thread back on track with a clip of said engine making however much power it is @ 7000rpm please. FWIW, 231hp @ 7000 is 173ft/lb. According to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_L_engine#L24E) a L24E will make 133 ft/lb dead stock. So one with better squish, much more compression, much better intakes and exhausts.. who knows? Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MONZTER Posted March 5, 2009 Author Share Posted March 5, 2009 I dont have a scanner so I took a picture of the new plot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony D Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 "I'm starting to have doubts, please don't take it personally... " Doubt all you will, the cam in the Bonneville engine that peaks at 8250rpms (and the exact same cam in a 2.0 peaks at just under 9K...) is FAR 'smaller' than many 'experts' say we 'need' to make the kind of power we did with it as well. And the 2.0 has FAR less compression than we ran in the 2.8, simply from a function of the small dome on the piston not being able to adequately fill the L28 sized combustion chamber of the head! Changing the dyno may change the peak point, but the shape and where the power is will remain the same. I'd have to agree with MonZster that many L's have a lot more cam than they 'need' to make the power, and the difference really is in preparation more than what specific 'list of components' you assemble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I think arguing that the cam is the magic component that unleashes all this hp is just wrong. That same exact cam on a 16% bigger motor that was pro built and tuned on a dyno made 22% less hp. Size for size, Jeff's motor should be making 151hp if it were in the same state of tune as the other L28. They were both in the 10.5:1 range, both ported, Jeff has the better combustion chamber (the other was an unmodded N42 aside from the port job and cleaning up the chamber as I recall), the other car had triple 44s. As I recall, the other engine was completely done at about 6500 rpm, revving higher than that was losing time. In my experience the low rpm peak seems to be the common complaint with that camshaft and that's why I'm constantly telling people to go bigger. There have been numerous people who bought that cam, installed it and then complained of how bad it sucked right here on this forum over the years. But somehow Jeff's engine revs to 8000 with the same cam. Pete also has (or is it had) a 10:1 MS L28 engine that dynoed 163whp with a stock cam. So if you slapped Jeff's head and intake on Pete's block, theoretically Pete's engine now would make 270whp and rev to 8K, but then when you put a ported head with triples on it with the same cam it loses 90 whp and 1500 usable rpm. It has to be the intake and the port job if anything. Can the intake and port job possibly be responsible for that much of a power increase? Again, I have my reservations. Is it an East coast vs west coast hp issue? Optimistic vs pessimistic dynos? If puny cams are so wonderful, why do the best race engine builders use larger ones? Has Jeff figured out that the single most popular off the shelf cam that you can buy actually makes a hell of a lot more power than Sunbelt's single valve spring setup, or Rebello's custom grinds? Sorry, but that is a bit difficult to swallow. So I'm skeptical. I actually subscribe to Skeptic Magazine, so that's not too far out of line for me... I'm not trying to impugn Jeff's honesty or his workmanship, but that doesn't preclude me from doubting the results of his dyno run(s). If the numbers are right then you ought to be building race motors and making a hell of a lot of money. Then again maybe you already make a hell of a lot of money... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowlerMonkey Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I know for fact that the front runner Improved Touring guys are getting from 180hp to 208hp (sunbelt) at the crank with none of the mods done to monzter's engine above and they still have to deal with the pressure drop across the venturis as well as the much lower flow rate of the two carbs that are not linked to a common plenum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradyzq Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 MONZTER, Nice, smooth power curve. With REALLY good numbers! Couple of questions though: Was there an orange (at least mine is) thermocouple cable from the dyno in the engine compartment or anywhere else? Maybe coiled and hooked on the side of the dyno control tower? Also, what is the correction method if any? I've heard of a shop that tells the dyno it's measuring ambient temperature, then proceeeds to put the thermocouple under the hood. Since the dyno thinks it's measuring ambient temperature, it uses that number in its correction calculations, resulating in way high numbers if it gets hot enough. I once showed what had happened to a customer who was not able to duplicate his numbers from another shop (also had a Dynapack, like me). I figured it out when he told me where the themocouple had been placed. We tried it, and gained over 30WHP IIRC. Which would STILL leave you with sweet numbers! How fast is your car at the drags? