Just got back from having the teener run on a Dyno.

Good and not as good as I expected.

Was hoping for at least 100 Hp, didn't make it.

This run was on a Mustang Dyno, allegedly a Dynojet Dyno reads from 12~15% higher.

First the good.

Runs were extremely consistent. the three runs printed pretty much right on top of each other.

Torque was way up there above 95 tq from 3000 to 4500. with no real dips.

HP numbers were very consistent with a nice smooth line from 2000 to over 4500

Now the bad

Max HP was only read at 88 Hp and max torque was 100.

If I add the 12-15% it comes to 100 Hp. But it is what it is.

Build is

2056 D-jet, Heads by HAM RS+, 8.6 comp. Raby 9590 cam, SS HEs with Triad muffler. I Have adjusted the MPS to what seems to run best for this car.

This car runs great and I just wanted to know what it was putting out, Not really planning to try to tune it for more power. Reliability is the key. and I am so far happy with that.

Dyno sheet added (Date/time is wrong, 5/06/21 8:35am)

Click to view attachment

Just keep in mind that is your HP at the wheels. Not at the crank. You loose a good bit through the 901 box ~15%.
That said you are detuned with that build. Somewhere something is not working as efficiently as it should. What are you using to control fuel? Carbs/DJet/EFI?
Zach

There's still more power to be had with that build and D-Jet. Others will hopefully chime in. I thought there was something about modifying the MPS, bumping fuel pressure and even the CHT a bit to maximize HP/TQ.

That TQ looks great. I bet it drives and pulls great and can feel the difference in the upgrade.

Great Job

Recalling the formula:

TQ = Acceleration
HP = Top Speed

Something like that.

That's really not hateful...did you do a "before"? Mine "before'd" last November at 75 ponies/96 torques on a Dynapack, and the torque was not near that flat. I need to get it to the dyno for the "after" on the FAT 2056 build.

What cam are you running?

Forget what the charts show, it's the butt dyno feeling that counts!

Were they monitoring your AFRs during the pulls?

Like others here I have to suspect accurate fueling may be an issue. Its pretty amazing how far off from ideal the mixture on these cars can be and still have them run decently.

PMB has been seeing dyno numbers over 100HP on stock 2.0L motors just from the conversion to modern EFI (utilizing stock d-jet intakes) I would expect you should be seeing at least that with your motor once properly dialed in.

I was going to ask if there were any AFR charts also...

you might very well find extra HP with tuning of the MPS/mixtures...

we generally pick up 10hp when we dyno tune our carbs.

Changing to & properly tuning for the Euro 8.0 CR +/- 2L Heads got you a conservative Porsche 100 HP at 1971 cc (Porsche numbers were notoriously conservative then) - so I'd expect 110-115 or better from any 2056 build - Carb'd or Djet or other EFI (IIRC those were all at the crank - not rear wheels - so test "apples-for-apples").

Sounds like yours still needs some tweaking anyway.

For Greg - a buddy here in SoCal has a FAT 2056 with Djet that Ron built a number of years ago (don't ask me "what number") who was getting 120-125 HP at the rear wheels IIRC.


Tom
///////

Wow, that would be sweet. It feels really good with a nice flat torque curve. Very driveable. They installed their DJet cam though I'm running Microsquirt, and have a good VE table tuned to ~14.5 mid-throttle cruising and 12.8 for WOT.

It's all broken in now so I'll get around to the dyno soon enough. Maybe later this month or next.

Edit: here's my "before", w/ Microsquirt tuned close to the same AFRs. No history on the engine known.
Click to view attachment

Did not run a probe up the pipe, but the operator did monitor the AFR on my wide band AFR. He said it was in the md- high 11s at WOT.

So it looks like I could dial in the Full Load stop on the MPS a couple points.

Don't really know how much of a difference that would make though.

I am running single springs on the HAM RS+ heads, wonder if its starting to float the valves above 4500

Normal driving around AFR runs in the 12 ~ 14 range depending a lot on throttle position. I don't want to lean it out too much.

Not valve float @4500

Correction on that; those numbers are for the Toyota MR2 project. Below is he 914 AFR target table.

FYI by comparison for what you should be able to beat with your 2056 ....

The GA 2.0 USA stock 2.0L had better than your 88 max HP & 100 max TQ - with 116 lb/ft @ 3500 RPM & 95 HP @ 4900 RPM (DIN spec numbers) -

https://www.excellence-mag.com/resources/specs/367
.


