finmac Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 As it says wondering what the likely peak torque figure (and at what revs)would be for the above, It is a 2.0 VX, QED built, Throttle Bodies and Dry Sump. cheers Finlay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Normans_Ghost Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 Ask Arnie Norman Verona, 1989 BDR 220bhp, Reg: B16BDR, Mem No 2166, the full story here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grubbster Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 Yes, it'll be like his but not quite as much Roadsport build photo's here Le Mans 2004 photo's here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinwhitcher Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 Someone, please pick me up...... 😬 Martin MW 51 CAT Superlight No.171 now known as:Superlight DVA 207 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 Why??? Are you gay? Carbon Components from K9 Composites Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinwhitcher Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 no rolling on the floor laughing... 😬 Martin MW 51 CAT Superlight No.171 now known as:Superlight DVA 207 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 😳 I just had to say it. 😬 Carbon Components from K9 Composites Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinwhitcher Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 Martin MW 51 CAT Superlight No.171 now known as:Superlight DVA 207 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon_Rogers Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 Mmm it depends what figure Arnie wants to be 😬 but I should think it will be around 160lb/ft depending what rollers/dyno it is tested on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 Obviously ones that are calibrated with Toffee. 😬 Carbon Components from K9 Composites Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain chaos Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Mine was bench dyno'd a few months back (from memory)...249bhp...172ftlb torque at just over 8k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Cook Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 If you multiply the HP by 5252 then divide the result by revs per minute you have the torque in ft lbs at that power and that rpm. Edited by - Don Cook on 10 Oct 2005 14:35:32 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oilyhands Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 You can guestimate peak torque by calculating torque at peak power and dividing by .9. So 240 @ 8000 would guesstimate at ((240/8000)*5252)/ .090 which would give around 175lb/ft Oily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigYin Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 I assume that you've considered and rejected the obvious solution........................ Phone QED and ask them If you can ID the engine they may even be able to give you its dyno figures and then you'll know for definite. The boys in Quorn quote around 175 lb/ft @ 6,500 and 235+ @ 7,300 for this sort of engine BUT they do tend to be conservative in their promises. The last engine that they did for me (1800 K) was promised to deliver around 210bhp and 140 + lb/ft peak torque with a broad spread. What they delivered was 229bhp @ 8,500 with 156lb/ft peak torque @ 6000 a very flat torque curve that goes through 130lb/ft (std R300 peak) at 3,800 and stays above that level right up to 9,000 😬 WOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOO The word 'dog' never bit anybody........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I reply to every thread Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 "The boys in Quorn quote around 175 lb/ft @ 6,500 and 235+ @ 7,300 for this sort of engine BUT they do tend to be conservative in their promises" Arnie or Mike C - care to comment 🤔 😬 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EFA Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Matthew, As you well know I am restricted in referring to any issues which may have ocurred as a result of my being a client of QED by an NDA which accompanied an out of court settlement. As my advisor, I'm not so sure you were party to said NDA were you? Referring to Mr Culmers experiences, if you got a map from QED which allowed the engine to start, let alone run, you did well. QED are of course experts in the VX engine. I know, I read it off one of thier adverts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry21p Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 They're not touching any one of my engines ever again though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Carmichael Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 175lbft and 235+ @ 7300 do not stack up according to the calculation that Oily has given us, but Oily's calc only works when the peak power rpm are known. If the engine power is still climbing at 7300rpm then those numbers are possible. The minimum revs at which the engine could show a peak power of only 235bhp would be ~7800rpm. Strength/reliability constraints might discourage QED from advertising the latent performance at the top end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Wong1697456877 Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Might explain why my old 180 lb/ft engine was only ever quoted as 240BHP but always felt like more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EFA Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Alex, how can your old engine be 240bhp, when mine was (and still is of course) only 200? 😬 Oilys calc is in my opinion flawed. But he'll say the same of my power plots. 😳 Edited by - EFA on 11 Oct 2005 20:21:49 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oilyhands Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Arnie, The calculation isn't meant to be 100% accurate but just a rule of thumb, it's normally within 2% based on samples of a *lot* of power/torque curves. FWIW I've never seen one of your power/torque curves. Oily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nifty Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Surely you've watched Jackanory Dave 😳 Sorry Arnie, couldn't help it *tongue* *tongue* Keep off the straight and narrow 😬 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EFA Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Aha, so that rules you out of PC's inner circle then Dave.... 😳 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now