| Author |
Message |
John J Stecher (Jjstecher)
Junior Member
Username: Jjstecher
Post Number: 147
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 11:00 pm: | |
I figured pit passes would be next to impossible but it never hurt trying! I hope you and Tim (other F40) have a great time at FCA/LA I bet you will have them lining up left and right to ride in your car for a good cause....make sure you give them a "real ride" on the track, you know one where their eye balls pop out of their head you brake so deep into turns, and then shoot right back in as you get back on the gas! I cant wait to come to KC now you have to stop telling me of all the fun stuff to do or heck I'll make two trips!! Take care my man and enjoy the sound of 8000RPM's....I cant wait till I get my 30 finished this week so I can hear it as well! |
Cmparrf40 (Cmparrf40)
Junior Member
Username: Cmparrf40
Post Number: 152
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 10:53 pm: | |
On FIA pit passes, impossible to get. I literally got mine directly from Bernie, through Bob Bondurant. Had to raise hell to get them. I doubt we get another set, but I am hoping! |
Cmparrf40 (Cmparrf40)
Junior Member
Username: Cmparrf40
Post Number: 151
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 10:49 pm: | |
John let me know when you get close to KC, we will make sure you have a good time, we race shifter Karts here at the house, so between Karts and Ferrari's we will find you something to drive! I am going to Indy but I do not know my plans yet. I will take the F40 and probably the Dino. I had FIA pit passes for one day last year and got to go into the Ferrari pits. pretty cool! I have a good friend that gave me that pass, I sent him a very large Harry & David fruit basket at Christmas last year just in case he gets another set of passes the year! We will stay in touch, thanks John |
John J Stecher (Jjstecher)
Junior Member
Username: Jjstecher
Post Number: 145
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 10:39 pm: | |
Man Chris you are awesome!! I was thinking of maybe making a trip out to the Rockies this summer sometime in the 348, then on the way back I will swing through on I70 to KC and pay you a visit! I'll let you know when I get more set on dates and what not. I am also hoping to make it to Indy but am not sure as far as work goes (IBM likes to send me anywhere at a moments notice) but if I get the chance will see you there. Are you getting pit and infield passes? Do you know if so where I could call to maybe pick some up if I am going to be able to make it. Like I said before Chris I cant wait to meet you and see the F40....actually I would love to see the Dino as well!! Only Dino I have ever seen is in pieces at my Mechanics shop. |
Cmparrf40 (Cmparrf40)
Junior Member
Username: Cmparrf40
Post Number: 147
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 9:50 pm: | |
John, I wouldn't let you ride in my F40, not a chance! ...but I will throw you the keys and let you take her for a spin! Let's figure out where we will be at the same time this year. FCA/LA, Monterey, Indy? I will be there with the car, let me know............ Chris |
John J Stecher (Jjstecher)
Junior Member
Username: Jjstecher
Post Number: 144
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 9:44 pm: | |
Bret,
I have talked with Nick about it before, but koenig has done more converstion including the Mike Tyson one that I actually got to ride in when I was in Chicago two years back. Amazing car...if only the few stocks I am riding on to buy this baby go a little higher :0)
Chris,
Glad you guys have finally figured everything out. Dont worry about the help...I'll only charge you one ride in the F40 for my knowledge of conversion fuctions from NM to ft-Lbs :0) |
Cmparrf40 (Cmparrf40)
Junior Member
Username: Cmparrf40
Post Number: 146
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 7:25 pm: | |
Thank you to everybody for their input, it is interesting to see where these issues will take us. I think the real test will be the 92 with a new wastegate, with no cats, this should be the right combination. I suspect we will see a pretty good drop in torque, but a nice (10-20) increase in horsepower. Typical of Ferrari, FNA has one wastgate in the US and it is for a euro car, the only US wastegate they show is in europe! I'll let you know when we go back on the dyno! Chris |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 345
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 6:15 pm: | |
Chris:
Thks for the note. I see that the low torgue problem was solved. I think that removing the CATS would make a substantial difference. I would look at them to make sure they aren't clogged up, with that much difference in HP. There are high performance CATS available that may flow a lot better than the stock units, and you wouldn't have to remove them for the power.
