Anyone else read the 451hp NA 3 valve motor write up in Dec 2008 MM&FF?

[SoundGuyDave]

A couple of things... the peak ratings were pretty close, it was the other numbers (under the curve) that were whacked... DKO and Trip-R are arguing different points, and not actually disagreeing.

Second thing: now that we have that all resolved, can we get back to teasing the retarded kid?

 

[DKO]

A couple of things... the peak ratings were pretty close, it was the other numbers (under the curve) that were whacked... DKO and Trip-R are arguing different points, and not actually disagreeing.

Second thing: now that we have that all resolved, can we get back to teasing the retarded kid?

I attempted to clear that up...

In regards to teasing the retard; maybe we should exercise some maturity and get back to the tech in this thread instead of turning this into an exchange of name calling...

Sound familiar? Sorry Dave, I just enjoy playing devil's advocate

 

[GERMANSHEPERD]

Wow, before I type anything serious in nature I can say that some of the other posts have made reading through trying to find the original topic at least fun.

Anyways, back to what you were saying RRRoamer. I apoligize for taking so long to get a post back. I got pretty tied up here but so far with the time I did have here is what I have found. I think that some of the errors seem to be based on the original excel spreadsheet with the various dyno graphs from different tests being jumbled up. After looking over it again and again to try and find ryhme or reason as to what was what and where the issue was I thought at first it was random. The data just appeared mixed up with no real intentional order to it. Then after looking though it seems as some of the cells and rows that had alternate tests with different configurations are mixed into these tests. The problem is it is not every cell or a complete row that the data looks like that.

At first I was thrown off because the peak number seemed right at first glance but when I started comparing the individual numbers down in different cells I started noticing cross ups where data was flipped. So that started making more sense. The peak number is right, but the data that is under the curve is mixed up.

So, I am pretty sure that MM&FF would have nothing to gain by jumbling the numbers up. I guess maybe they could sell more magazines if the numbers were higher but I am still pretty sure that they don't have any concern as to the numbers. As for Livernois of course a higher number looks better but based on how the data is distributed with the peak number being the important one in most instances as far as advertising goes and since the peak number is one of the only correct numbers I would say it's fair to assume that again there was no intention. That and the fact that I did get to see some of the original numbers and spreadsheets with dyno graphs on them I am pretty sure that this is just a case of the numbers getting transposed in the translation between us and the magazine guys. It was a mistake and I do apoligize for any incovenience it has caused. I am going to post the first dyno graph that I had mentoined previously that was a chassis dyno test of that exact same combo but in a car. Hopefully some better numbers might shed some light on it.

Don't let this brief interruption stop the playful bickering though. I was starting to enjoy it.

Thanks
Mike

I told you that article was pure BULLSHIT!

 

[GERMANSHEPERD]

Here is that dyno sheet I was talking about. I assume that everybody is familiar with Steeda. I figured a nice outside source for dyno numbers would be helpful.

This car has the following mods

Stock Shortblock
Livernois Stage 3 heads
Comp Cams 127350 (Stage 4) cams
Kooks longtubes
CAI
Steeda Tune

I can't remember the exhaust system right off hand. I will have to look for that.

If there are any questions or anything just let me know.

Thanks
Mike

Good combo and numbers,believeable on a DynoJet but 127350 is a blower grind according to Comps Website???

 

[mike@livernois]

No, they didn't. All Mike really said was that some of the numbers might have been flipped around. That just doesn't explain how EVERY FREAKING HP NUMBER IS WRONG (except for 4!). These are NOT close. hp = torque * rpm / 5252. It's a law, not a suggestion (actually, it is a DEFINITION which is even better than a "law of nature" or such crap). So if someone tells you that they made 300 lb-ft of torque at 5000 rpm and 600 hp at the same rpm, you KNOW they are full of shit. Assuming the torque as correct, they only made 286 hp. If the hp was actually correct, then they HAD to make 630 lb-ft of torque to produce 600 hp at 5000 rpm.

Period.

Try this number on for size: 451 hp is 44% increase over 313 hp. Do you REALLY think a set of ported stock heads and new cams will REALLY give you a 44% increase in VE given the test situations?? I sure don't.

So Mike, can you post the original dyno sheets? That might help to clarify what the hell is going on. One way or another Livernois REALLY needs to get to the bottom of this. If someone at your end is screwing with the numbers to make things look better than they really are, that needs to be stopped before your image gets killed. If someone doesn't know what they are doing on the dyno and are managing to screw up the numbers generated (somehow...), they REALLY need to be trained before your image gets killed. If MM&FF is fucking around with the numbers to make a pretty story, that HAS to be stopped before both your image and the reputation of MM&FF is completely in the toilet.

