This is my first post here, but some of the colorado 914 folks should know me at least. Brant suggested posting this here as its kinda nifty considering a stock 4 cylinder, and at altitude. This is just a repost from our local 914 group board...


So i took my car down to Mac Autosport in Parker today to get it
dyno'd for the first time since i have owned it. Was pretty
excited, and the results were very good (to me anyway). I was
running a 50 series tire on a 15" rim, and the HP was measured at
the rear wheels.

As far as the car..

1976 914-4 2.0L
K&N Intake
Garretson Headers and Flowmaster Muffler
Stock Ignition, Cam, etc
Running 205/50R15 Victoracers on 15" Rims

Testing was on a Dynojet Research Chassis Dyno
72.26 Degrees F
24.62 in-Hg
9% Humidity
5200 Ft above Sea Level (approx)

Max Power: 95.50 hp
Max Torque: 105.73 ft-lbs

Max Power was right around 5300 RPM
Max Torque was around 4250 RPM

Will try and scan the graphs into the comp later and post, as i
found it fairly interesting. The car was tuned by AJRS in Grand
Junction, and was running a bit rich (between 11 and 12 Air/Fuel,
but Grand Junction is around 4000ft as i recall), but it pulled
strong, and had a very even curve.

I did have my right rear wheel rubbing a bit, as the hold downs for
the car were pulling the body down, and was causing a bit. Looks
like i get to do some more pulling on that fender and a new coat of
paint again.

Anyway, i am thrilled as can be.

Grant

cool for adding it.
those are dang good results grant!

brant

Nice results! How much, and how many pulls.

Ferg.

$60 for 3 pulls. And i was the first 914 they ever had. Lets mess with their heads and all show up to dyno this week.

Grant

Good to see you on here Grant! Nice job on the dynomometer!

QUOTE (orcadigital @ Nov 1 2005, 02:39 PM)

$60 for 3 pulls. And i was the first 914 they ever had. Lets mess with their heads and all show up to dyno this week. Grant

GROUP BUY!

Finally dug my scanner out of the bottom of my closet. Quality is pretty nice from what i expected. Top curve is Torque, bottom is HP. Lower graph is Air/Fuel. I didnt put the actual numbers in, for the sake of a small picture, and they are in the first post anyhow.

That's lookin pretty good Grant. I might have to pop $60 to find out if the "Budget 914" has any thing close.

FI still? Those are great numbers to pull from a stock 2.0. Good job!

Stock FI.

Nothing too fancy, K&N, and some homemade hoses to run all the oil breather lines to a catch tank. This was from April or so, before i cleaned everything up, and was just installing the K&N.

QUOTE (TROJANMAN @ Nov 1 2005, 03:53 PM)

QUOTE (orcadigital @ Nov 1 2005, 02:39 PM) $60 for 3 pulls.  And i was the first 914 they ever had.  Lets mess with their heads and all show up to dyno this week. Grant GROUP BUY!

There's actually another dyno place around 50th and Tennyson (I think). Closer for most of us. I'm going to do this at some point.

Found it. Dyno Pro

Dyno Pro web site

good first post ever Grant!
and belated welcome to the club!

brant

Great post Grant. If anyone else of our local group decides to do this, let me know. I only live about 10 min north of the shop.

Excellent Grant, I can't wait for mine to finally get done. Congratz

Don't want to rain on anyones parade, but does this make sence? I pulled an old road and track road test from '76, and they show the 2.0 as having 7.6:1 CR, making 84 HP at 4900 rpm, and 97 lb-ft of torque at 4000 rpm, both of which I imagine are stated by the mfg, and while they are not stated, I would again suspect they are at the crank. So just a K&N and header, at 5000 ft, running rich, is making 109 at the crank? (95 x 1.15 for drive line losses)

Again, not trying to be a jerk but want to understand this all. I've never dyno'd my car, but plan to this spring after the winter round of bolt ons. I'll be sure to post the results and mods.