I would also want to look at the fuel curves in the injection to make sure that the engine is getting what it needs. Plug chops on the dyno at the various rpms might be helpful if you have the ability to burn new curves. A lot of time the ECUs make more top end power but are •••• everwhere else. Makes the car slower everywhere but at peak rpm.
Art
Art |
BretM (Bretm)
Intermediate Member
Username: Bretm
Post Number: 2157
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 4:26 pm: | |
Good to hear Chris. Your car seemed to work perfectly.
BTW John, form what I remember Nick Scianna has done a 600HP TT 348, he might know a thing or two about it. |
John J Stecher (Jjstecher)
Junior Member
Username: Jjstecher
Post Number: 143
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 3:27 pm: | |
Chris,
Glad you figured everything out down there before the owner did any serious damage to the engine from over boost! The more I had thought about it the more that seemed to be what was causing the problem. At least your baby is working right and putting down some NICE power to the road! Wish my 348 did....well it might if I end up getting Walter Koenig to sell me his twin-turbo product as a kit!! Glad I could provide any bit of help. |
Cmparrf40 (Cmparrf40)
Junior Member
Username: Cmparrf40
Post Number: 145
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 2:26 pm: | |
John, got the answer, the 92 has a blown diaphram on the wastegate causing an immediate overboost situation. Hence big torque, with horsepower down slightly at the higher end. We will run again after new wastgate is installed. Chris |
John J Stecher (Jjstecher)
Junior Member
Username: Jjstecher
Post Number: 142
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 12:13 pm: | |
I think taking off the cats might yield a 5% boost in torque but as you said Bret not a 25% boost....at least that is the numbers I have seen on 348's when taking the cats off |
John J Stecher (Jjstecher)
Junior Member
Username: Jjstecher
Post Number: 141
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 12:12 pm: | |
Bret,
I agree with you that the numbers on the 92 are really questionable. In every thing that I have worked with on the dyno it seems to me that by Chris's description of the torque numbers bouncing around up till peak torque then falling off quickly there is some thing wrong with the way the turbos are providing boost. Its coming on to quick then falling off to fast, thus leading to a lower net horse power rating because the car isnt making the boost it should be at high RPM's. This is the conclusion I have drawn as to why the torque numbers are higher than the horse power numbers as well on the 92. It is possible though in TT cars to make more torque than horse power because of the increase in compression the TT's cause when on boost but in this case I dont think it holds to be true. |
BretM (Bretm)
Intermediate Member
Username: Bretm
Post Number: 2150
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 10:41 am: | |
sorry, I mean more torque than HP. |
BretM (Bretm)
Intermediate Member
Username: Bretm
Post Number: 2148
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 10:40 am: | |
To further add to the confusion, I don't see how the 92 is making more HP than torque. I think Chris' car looks to be running a little better than stock in every aspect. The 92 though has quite a bit more torque than HP which makes absolutely no sense considering it's approximately a 3.0L engine turning to very high RPMs. This isn't a 427 Chevy where this could make sense depending on bore/stroke and cam grind. I have to admit that I question the accuracy of the 92. I just can't picture the car making that much torque (HP makes sense) at any RPM with those mods. If anyone can boost torque 25% over stock with simply an exhaust you will soon be a millionaire as you will monopolize the exhaust market. I'm not trying to be a prick, sorry if it sounds that way at all. Does anyone know why it would come up with such overstated numbers (the dyno process?)? |
Cmparrf40 (Cmparrf40)
Junior Member
Username: Cmparrf40
Post Number: 142
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 9:20 am: | |
John, factory torque is 425lbs, I am at 368.9. this is about a 13% loss at the rear wheel, not bad.
I think the elimination of the cats on the 92, is creating the majority of the difference in torque. The wastegate on the 92 may be contributing as well.