FYI - Porsche USA stock numbers chart:

Click to view attachment
.... IIRC this is from the Porsche Chart(s) & made up by p914.com


1973 Owners Manual - with SAE 91 HP @ 4900 RPM, & 105 lb/ft @ 3500 RPM TQ numbers (ergo difference with Excellence's DIN numbers at the link above) -
Click to view attachment
.


IIRC SoCalAndy's (Andy T) prior yellow `72 914/4 with a twin 2-throat Carb (Weber?) 2056 cc turned out 125 HP, from what he told me - but that was +/- 7 years ago (prior to his current M471 yellow -6).

So maybe the current owner of that car &/or Andy T may know his old 2056's numbers, & whether it was crank or rear wheel.


Unfortunately I'm not finding my Euro Version performance chart for the their GB 2.0L with 100 HP & XXX TQ at RPM Curves - so maybe someone else who has it can post it.



Tom
///////

Don't forget that the standard for manufacturer dyno numbers changed in 1972. All the 2Ls prior to 1975 were rated at Gross (the old rating carried over), but Porsche had to go to the new Net rating for the '75 and '76 because of the re-rating for emissions. I believ there was also a compression ratio decrease?

For what we're doing today, Id' suggest stock ratings for the 2Ls should be compared to pre-75 numbers.

PS & slightly OT - of note on that p914 performance chart in my post above - people forget how well a stock 1970-72 1.7L performed vs. a stock 75-76 GC 2.0L as shown in the chart I posted above.

When I got my `73 "914S" 2.0 back in 1975 - I'd also test driven new 75 & 76 2L cars at dealers (100% financing on longer terms was about the same monthly payment as the used 80% with 20% down on my 3 year old car back then).

My "Butt Dyno" was definitely off with the later GC cars - and IIRC the California Cat Converter equipped 75-76 GC 2L cars were actually less HP due to the added smog tuning - down to only 78-80 HP, which they had to disclose with a loose specs sheet that they stuck into the dealer sales brochures (I have one somewhere in my deep-old storage boxes).

I'd also considered a few 71 7 72 1.7s back then, and I & my butt-dyno felt that they performed as good as or slightly better than the new 75-76 GC 2.0 cars, so I didn't see the extra cost as worth it, but the 73-74 2.0s were worth it - even back then.


From Dave Cheek's 1976 Owners Manual:
Click to view attachment
.


So folks with the 70-72 1.7s should really think about that before moaning about their 914/4's performance vs. late 2L cars - because they were in fact & butt-dyno felt about the same even when new for California's smog control burdened 914s, in part due to a bit less weight 70-72 without the BUBs & door impact bars, etc.


Tom
///////

Greg - you're confusing the SAE & DIN gross to net spec switch for 1973 MY, with the 1975 MY GC 2.0L engine switch that was emissions control based. BTW - that gross to net switch was an auto industry wide change.

PS - the other emissions control cause spec shift for the USA was in the 1968 MY when they required the air injection into the exhaust manifolds to control emissions by "after-burning" in the manifold(s)/pipes

No - the change was for the 73 MY, which was why the 1.7L carryover (non-California cars) was slightly lower than 72 1.7L 914/4s - so my comments above about 70-72 1.7L vs 75-76 2.0L performance would also extend to 73 1.7 cars NOT from California with it's lower HP & TQ.

And NO - the 75-76 GC 2.0L is a completely different engine & performance in terms of their emissions control mandated detuning. That is the big difference that you're seeing for the 75 MY specs.

Also - since the change from Gross to Net & DIN to SAE specs was for the 1973 MY when the 2.0L flat-4 was introduced to replace the slow selling 70-72 914-6 - the Gross DIN & SAE specs for a 73-74 GA 2.0L motor is actually much closer to the prior 914-6's 110 HP (detuned from the 1969 911T's 120 HP for same motor), and the TQ would be better on the 73-74 GA 2L-4 motor, than for the -6 (it was already more torquey at lower rpm than the -6).

Granted that the 911 based 2.0L flat-6 has far more upside potential, as show by 64-69 911 models with up to 270 HP IIRC on street tuned versions - but the GA 2.0L /4's are far more streetable than the -6's, because you can get more torque pull at low rpm in 2nd & 3rd gear around town.

That was my butt-dyno impression on the 2 1970 914-6s that I test drove back in 1975 before getting my 73 2L - and neither of the -6's passed my factory 914 trained mechanic Hans' PPI anyway, so non-contenders for my & my budget back then a year out of college!