Once again sorry for the confusion this seems to have caused. When I get back in the shop and get a chance I will post up the numbers and spreadsheet that I have that I think will give a little clearer understanding of what happened.

I totally agree that HP&TQ numbers are math plain and simple. They are numbers derived from calculations. Like you are saying HP is just a calculation. The numbers are skewed all over the place under the curve because the different rows of numbers for the various dyno tests are completely mixed up. This is putting HP numbers from the complete wrong dyno test in the wrong cell or column in most cases. So when you look at all of them across the board it is chaos. The numbers don't make sense at that point.

At this point though after going through and finding out what happened I am glad we have been able to isolate the problem. I understand the confusion this may have caused for people and do apologize for that. At this point though from an image standpoint while it is a bit embarrassing to have found this error I don't think overall as far as our product goes I am to worried on that front. It is a bummer that the graphs got screwed up in translation over to the magazine guys, no doubt on that one. But again I would not consider it the end of the world. It is a mistake and a bummer that it happened but I am sure we can get corrected graphs printed in an upcoming issue to try and make up for it a little at least.

We for sure only want to post the most accurate info since we feel it only helps show how good our product is. I am sure a lot of the guys out there with our product that have made good numbers would attest to this. We want to put out only the best 3V CNC cylinder heads out there. So far we think we are doing a good job of that. In the end the product itself is really all that can speak for itself. Marketing, hype, media coverage, etc. will only get you so far. When it comes down to it real world performance is all that really matters. Well at least to me if that is if I am the one paying for whatever the product might be.

Like others said though, the 385 RWHP graph shows the potential on a car to make 450 FWHP. That proves just how good these engines really are. We recently just did a big bore stroker version with almost the same top end combo and we are seeing numbers in the 420+ range on a base tune at the tire right now. I am hoping for 430+ RWHP and that is before the C&L intake is used. To make 430+ RWHP out of a 3V in NA form would be just sick. That would be 500+ FWHP out of an NA 3V. That is almost 1.6 HP per cube.

Once again though very sorry for the confusion. I will be sure to beat the guy in charge of the spreadsheets and email. Just kidding

Sorry for the break from the fun. All can now resume the battle royal with that one guy, wherever he went. lol

Thanks
Mike

 

[GERMANSHEPERD]

Once again sorry for the confusion this seems to have caused. When I get back in the shop and get a chance I will post up the numbers and spreadsheet that I have that I think will give a little clearer understanding of what happened.

I totally agree that HP&TQ numbers are math plain and simple. They are numbers derived from calculations. Like you are saying HP is just a calculation. The numbers are skewed all over the place under the curve because the different rows of numbers for the various dyno tests are completely mixed up. This is putting HP numbers from the complete wrong dyno test in the wrong cell or column in most cases. So when you look at all of them across the board it is chaos. The numbers don't make sense at that point.

At this point though after going through and finding out what happened I am glad we have been able to isolate the problem. I understand the confusion this may have caused for people and do apologize for that. At this point though from an image standpoint while it is a bit embarrassing to have found this error I don't think overall as far as our product goes I am to worried on that front. It is a bummer that the graphs got screwed up in translation over to the magazine guys, no doubt on that one. But again I would not consider it the end of the world. It is a mistake and a bummer that it happened but I am sure we can get corrected graphs printed in an upcoming issue to try and make up for it a little at least.

We for sure only want to post the most accurate info since we feel it only helps show how good our product is. I am sure a lot of the guys out there with our product that have made good numbers would attest to this. We want to put out only the best 3V CNC cylinder heads out there. So far we think we are doing a good job of that. In the end the product itself is really all that can speak for itself. Marketing, hype, media coverage, etc. will only get you so far. When it comes down to it real world performance is all that really matters. Well at least to me if that is if I am the one paying for whatever the product might be.

Like others said though, the 385 RWHP graph shows the potential on a car to make 450 FWHP. That proves just how good these engines really are. We recently just did a big bore stroker version with almost the same top end combo and we are seeing numbers in the 420+ range on a base tune at the tire right now. I am hoping for 430+ RWHP and that is before the C&L intake is used. To make 430+ RWHP out of a 3V in NA form would be just sick. That would be 500+ FWHP out of an NA 3V. That is almost 1.6 HP per cube.

Once again though very sorry for the confusion. I will be sure to beat the guy in charge of the spreadsheets and email. Just kidding

Sorry for the break from the fun. All can now resume the battle royal with that one guy, wherever he went. lol

Thanks
Mike

385 rear wheel Dyno Jet HP would probably be 345-350ish on a Mustang Dyno at the tires and more like 415-420 at the crank.