In talking to the tech that services both cars, the torque curve is flatter than I thought on the 92, so if some fine tuning can be made to eliminate a slight overboost situation, I think the 92 is just plain fatter on torque until I (if I) remove my cats! (I don't know that I need anymore power right now!) Chris |
John J Stecher (Jjstecher)
Junior Member
Username: Jjstecher
Post Number: 140
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 1:30 am: | |
haha goodnight Chris make sure you say goodnight to the F40 and 355 tuck themin safely!! Have a good one!! |
Cmparrf40 (Cmparrf40)
Junior Member
Username: Cmparrf40
Post Number: 141
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 1:28 am: | |
Chris, John I really, really appreciate your comments, its 1:30 in KC I am beat! I hope we can explore this more tomorrow. thanks, Chris
(John you are something else, Nm's to lbs!) |
John J Stecher (Jjstecher)
Junior Member
Username: Jjstecher
Post Number: 139
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 1:27 am: | |
ctanner is correct on his statement about how a dyno works (at least most dynos I am sure work this way)....it just seems strange to me the differences in where almost identical cars make the power in such different places in the power band. |
John J Stecher (Jjstecher)
Junior Member
Username: Jjstecher
Post Number: 138
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 1:24 am: | |
Man if the torque curve is that flat then I dont think that there is a problem at all with the way the car is generating its boost....if you had a problem the numbers would be jumping all over because of the differences in compression inside the combustion chambers. I am starting to think now that maybe the 1992 which had the higher torque figure may have been generating more boost than the 91. This would explain the higher torque number...and if the diaphram is acting up and bleeding off boost as you stated with the torque falling off quickly after peak on the 92 it would also have an effect on the peak horse power being generated because you would be making less boost at higher Rpms in the 92 than in the 91. This is one possiblity that would lead to the higher torque numbers on the 92 but it also having a lower horse power output. Now that I think about it the 91 car seems to be performing perfectly where as I am beginning to question the 92 because of the erractic numbers you are talking about. |
Chris Tanner (Ctanner)
New member
Username: Ctanner
Post Number: 14
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 1:23 am: | |
Chris,
Based on your added information, I think the numbers make sense. Let me try to explain my thinking.
A dynometer measures torque, not horsepower. The horsepower power number is calculated from the dynometer's measurements.
Horsepower = (Torque*RPM)/5250.
The 91 measured 369 ft-lbs. The 92 437ft-lbs. The 92 made its torque early (low rpms). I the formula above, you can see that RPM and Torque are weighted equally. The 91 had a lower torque number, but it made it at higher RPMs. As a result, the horsepower numbers are similar.
We have 2 cars with the same horsepower numbers that will give 2 different drives. The 91 is making its max torque with higher RPMs than stock. That will make a faster car than stock because it will pull longer for each gear. The 92 has big torque at low rpms, so it feels like it launchs when you press go. It might not be as fast as the 91, but it probably feels like it.
This is my take anyway.