Tom
///////

You say DIN and then proceed to show graphs with SAE ratings.


PS: 88/95 can get you into plenty of trouble. Plus, i take torque over HP any day.

Well my Butt Dyno said this engine had more than 100+ Hp.

I guess it was just the Torque talking

When the Mazda RX8 came out, a dealer I knew promised to hold one for me. It looked like it had decent power but the torque looked anemic by comparison. Took a pass on that one. Never had a chance to drive one, so no idea what it feels like to have all that horse power but lack torque.

It's 100 top torque.

Over 95 from 3000-4500

Feels plenty strong.

Well I can tell you this. Though the Triads and any aftermarket muffler may sound great that does not mean there more HP being produced. If you look at basic flow dynamics the Triad is not a very efficient path. That said each muffler will provide HP at different rpm ranges and basically you will see wild differences. I will tell you that the factory mufflers got it right. Yes they are quiet but the 2.0 muffler is almost identical to a 911 muffler of the same ish vintage and those provide some of the best numbers of any muffler out there.

There are also a bunch of bogus numbers out there. I have been involved in the hp hunt for over 20 years and have litterly sold thousands of systems.

All that said I believe your exhaust system to be partly at blame. But I firmly believe that at least for me the sound is so important to the sports car experience you need that to work over almost anything else.

Sounds, smells, feel is what these cars about.

Best of luck on the HP journey.

If you got your WOT mixture in the mid-high 12s (12.5-12.8) range you might find some of your missing ponys.

If you like how its running though... who cares

I'm also in the torque over HP camp. And my current build seems to be very similar to yours...HAM heads, 9590 cam, 96mm KB pistons. Main difference is that I've decided to ditch (or try ditching at least) the D-jet and am going with the new turnkey EFI kit that PMB is developing. I've personally witnessed dyno results of that system installed on a stock 2.0 car getting north of 115 HP and 120 lb-ft of torque. The thing that tipped me over into going with modern EFI is the ability to dial things in with much greater precision. That, and the MPS is a mystery to me . Hoping this system gives me every last ounce of power, better fuel economy and engine longevity. Will report back once it's in! Meantime, maybe @eric_shea can chime in with more info.

At WOT, steady acceleration and cruise pulling to me the magical number is 12.7:1, if you have a flat line 12.5-13 AFR under load you're golden.
That would likely get you over 90hp, your torque is great, if you can lean it out just that hair I'd call it good.

Notice on all these graphs how the torque and HP nosedives after 5K rpm?
With a fully balanced stroker engine and a big carb cam I can move that peak to 5800 but that's it, therefore even on a T4 hot street, AX car there absolutely no reason to need it go higher than 6K rpm.

If you need to do 7-8k rpm then really you need a /6.

Precisely!

Ian, that is the smartest application for your $$$. Modern day electronics is the reason I flipped to Subaru years back. If Eric's set up had been available back then I'd defiantly gone that route. Even if there were no HP increase you'd not regret the upgrade.

Ben, @mb911
Along those lines, with your experience in this area both in manufacturing them but the R&D end and testing, what do you think the result will be with my center location twin tip? it seems that this will be improved flow from what i had with the Triad.

Phil

Are we talking MicroSquirt here, or some other EFI?

Phil,

In your case the internals are based off the original 911 muffler design.. I let the Germans do the engineering in essence like the old sport modification to the factory muffler. You will see positive results.

That said my input was not meant as a marketing thing but rather just an informative input based reply..

My number one belief is if our cars didn't smell the way the do or sound the way they do we would never even drive them. That should be the focus.

Exactly.
D-Jet or modern EFI dosn't make the difference here. At a full load pull they will end up with almost the same results. Modern EFI just helps to dial the engine in better at low RPM and low load situations.
With the combo you have, combined with a good exhaust you will hit the 115HP, I'm sure as we run the same set-up.
Good luck!

This is from 2000 when my 2.0L was stock with flat Euro pistons with SSI exchangers and a OEM banana muffler. 91HP and 107ftlbs of torque so I have always used this a baseline for a stock 2.0L.
I have always heard the 901 tranny loss was about 10% so add 9hp gives a HP rating of 100HP!

The one Ian rode in and witnessed on the dyno was a VEMS based system. Our new systems will use the MicroSquirt IC. Jimmy Buchanan a.k.a. stratplayer here is the first install of this system and he was fire in the hole yesterday. Our first customer install systems are going out to Mike Ginter and Ian for evaluation later this month.