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MONZTER Posted March 5, 2009 Author Share Posted March 5, 2009 MONZTER, Nice, smooth power curve. With REALLY good numbers! Couple of questions though: Was there an orange (at least mine is) thermocouple cable from the dyno in the engine compartment or anywhere else? Maybe coiled and hooked on the side of the dyno control tower? Also, what is the correction method if any? How fast is your car at the drags? I am not sure about the thermocouple wire, there were cables everywhere from the sound equiptment. The hood was open during the runs. I believe the plot said SAE correction factor Never drag my car, just autocross Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MONZTER Posted March 5, 2009 Author Share Posted March 5, 2009 I am going to set up a in car video and post it tonight so you guys can hear it (if it does not rain) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1 fast z Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Numbers are sure possible, but man with that compression being so low, it seems a bit optomistic. Although I have personally seen the car run, and it runs GOOD. It is also a very light car, which helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daeron Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 OMG I haven't even read the whole thread yet but how did you DO that I have been wanting to do that to every car I have ever owned since I first got indoctrinated into the roadsters!!!!!!!! If you haven't posted details yet please do! oh yah and congrats A: on the whole weekend thing and B: thats ALOT of NA HP from a 2.4!!! :2thumbs::2thumbs: Sorry, but that is a modification I have wanted to do to every car I have ever owned (especially my old subaru; ask braap how hard it is to "brup" the cooling system!!!) so please forgive a little excess exuberance. Regarding the camshaft discussion, a few thoughts to be considered by my fellow skeptics: Radically welded N42 head with abnormally high quench coupled with straighter ports than your standard P series, but larger valves (naturally) than your standard E series heads. Radically enlarged and straightened (and I presume "equalized"?) runners, as well as a highly modified plenum. Radiused runner inlets, and the entire plenum certainly LOOKS like it distributes the air more evenly than stock.. Far more evenly than stock. I think Monzter deserves some credit, and if an intake he made looks likely to perform better I will tend to believe it (lunacy, I know, I am like, SO naive ) So he has a one-off head, and a one-off intake. Why should a stellar performance from a camshaft that is typically less than stellar be so surprising? Who knows where the specs came from in the first place, but I suspect there is likely a reason (and possibly an histoirc one) that MSA sells that cam as their "hot number." Could be they just made some notes one day while talking to a tech in a paddock somewhere and went home to order their first "racing cam." Granted, thats sheer speculation, but my point is A: the character of his motor is unique (or certainly a-typical) B: he has had it dynoed twice now C: It makes alot of sense to believe that alot of people lack an indefinable "ability to build Z-car motors" because otehr data supports that. The converse also holds true (norm the 12 sec dual SU dude, my old man and my uncle, many many others) DO have a simple knock for putting them together right. I forget who said it, but I am going to agree with the verdict that you need to do this for a living. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MONZTER Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 OK so I made a really bad video of my car tonight. its dark and you can’t see much, but you can hear how it sounds I rev it like an idiot and drive like a fool. I know, I know, I usually save it for the track. It was some low traffic areas. You can kinda see the tach and that it doesn’t have much problem going past 6500 to the redline of 7700, but our West Coast tachs may be optimistically calibrated to read higher than it actually is by at least 30% HAHAH just kidding:icon12: Enjoy MonZter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MONZTER Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 OMG I haven't even read the whole thread yet but how did you DO that I have been wanting to do that to every car I have ever owned since I first got indoctrinated into the roadsters!!!!!!!! If you haven't posted details yet please do! Sorry, but that is a modification I have wanted to do to every car I have ever owned (especially my old subaru; ask braap how hard it is to "brup" the cooling system!!!) so please forgive a little excess exuberance. . Are you talking about the radiator cap? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MONZTER Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 This should be what I am running Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.