Dave, the way you go on being definitive is getting really annoying. Of course, when you get it wrong you dodge the bullet really quick.
Now, you seem to like giving orders: post the plots. Well, they have been posted in this website, you’ll just have to look for them. And yes, the scans as well. So seeing that you like to spend your life in the computer go on and search previous posts, it’s all done and analysed before.
The only one that hasn’t been posted yet is the most recent one, from the JV5 manifold. The car is needing a remap soon, as soon as I mount the new airbox. The curve has already been corrected with 2% only.
It is compared with the plot that was just posted on the previous page. That one was the original run at Emeralds after the rebuild.
Why do I need my friends to believe the things I’m saying? I’m not saying a damn thing other than asking Simon to put up or shut up (possibly by posting your plot?)
I have looked at the plots and cannot find one with 204BHP, please enlighten us with that plot… it’s really simple…
but I would have to decline the notion that my engine is not far from Butts, it is far.
By your own admission, Steve’s engine is far ahead of yours, that is the point of the thread, the issue as far as I can see is resolved.
What Uldis doesn’t say is that the figures he is giving are from a rolling road that has consistantly given a conservative figure relative to the Emerald - so I hope he finds time to come down to get that engine’s curves plotted at Emerald with all the parts Jim amd I have made - soon… I would on previous experiance between the two sets of rollers, expect Uldis’s engine to currently give in the high 220s low 230s on Emerald rr now
The curve has ALREADY been corrected by 2%??, so it is equivalent by your reckoning to a run at Emerald, so Simon Erlands insistence that it would make more at Emerald due to the discrepancy between the RR’s is just rubbish, it has ALREADY BEEN CORRECTED for that supposed anomaly. Strewth… it gets more bizarre by the minute.
All your flannel doesnt disguise the nonsense about Your engine being near to Steve’s it is around 30BHP and 20lb/ft behind. Attacking me personally will not change those facts. If you dispute any of them , then show us where.
That is the point of this thread and those comments have been thoroughly discredited (a familiar theme it seems).
That is the point of this thread and those comments have been thoroughly discredited (a familiar theme it seems).
Indeed.
By your own admission, Steve’s engine is far ahead of yours, that is the point of the thread, the issue as far as I can see is resolved.
Of course, it’s a 1.9 ! and Steve (or you) posted once that the 1.9 configuration worked better than expected, something about being able to use the bigger valves more effectively.
The curve has ALREADY been corrected by 2%??, so it is equivalent by your reckoning to a run at Emerald, so Simon Erlands insistence that it would make more at Emerald due to the discrepancy between the RR’s is just rubbish, it has ALREADY BEEN CORRECTED for that supposed anomaly.
Yes, he got that wrong. in my plots and to make it easier for everyone, they have been corrected.
Whatever your point of view Dave, it’s a grudge you have with Simon. Don’t make it about me.
I don’t agree with many thiongs you say because you seem to repeat the same mantra: that he’s been proved wrong, shot in the foot, etc again and again. Very basic school tactics and they work sometimes. Many peoiple reading this would get in their heads that Simon is wrong, because you repeated it so many times (similar thechnique as Scruffman uses).
At the end of the day I am a client and am very happy.
For �3.5K I went from a std VHPD to my current setup (plots comparing below).
Insured for life against HGF (or he’ll repair it for free)
Nothing wrong with that, right?
I have said before a number of times it gives creditable power and also that if you are happy with it that is good enough for me.
Simon E brought up your engine and made the comparison with Steve Butt’s engine, not me.
The statements he made during that diatribe were incorrect and some members of this BBS and Seloc have sought clarification, that clarification has now been made.
It is unfortunate that you have become embroiled, but I repeat, Simon E brought up the subject of your engine, not me.
If you are annoyed, then I am sorry, but you are not the only person annoyed at the disinformation.
If you could please post the comparative run made at Dastek immediately following the Emerald run then all of the anomalies raised in this thread can be cleared up.
Uldis, when someone introduces a subject to criticise something and is then shown to be wrong and his comments are discredited with proof, then I call that a shot in the foot, there are at least a dozen of those in Simon’s postings and I could list them all here, but what would be the point, most people have already seen them.
the fiasco about the vavle sizes - shown to be nonsense
The fiasco about the BTCC head used - shown to be nonsense
The claims that I made up Steve Smiths statement - shown to be nonsense
Etc. etc. etc.
I could go on and on regurgitating the complete list of howlers Simon has dropped…
My point is what you call proof is no proof to me.
Just because you have a different version of the matter does not make yours the true one. I know for example some other aspects about what YOU posted Steve said but won’t go into that matter because it’s only a different version, it doesn’t prove anything.