I did do a GTech HP run, which is rather lame compaired to an actual dyno pull. You have to program in the weight of car and driver, which I did after taking the car off my corner balance scales, so I know the weight was right on, no "cheating" there to skew the numbers. With a similar K&N set up, SSI exhaust and a blown out bursch muffler, bolted to a 30k mile Brad Mayeur 2.0 rebuild, (euro p/c's, shaved heads, approx 9.2:1 cr) stock FI, I took 5 runs, tossed the high and low, averaged the middle 3, and got 96 hp at the wheels. NO idea what the mixture was, lean or rich, it was all stock FI.

Adding the 1.15% gives 110 at the crank, which is about what Brad thought it would do with a stock cam.

Just wondering...

What he said.

Kelly

I would imagine the test that netted 84 hp was a '76 with all the smog stuff choking the life out of the thing. I don't see any smog stuff in that pic.

That open element K&N is going to be WAY less restrictive than the stock snorkel, which would help.

I doubt if the header and exhaust would help much, as the stock 2.0 muffler is pretty good, but I don't think this is too out of line really.

Should it really run that rich? I thought the D-jet would compensate for altitude to some degree.

There are many people much more knowledgeable then i, i just posted numbers that were above my expectations.

I was using a baseline of 91HP at the crank, which was a factory number for a 76 2.0L. I am told crank to wheels is ~15%, and the 5000ft altitude gain is another 10 to 15%. That would show around 70ish HP at the rear wheels on a stock 914, stock exchangers and air box. 70 to 109 is pretty drastic % wise, 45% or so (doing ghetto math in my head, so forgive me). Assuming that any of this is correct, or even ballpark, returning to sea level would put me in the 120 range at the crank. I am assuming that you are at or near sea level, but please correct me if i am wrong. I also have stock US pistons, stock head, and stock compression. I have a friend in NM that comes to some of our track events, with shaved heads and higher compression, and his car is crazy fast. Now a big part of it is the driver, but i have ridden with him, and the car pulls just incredible. He hasnt dyno'd as far as i know, but it feels like it is stronger then mine by some noticable amount.

My only thoughts comparing would be discounting the benefits of running at sea level, as well as higher compression. I think the impressive part to me, besides being higher then i expected (i was thinking 80, hoping 85, putting me near 100 at the crank), is that it is basically a stock motor, with the only changes being before the intake and after the exhaust, meaning truely bolt-on horsepower gain.

Maybe someone with more knowledge can respond, as i honestly dont know. I had a baseline number, and approx modifiers both for and against, and in the end, was very pleasantly surprised. I think as 914 owners, we all know horsepower really isnt the end all, or i wouldnt be passing those 911's on the track. Thats why i take no offense to any of this, and to me, its just more info in the pot, for us all to disect and learn something (hopefully) from.

Grant

QUOTE (Tobra @ Nov 1 2005, 05:45 PM)

I would imagine the test that netted 84 hp was a '76 with all the smog stuff choking the life out of the thing. I don't see any smog stuff in that pic. That open element K&N is going to be WAY less restrictive than the stock snorkel, which would help. I doubt if the header and exhaust would help much, as the stock 2.0 muffler is pretty good, but I don't think this is too out of line really. Should it really run that rich? I thought the D-jet would compensate for altitude to some degree.

The running rich issue i think might be partly to blame on the engine temp of the car. On that pull, i was something between 140 and 160 degrees oil temp. I dont know the CHT, but if that didnt kick in yet, the car would run rich. Combine that with it being setup at 4000ft instead of 5200, and that might be the rest.

All the smog stuff should be gone, but i'd argue that replacing the stock 2L late model heat exchangers with a complete header system would be a fairly large increase in flow. Mufflers aside, the exhaust gasses have to get there first, and the late model exchangers were notoriously poor.

