Then it's save to assume that Dave's horsepower rating is equally suspect?
:-)
Ed Hamilton
----- Original Message -----
From: Laura Gharazeddine <Laura.G@141.com>
To: <spitlist@gte.net>; Craig Smith <CraigS@iewc.com>
Cc: Terry L. Thompson <tlt@digex.net>; <spitfires@autox.team.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: BHP ?
>
> Actually, it's been explained to me-a dynamometer isn't really acurate-it
> depends on the person operating it, and on the machine itself. (Depending
on
> these factors-you can get different readings on the same car!)
>
> Well, there's a waste of money that could have been better spent on say, a
> new burled wood dash!
>
> Laura G. and Nigel
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joe Curry <spitlist@gte.net>
> To: Craig Smith <CraigS@iewc.com>
> Cc: <Laura.G@141.com>; Terry L. Thompson <tlt@digex.net>;
> <spitfires@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 8:59 AM
> Subject: Re: BHP ?
>
>
> > Craig,
> > The answer is:, "Put the car on a Dynamometer and have it tested." That
> > is the only way to truly know the horsepower that is being generated.
> > Anything else is supposition. And while it makes us feel good to tell
> > others how our favorite car has xxx horsepower, it is meaningless unless
> > it can be proven by actual testing.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Joe
> >
> > Craig Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > Ok, I believe...
> > > I have a question.
> > > A stock MKIV
> > > Head shaved .020
> > > Valve job new rings, bearings
> > > Long Flow header
> > > Balanced Crank and Pistons
> > > Stock Strom.
> > > HP ???
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Laura.G@141.com [mailto:Laura.G@141.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 10:25 AM
> > > To: Terry L. Thompson; spitfires@autox.team.net
> > > Subject: Re: BHP ?
> > >
> > > > has anyone heard of a 1500cc Spit engine being brought above 100 hp?
> > > > (I know a twin SU equiped spit is rated at 71 bhp without catalyst.)
> > >
> > > Yes. When the engine on my car was being rebuilt, the PO had the
> intention
> > > of
> > > racing it-so....it was tweaked. Remember-F1 engines used to be
1500-it's
> > > not the size-it's the skill of the mechanic!
> > >
> > > The engine was completely taken apart. A lot of time and effort was
put
> into
> > > putting it back together. (Remember-he does this for a living-and he
> used to
> > > build
> > > race cars-) Combined with the headers and side draft Weber...Oil
> cooler...I
> > > mean
> > > every little detail. It's a very fast car. And there haven't been any
> engine
> > > problems-
> > > and I drive it hard. But, he and his son took it out to test it when
> they
> > > finished-to see if
> > > he could "break" it-and he couldn't (and he drove it REALLY hard!)-it
> > > redlines up
> > > around 9500.
> > >
> > > I know that no one on the list believes me-so, I won't even go into
the
> > > datails-
> > > the answer to your question is emphatically YES-given the time, skill
> and
> > > money-
> > > YES!
> > >
> > > Laura G. and Nigel
> > >
> > > > The reason I'm asking is that since an engine swap for another
engine
> > > (289?
> > > > 302?)
> > > > is a very daunting task, requiring mods for frame, body, drive-train
> and
> > > > suspension,
> > > > I'm wondering how effective it would be to have another Spit engine
> built
> > > > up with
> > > > performance cam, dual point distributor, roller rocker, tubular push
> rods,
> > > > competition valves, dual valve springs, etc. (I'm specing the cost,
> and it
> > > > seems
> > > > a lot more reasonable to do than to modify the car with a larger
> foreign
> > > > block and
> > > > drive train.)
> > > >
> > > > Terry L. Thompson
> > > > '76 Spit 1500
> > > > Maryland
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > "If you can't excel with talent, triumph with effort."
> > -- Dave Weinbaum in National Enquirer
>
>
|