Vic Ciecys and Greg Wood both pulled 104-106hp at 4300 ft. The equivalency of around 115 hp at sea level. The real beauty of these systems comes in the program ability, drivability and perfect AFR. Engine temperatures both oil and head or another extreme benefit. In both cars we’ve yet to see over 300° head temperatures.

Basically all stock components are retained. Starting with the air cleaner, the throttlebody, the intake runners and the injector rails. The cars get a new Bosch TPS, a new air intake sensor, new injectors, and an O2 bung needs to be welded to your muffler. The distributor is replaced with an optical unit with a DIS/WSD mounted on top of it. Besides the welding of the bung, which can be accomplished by a semi competent welder or a local muffler shop, everything is plug-and-play.

I’ll keep everyone posted as we reach full mfg capacity.

Eric please keep me in mind for this. It would be cool to have my car on a dino before with my D-jet , then after the update for true comparison. While my car now runs nice, you can feel its power curve is less than it could be, and flat , for the lack of a better term. but if i am pulling 80 or 90, and were able to see even 110hp with 120torque, thats going to be felt , but also seen in some A/X numbers.
i have one question: can the 123ignition distributor be used in this application?
for me it seems just having a better adjustable curve would improve these numbers, and this model is before they had the bluetooth option for d-jet., oh btw i have Ben's muffler with O2 already.
do you preprogram settings and curve based on your current testing and research?

@Eric_Shea

thanks, Phil

No Phil. It is replaced with an optical unit. The 123 dizzy isn't compatible. Your only future electrical maintenance should be spark plugs & coil.

A slight correction.

Microsquirt can be used wholly independantly of your ignition system.

But it is far better engine management if you leverage the MS for ignition as well as fuel injection. I use the VW IGN4 coil with wasted spark, controlled by the MS ECU and I have full control of spark timing through the whole range of RPM and manifold pressure. I have completely removed my distributor and plugged the hole.

Plus, I use spark advance/retard to improve warmup, and to fully control idle without an AAR/idle valve.

So if you like your 1-2-3 dizzy, you can keep your 1-2-3 dizzy. Hell, you could keep your stock dizzy if you wanted to. But it's better to use the MS.

Great bedtime reading. Not for the TL;DR crowd.

https://tgadrivel.blogspot.com/2020/03/on-m...914-part-1.html

sounds good, sounds like i will have to start saving up some $$$ and take the plunge.

thanks for the info, good to know, btw looks great! I assume you are liking how it now runs! you have 2056 correct?

FAT Performance 2056 and it runs really niiiiice. Foot-off cold (and hot) start, immediate smooth idle, smoooooth cruise (even my wife noticed the difference), and full EGO control to target AFRs.

Highly recommended.

I have a real hard time believing that an EFI system on it's own gave any kind of a HP increase let alone a claimed almost 20%.

You're claiming that your EFI alone can add more HP than a set of Tangerine headers.
Unless you want to send me a system to try out, an experienced engine builder...I have to say

"Add" I don't believe is the correct word, I think unlocking the full potential is probably more accurate. I have heard similar numbers quoted by guys that went to extreme lengths to optimize and dial in their d-jet motors.

There are for sure gains to be had in in the midrange due to a fully programable 3d ignition map, and optimizations to efficiency across the board, but yes, in theory a perfectly dialed d-jet system at WOT might be able to hit the same PEAK numbers(while sacrificing performance in other areas) , but who has perfectly dialed in d-jet system and with d-jets age and analog nature how well does that tune even hold once dialed in??



This here is a fun read:

http://www.1800philes.com/tuning_article.html

This write up was part of my inspiration when i initially converted my car to Megasquirt back in 2004, this was my main reference as up to that point no one had done a 914. Very similar situation to this volvo 1800 in that it started as a 2.0 d-jet car, and you will see the outcome is similar to what has been reported here. Note the issue he has with d-jet on his initial Dyno pulls, the max power he was able to dial after tweaking d-jet, and then the max power he dialed in after going to Megasquirt. Also note this install is with very early Megasquirt hardware, no ignition control, less accurate stock sensors, and 45 year old stock d-jet injectors, so i would bet it could be further optimized as well. 88HP on the initial run with d-jet, 102 on the MS pulls after tuning

Other interesting points was d-jet leaning out hard above 5000rpm and that by optimizing his d-jet setup for peak numbers he impacted power/driveability across the rest of the RPM range.