The main difference between the picture and now (beyond dirt accumulation), is the small vacuum line coming out below the K&N, that ran to the vacuum retard, is now capped off. I dont know really anything about vacuum advance/retard as far as how they work specifically (just in general), but AJ said this was the way to go, as its a dedicated track car at this point.

Grant

QUOTE (ottox914 @ Nov 1 2005, 06:37 PM)

Don't want to rain on anyones parade, but does this make sence? I pulled an old road and track road test from '76, and they show the 2.0 as having 7.6:1 CR, making 84 HP at 4900 rpm, and 97 lb-ft of torque at 4000 rpm,

With the crappy gas of today thats badass.

The stock power ratings for the 2.0 motors (DIN spec, which gives slightly higher numbers than SAE net) were:

73-74 US-spec 2.0: 95 HP
73-74 European-spec 2.0: 100 HP
75-76 US-spec 2.0: 88 HP.

The crappy exhaust seems to have been responsible for most or all of the 7 HP lost on the later cars. So you not only undid that restriction, you gave the exhaust more flow yet! It's very impressive that the engine picked up that much power, but it is a testament to what many of the engine builders have been telling us for years: You can make big gains in the exhaust! The K&N probably isn't hurting matters, either, but I bet the headers are what's really boosting you.

--DD

:driving: Just wanted to throw some info out. Our race motor, 347 stroker in a 65 Mustang Trans AM clone produced 440HP on an engine Dyno and about 236HP on a chassis Dyno in Evergreen Co. Elevation 7000ft +-. Log book at garage or would have exact #s. So is 95Hp rear wheels or converted to flywheel?

i'm not sure about these days, but back in the 60s/70s DIN HP for a car was always RWHP ...

Andy

Not on the 914s, it wasn't! There's no way the 1.7 made 80 HP at the wheels, nor the 2.0 95 HP at the wheels!!

--DD

I mean no disrespect and do not want to upset anyone, but I offer my opinion which is worth just less that 2 cents:

Dynojet = more optomistic readings that comperable chassis dynos.
I would venture to guess that those numbers are adjusted for flywheel hp, and if they used 15% that would explain it, 901s in 914s are more efficient than 15%. Either that or the dyno needs calibration.

They are good readings and they are valid for comparison to other cars on the same dyno, or for measuring he improvement of parts or tuning, but not really applicable to comparing cars on other dynos.

I am sure you have a very good car and it is a blast to drive, but I really doubt that your car is putting that much power to the rear wheels. Especially at that altitude.

I have a magizine article that showed the Pete Weber (now tangerine) exhaust netting 5 HP on a stock 2.0L at 5000 RPM. To me that is good ,no stress on the internal parts , HP. I think the best feature of this set up are the Stainless Steel
"stubbies" They allow you to port the exhaust smooth with the header. After the stubbies are installed you never have to remove them and the exhaust stayes smooth.

All the stockish 2.0l 914's I have seen on a chassis dyno run in the high 70's to 80 sumthing HP.
My 2056 has pulled a 93hp as its best dyno run. I dyno it after its done and back in the car soon.

bleyseng, what are the specs on your engine?

For comparison purposes, here's my dyno sheet.

2.0, Djet, Euro Pistons, almost 8.1 compression ratio.

[hoping the image worked....]

Grant,
I would like to see a picture of your Garretson Header.
If I'm not mistaken it is an early version of the Tangerine Header since that's where the original development was done.

My understanding as well--Garretson's did the initial development, then they sold the design to Pete Weber, who then sold it to you. It seems to have undergone continual refinement and improvement over the years, of course!

--DD

QUOTE (bryanc @ Nov 2 2005, 02:22 AM)

For comparison purposes, here's my dyno sheet. 2.0, Djet, Euro Pistons, almost 8.1 compression ratio. [hoping the image worked....]

Yep, stock valve springs as the HP falls off a cliff at 4500 rpms due to valve float.