So far in my opinion you have a few points and Simon has some more. Analysing everything it tilts the balance towards Simon.
Yes, I have to concede that Simon is over enthusiastic with BHP figures, but I don’t really see any harm in that. You are over enthusiastic over build specs, OTOH. I guess when he compared to Steve’s engine it was just by considering the different what-if-I-had, like the dry sump, the new airbox (which I’ll mount hopfully next week), etc.
And it could be that you make the best heads, but not everybody has access to them, only selected people.
Simon’s point of insisting to build a complete engine is a very valid one, the basis for his reliability point.
So, it leaves only Simon defending his case against you, Brian, Johnboy, Steve, (and Scrufman, Randy and some other kids over at Sellcock). Hammering by quantity of posts, not by reason.
But now to your requets, I have searched and didn’t find the correct scanned plot, only this:
which is extrapolated between 8K and 8.5K by hand, just because on that run the system recorded exactly until 8.5K, not 8.6K where it would have stored the 8.5K value to be printed. Still, I saw the value reported and written by hand there. You can check the veracity of the 2 - 2.5% by seeing the rest of the curve.
Equally you have no idea what Steve’s engine will do with a dry sump etc.etc, its just conjecture. If a dry sump adds 10BHP the we can look forward to Steve Butt’s engine making over 260BHP.
As with all your claims it’s jam tomorrow. I sincerely hope that Uldis’s engine does make more power, but right now the figures disprove your claims.
You have no idea what one of my latest heads flows Simon, times move on… They certainly make enough power to hold the current records at Emerald for 1700, 1800 and 1900cc. You wont see me scuttling around making excuses and trying to inflate the power figures…
Certainly they flow enough to make very good power and torque from just about every engine I have sent to Emerald, most of these are on the stock peripherals, no fancy airboxes, injectors, exhausts or excuses about lambda probes, cosmic rays, pixies etc. and just a single run.
The heads you have are supposed to flow around 135-140CFM and are ported to a purpose and that is the purpose of keeping port speed at an acceptable level. This has an affect on torque, an affect you may be able to see from torque comparisons between your engines and mine.
Peak lift figures don’t tell the whole story, and what is the point of measuring airflow at 14mm lift when the cam being used only lifts to 11.5 → 12mm? A quote from a well known engine builder… Big holes flow lots of air, big holes dont necessarily make more power.
I daresay that all the engines I send to Emerald could benefit from further tweaking and ‘adding of power’ by proxy but it comes down to cost benefit for the owners, they seem very happy with what they have and certainly dont have a point to prove. for sure some will make more power after the engines are properly run in since some have gone on the rollers at only 300 or so miles.
I doubt that any of your engine figures will shame me Simon, mine look pretty creditable any way you cut the cake. If yours do well, bully for you, I will be top of the list to congratulate you. So far they haven’t other than in your imagination.
It would be interesting to see the costs of one of your 1800 engines that ‘shame’ mine against the cost of the last 240BHP+ engine to hit Emeralds rollers.
Using existing parts that work well isnt cobbling together… it is making sensible use of what is already there.
Isnt that what you did with Uldis’s engine?
BTW I assume that the figures you have for ‘my’ heads are MS and VVC castings? I can easily squeeze 5-10% more airflow from an MS2 casting since the cores are rubbed on an MS2 there is more scope for porting, I can make changes to the port shape that would risk the casting being holed on an early MS, but are safe and productive on an MS2.
Just how many of the heads of mine are MS2/VVC? and how many of yours are MS2?
Here is a plot from a hydraulic cammed, std valved 1900K Scholar engine built by me, ‘cobbled together’, recently run up on DW’s rollers, this is the most powerful hydraulic cammed K engine on Dave’s rollers so far. Out of the box, no repeat runs, exhaust manifolds, airboxes, injectors, lambda probe excuses, just one run. It was uploaded by the owner, not me.
Here is an 1800 with the same spec As Uldis’s , stock VHPD bottom end, 1444 cams, big inlet valves, stock VHPD induction, etc.etc. And this is not the most powerful by some margin.
![http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/Uldis/Power%20Graphs/JV5-EBDoriginal.jpg[/image]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/Uldis/Power%20Graphs/JV5-EBDoriginal.jpg%5B/image%5D){kind=link}
![http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/Uldis/Power%20Graphs/JV5-EBDoriginal-VHPD.jpg[/image]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/Uldis/Power%20Graphs/JV5-EBDoriginal-VHPD.jpg%5B/image%5D){kind=link}
![http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/Uldis/Power%20Graphs/JV-EBDshortcomparison1.jpg[/image]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/Uldis/Power%20Graphs/JV-EBDshortcomparison1.jpg%5B/image%5D){kind=link}