Chris |
Cmparrf40 (Cmparrf40)
Junior Member
Username: Cmparrf40
Post Number: 140
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 1:18 am: | |
the 91 is mine..... |
Cmparrf40 (Cmparrf40)
Junior Member
Username: Cmparrf40
Post Number: 139
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 1:17 am: | |
The torque at 4200 was 361.2 and was very flat to 5300 at 367.8, 6000 was 365.3, 6500 was 345.6, 7000 was 310.3 |
John J Stecher (Jjstecher)
Junior Member
Username: Jjstecher
Post Number: 137
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 1:16 am: | |
Chris,
Which F40 is the one you own...the 1991 or 1992?? |
John J Stecher (Jjstecher)
Junior Member
Username: Jjstecher
Post Number: 136
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 1:15 am: | |
Most times the Ferrari factory has a way of rounding their numbers up as well...I know for a fact that I havent seen one 348 or 355 on the dyno that you dont have to compensate more than 18% loss through the tranny. |
John J Stecher (Jjstecher)
Junior Member
Username: Jjstecher
Post Number: 135
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 1:14 am: | |
Sometime I amaze myself with how much useless stuff I remember for no good reason! :0) You are 100% right the numbers Ferrari quotes are fly wheel number generated for the engine in a test mount, not even in a real car in a ideal enviroment! |
John J Stecher (Jjstecher)
Junior Member
Username: Jjstecher
Post Number: 134
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 1:12 am: | |
My bad on the conversion I forgot to factor in the tranny loss! I was thinking that number was high! I dont know if it would relate to 70lbs of torque especially at the rear wheels! Thats well over 100 some at the flywheel. I know for a fact that taking them off on a 348 dynoing it before and after lead to a 26hp improvement at but only got me 12lbs of torque (Fly wheel numbers). I guess maybe when you factor in the fact this is an F40 you could see a larger difference. It just seems to be to much for me on a twin-turbo car because the cats have less effect on clogging up the exhaust on this car because the impellers of the turbo do it before the exhaust hits the cats. |
Cmparrf40 (Cmparrf40)
Junior Member
Username: Cmparrf40
Post Number: 138
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 1:12 am: | |
John, you are good, who knows the factor for converting NM's to lbs? I am impressed! I got it from getting out of my chair and looking it up in ORIGINAL FERRARI V8. Am I correct that the factory numbers quoted are at the flywheel and not at the wheel? The dyno shop uses 18% as an average loss. |
John J Stecher (Jjstecher)
Junior Member
Username: Jjstecher
Post Number: 133
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 1:07 am: | |
"Max torque on the 91 was at 5300rpm" That sounds a little to high for me on this car if I remember my readings about it correctly. What was the torque curve like on the 91? Was it fairly flat from about 3500Rpms once the car come on boost or are there noticable peaks and vallys in the curve. I would this this cars torque curve would be pretty flat or linearly growing once the car comes on boost. For horse power I would expect the same thing. I remember reading some where that the US versions of the F40s had different chips in then from the Euro versions to give them more drivable characteristics around town (ie more low end torque) maybe that is coming in to play here to with the stock chips vs perf chips. |
Cmparrf40 (Cmparrf40)
Junior Member
Username: Cmparrf40
Post Number: 137
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 1:06 am: | |
The factory numbers for torque are 425lbs at 4500rpms at the flywheel. using an 18% factor for loss, the 368.5 torque figure is in line with factory numbers. So maybe we are OK, do you think the removal of cats could add 70lbs of torque? |
John J Stecher (Jjstecher)
Junior Member
Username: Jjstecher
Post Number: 132
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 1:02 am: | |
NM to lbs of torque is NM*.7376 which would yield you around 424lbs torque according to the factory. So the car with the tubi and cats makes slightly more than stock, where as the other one makes a lot less than stock relative to the car were are talking about here.....hell they both make about one and a half times what my 348 makes with torque |
Cmparrf40 (Cmparrf40)
Junior Member
Username: Cmparrf40
Post Number: 136
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 12:58 am: | |
Max torque on the 91 was at 5300rpm,
owners manual lists max torque at 4500rpm |
Cmparrf40 (Cmparrf40)
Junior Member
Username: Cmparrf40
Post Number: 135
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 12:53 am: | |