As I said, most stock 2.0l's can hit the low 80's in HP on a dyno so if you figure about 10% loss for the 901 tranny you have 84 + 8.5 +92.5hp at the flywheel.

Here is another stock 2.0L dyno from a couple years ago:

QUOTE (Sammy @ Nov 1 2005, 08:44 PM)

I mean no disrespect and do not want to upset anyone, but I offer my opinion which is worth just less that 2 cents: Dynojet = more optomistic readings that comperable chassis dynos. I would venture to guess that those numbers are adjusted for flywheel hp, and if they used 15% that would explain it, 901s in 914s are more efficient than 15%. Either that or the dyno needs calibration. They are good readings and they are valid for comparison to other cars on the same dyno, or for measuring he improvement of parts or tuning, but not really applicable to comparing cars on other dynos. I am sure you have a very good car and it is a blast to drive, but I really doubt that your car is putting that much power to the rear wheels. Especially at that altitude.

after putting my car on a real load varing dyno yesterday, I have to agree....compared to the acceleration type dyno, no comparison...it was neat and benifical to see what HP (actually looking at the 4 gas numbers) one gets at a particular RPM and throttle position (we had the dyno programmed to limit the rpm in 500rpm increments while in 4th gear, when set at 1000 rpms, you could have the throttle WOT in 4th and the you stayed right at 1000 rpms, fiddle with the timing or a/f ratio and you'd see the hp go up or down, pretty neat)

for general ideas on power, the acceleration one works, but if you want the truth then find a chassis dyno...

by the way...welcome...

I think all vehicles that are driven in high altitudes should be turbocharged

If your valve springs are floating at 4500 rpm, you have serious problems. That should not happen.
I used to take the turbocharged 2 liter to well over 6000 all the time with stock springs, 6300 to 6500 was about when they would start to float.

On a stock type 4 the power falls off because the cam, the intake manifold, and the ports in the heads don't let it breath well enough to fill the cylinders at higher rpm. The volumentric efficiency falls off so the torque falls off. There is no reason to rev up a stock type 4 much higher than 5300 because it doesn't much power up there, so you shift. It has nothing to do with the valves floating at that rpm range unless there are mechanical problems in the engine.
With a turbo you can overcome the breathing problems because you are forcing the air into the cylinders, and the air is more dense. That gives you better cylinder filling at higher rpm, thus more torque, more hp, etc.
in other words, the power does not fall off. It's like the energizer bunny, it keeps going and going...... try to get that stupid image out of your head now
sorry.

Sammy, I am going by what BradR and Jake have told me about the weak ass stock springs. They run out of proper valve tension at around 4500 rpm so I am told. I have installed the newer HD springs to address this and will report my findings shortly.

Yep, the motors will still rev up to 6000 but no hp worth a damn. BradR said the HD springs give you an additional 500 or so rpms more of usuable hp even with the stock cam.

A turbo doesn't care what springs are in there as it will cram in as more air as you need

QUOTE (Sammy @ Nov 1 2005, 07:44 PM)

... Dynojet = more optomistic readings that comperable chassis dynos... They are good readings and they are valid for comparison to other cars on the same dyno, or for measuring he improvement of parts or tuning, but not really applicable to comparing cars on other dynos...

Huh, I was told that the Dynojet gives a more accurate reading than an overly-optomistic Mustang dyno (and I have the two dyno charts to prove it ). Yes, it's best to compare dyno make to same dyno make.

I have troubles believeing 4500 is a threshhold for valve float in a PORSCHE. Hell, a stock air-cooled VW won't float it's valves that low!

QUOTE (Bleyseng @ Nov 2 2005, 09:38 PM)

Sammy, I am going by what BradR and Jake have told me about the weak ass stock springs.

Sammy is right!
The oem valve springs work up to 6200+ rpm bone stock.
HD springs will NOT increase the hp or useful rpm of a stock engine.