I have a hard time calling BS when dealing with hard data and dyno sheets.

oh, and after some headwork and adding ignition control he pulled 110hp to the wheels.
http://www.1800philes.com/splitting_hairs.html

Oh boy...here we go again..arguing apples and oranges.


If I'd was considering doing aftermarket EFI on a TIV Id definately ask or have somebody that has done it before, especially on a new build.

Not a question of what is better....it's a question of what someone wants.

I don't care what is the best system, my problem is with the claim that a certain FI system alone adds horsepower which is total horse shit.

If you put an expensive FI system on a turd engine, you'll still have a turd engine.
If you put an expensive FI system on a new engine with increased flow, cam, headers, etc, improvements of course you will have more horsepower. Duh!

Tell you what, send me a system tuned to a stock 2056cc with a web#73 and I'll have 3 brand new identical engines ready to test on a Djet, SDS and your system.
I'm serious, I'm already building 5 of these turn-key engines and they will be ready mid-summer.
If you want to take it further I'll also have a 2.3 stroker performance engine that we could test with 44mm webers, and 46mm ITB's with SDS and your system.

We would have to take up a collection for dyno time cash donations but I bet enough members will pony up for this event.

FWIW, my experience supports Mark's position.

I had a well-used stock 2L with perfectly functioning D-Jet. Everything worked as designed, with recently-cleaned injectors, a Tangerine-rebuilt MPS, replaced TPS board, the works. It stumbled electrically on me a few times, implying it needed a new wiring harness, but the system fired up every time, functioned as expected, and returned ~26mpg.

As described in my blog, I made the decision to design a Microsquirt setup primarily for dependability and for access to modern components and tunability. Plus, I've been giving thought to building a 914 for SCCA's HProduction class (if they ever let it in) and that had to use FI with the stock throttle body. I designed my street installation for batch injection (just like D-Jet does) and wasted spark (for ignition component simplicity).

After firing up the system and properly tuning it (both on the street and on a Dynapack) I did not noticed any increase in power or torque. I do notice ease of start-up and warm up, smoothness of operation, and I got a mpg or two more out of it. But in no way could I claim a ~20% increase in power or torque, that just didn't happen.

The last dyno we did, prior to my replacing the short block over the winter, resulted in 74whp and 96wtq (see post #11). That's pretty much original stock numbers.

No, I didn't dyno the engine before replacing the D-Jet with MS. But honestly, do we really think the properly-functioning D-Jet system was so bad that it would have resulted in ~20% less output than the above? Do you really think Bosch/Porsche left that much on the table, given that D-Jet really does not vary that much in overall concept and functionality from modern EFI systems?

I personally don't.

Bottom line, MS is really cool, and I do like it a lot. I recommend it. It will give you better startup and warm up, smoothness, tunability, feedback control of fuel and ignition, and will have components that are modern and more-available to replace from more sources and less expensive.

But it won't do miracles.

Greg

I have agree with Mark and Greg that I doubt that you’ll get a 20% increase in hp over a working Djet set up. My dyno chart from 2000 was on a fresh rebuilt 2.0 w/flat topped pistons-91 hp 108lbs torque. Now with lots of mods and tuning I know I have way more than that plus it revs to 6500rpms with ease. Guess I should dyno it again for real data.

As stated in my first post..

the readings will depend on the type of Dyno you are using.

Interesting read > https://www.1addicts.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214597

Many people prefer the Dynojet dyno since it provides higher readings. for tuning purposes you should stick with the same shop / dyno when testing

So those posting their numbers should also specify what type of dyno those numbers were achieved on.

I always use Dynapack. It controls the inertia/rate of acceleration, eliminates variances in wheel/tires size/pressure/grip, and measures the torque directly at the driving wheel hubs.

It's the only dyno we use for our racing/tuning programs.

@GregAmy Who do you typically use for a dyno shop?

John Malepetsis, Performance and Styling in Manchester. His FB page and web site are not up to date but he's still in biz...I've known him for a while, from back when I was racing Nissans.

If the number on his FB page isn't accurate, PM me and I'll get his cell number to you (or get yours and ask him to contact you).

https://www.facebook.com/Performance-and-St...144039948960375

I need to find a free Saturday to get the 2056 dyno'd. Then after that I'm installing a Tangering exhaust to see how much that improves life.