John the 1992 was spiking the torque very early, almost too fast and dropping very quickly afterward. We suspect the diaphram may have a hole in it allowing boost to come up too fast causing a spike in the torque figures. The 92 was very fat and probably could make more horsepower if it was a little leaner, but fat is safe! The 91 had a slightly leaner burn giving more horsepower on a flatter curve which I attribute to the chips. I still do not understand why there is so much torque difference. I am looking at my owners manual that lists torque at 575nm, I have no idea how to convert newton meteres to SAE torque. Chris |
John J Stecher (Jjstecher)
Junior Member
Username: Jjstecher
Post Number: 131
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 12:49 am: | |
Which company did the performance chips come from? Thinking about it a little more maybe the chips control waste gate and other turbo functionality in this car and some where along the line it is getting in the way of the car producing better torque numbers. I think that this max torque should be generated around 4500Rpms which puts in in the lower RPM range making me believe the chips might have some thing to do with it like I said before |
John J Stecher (Jjstecher)
Junior Member
Username: Jjstecher
Post Number: 130
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 12:41 am: | |
I know I am baffled as well...I have done my fair share of work on a dyno and cant really explain this at all especially on cars that are this similar. I know both cars were run to 7600Rpm's but what I am curious is as to where peak torque and peak horse power were made in each cars power band, this normally leads to being able to figure out things like this. I am not an expert on turbo cars but maybe the there is something strange about where the boost come on in the 1992 with the chips versus the 1991 with the stock chips. Most performance chips mess with ignition timing curves at the low end for a higher hp rating on the high end.....maybe that is the case here. |
Cmparrf40 (Cmparrf40)
Junior Member
Username: Cmparrf40
Post Number: 134
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 12:36 am: | |
John, both cars were run to 7600rpms. I am also baffled by the torgue difference, I do not understand why the 91 has more horsepower, but significantly less torque, maybe Art or someone else can give us some hints...... |
John J Stecher (Jjstecher)
Junior Member
Username: Jjstecher
Post Number: 129
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 12:27 am: | |
I dont get the torque numbers for the 1991 F40...it is strange to me that there is that much of a difference in torque between the model years. I would think that having the cats off will without a doubt give you more hps at higher RPMs because you can breath better. What you are have proven here is completely different then what I had seen when I had my friends 348 on the dyno and we were trying different mods on that. We saw a fairly linear increase in hp in relation to torque, here it is the exact opposite. Chris what RPMs were these numbers generated at...420hp@7000RPMs or what? From looking at the numbers I would say that there has to be some difference in the RPM range these numbers were produced at. I just cant seem to believe having the cats off would result in the 1992 making almost 70 pounds of torque more, especially with performance chips on the 1991. |
Cmparrf40 (Cmparrf40)
Junior Member
Username: Cmparrf40
Post Number: 132
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 11:43 pm: | |
Results:
1992 F40, Tubi Comp,(no cats) stock chips
SAE Horsepower 420.4 Torque 437.4
1991 F40, Tubi Comp, cats, Performance chips
SAE Horsepower 432.7 Torque 368.9
comments? |
Cmparrf40 (Cmparrf40)
Junior Member
Username: Cmparrf40
Post Number: 122
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 02, 2002 - 9:04 pm: | |
I should mention both cars have Tubi competition exhausts, the 1991 has cats and has been chipped, the 1992 has no cats and stock chips. I go at 7:00PM on the 3rd, I will try to post by 10:30 that night. Chris |
BretM (Bretm)
Intermediate Member
Username: Bretm
Post Number: 2113
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 02, 2002 - 4:49 pm: | |
I'll say 411, this is the price is right isn't it? Seriously, I say 420, just a guess. |
Chris Coleman (Dmc4cc)
New member
Username: Dmc4cc
Post Number: 12
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 02, 2002 - 4:11 pm: | |
I guess 410 at the rear wheels, anything higher probably means either the Ferrari is extremely efficient or running more than 478bhp. |
Cmparrf40 (Cmparrf40)
Junior Member
Username: Cmparrf40
Post Number: 121
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 02, 2002 - 3:55 pm: | |
Jay, we will adjust it while we are thier, we are just trying to get some base line numbers, anyone have any guesses? |
J. Grande (Jay)
Member
Username: Jay
Post Number: 276
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 02, 2002 - 3:40 pm: | |
Can't wait to hear. How much boost will you be running? |
Cmparrf40 (Cmparrf40)
Junior Member
Username: Cmparrf40
Post Number: 120
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 02, 2002 - 3:38 pm: | |
I am taking 2 F40's to the Dyno tommorrow, I will let you know the results. |