 

[don_w]

385 rear wheel Dyno Jet HP would probably be 345-350ish on a Mustang Dyno at the tires and more like 415-420 at the crank.

So you are assuming only 7%-8% drivetrain loss??? That's pretty optimistic isn't it... especially without any accessories, either?

 

[TGJ]

385 rear wheel Dyno Jet HP would probably be 345-350ish on a Mustang Dyno at the tires and more like 415-420 at the crank.

385 RWHP on a Dyno-Jet is 444 HP at the flywheel in a N/A car with all stock accessories( pullies ), the stock clutch, stock Tremec 3650 Transmission, stock 2-piece driveshaft and stock 8.8 differential. I got that info from a formula I received from a Ford Drivetrain Engineer.

 

[GERMANSHEPERD]

So you are assuming only 7%-8% drivetrain loss??? That's pretty optimistic isn't it... especially without any accessories, either?

off of my 'guestimated' 350 rwhp MD conversion.....your thoughts? Good eye.....I live for this stuff!!!

 

[don_w]

off of my 'guestimated' 350 rwhp MD conversion.....your thoughts?

Don't know anything about the MD. And frankly, I don't give a hoot about dyno numbers in general. But I do believe that the drivetrain/accessories loss is a lot closer to 15% than 7 or 8%. And a 15% loss would be 450-ish at the crank (385/0.85=453)

 

[SoundGuyDave]

I attempted to clear that up...

In regards to teasing the retard; maybe we should exercise some maturity and get back to the tech in this thread instead of turning this into an exchange of name calling...

Sound familiar? Sorry Dave, I just enjoy playing devil's advocate

Okay, I'll admit to getting busted... That said, teasing the retard is kinda fun...



Where'd he go, anyway?!

 

[DKO]

off of my 'guestimated' 350 rwhp MD conversion.....your thoughts? Good eye.....I live for this stuff!!!

Completely off topic but you spell 'shepherd' wrong

 

[RRRoamer]

451 x .85 = 383.35. That right there figures the 15% drivetrain loss. 380whp CAN and HAS been done.

Do you even have a CLUE what an engine dyno is??? Besides, the basis of the bitch is that the FUCKING MATH DOESN'T WORK OUT.

 

[RRRoamer]

Mike,

Thanks for following up on this. As I said before, I have never doubted your product, but I am really starting to doubt anything published in MM&FF.

 

[DKO]

Do you even have a CLUE what an engine dyno is??? Besides, the basis of the bitch is that the FUCKING MATH DOESN'T WORK OUT.

umm... yes? It's really grade school multiplication.

you have the 'claimed' number of 451 at the flywheel. What is average drivetrain loss? 15% right? That might even be a little less. So we multiply 451 by .85. This number is the FLYWHEEL HP with 15% taken out of it to account for what a dynojet might read. End result? 380ish.

So what about that math doesn't work out aside from the fact that you can't comprehend it? Or basic grammar for that matter...

Also, for the record, seeing as how you tend to overlook things; I never argued the numbers under the curve. I argued that the peak numbers were plausible. Plausible mean 'very realistic' or 'having the potential to exist'.

 

[GERMANSHEPERD]

Completely off topic but you spell 'shepherd' wrong

was intentional bro.......but lend me your 'hooked on phonics' when your done!

 

[DKO]

was intentional bro.......but lend me your 'hooked on phonics' when your done!

Fine, but you pay shipping.

 

[Charlie Sheen]

...a 15% loss would be 450-ish at the crank (385/0.85=453)

or throwing the loss back in, 385x1.15=442.

 

[mike@livernois]

Mike,

Thanks for following up on this. As I said before, I have never doubted your product, but I am really starting to doubt anything published in MM&FF.

Not a problem at all. I can completely understand the frustration and confusion that jumbled up numbers that don't make sense can cause. I remember in days gone by reading Hot Rod as a kid and seeing some of the tests and wondering how in the hell?

I guess as long as we can get to the bottom of it and figure out what the hell happened that is a good thing. I am still amazed as to how gargled up the spreadsheet is. It is going to take a detective to piece it back together again. Should be fun. lol

Thanks
Mike

 

[Livernois Motorsports]

One way or another Livernois REALLY needs to get to the bottom of this. If someone at your end is screwing with the numbers to make things look better than they really are, that needs to be stopped before your image gets killed. If someone doesn't know what they are doing on the dyno and are managing to screw up the numbers generated (somehow...), they REALLY need to be trained before your image gets killed. If MM&FF is fucking around with the numbers to make a pretty story, that HAS to be stopped before both your image and the reputation of MM&FF is completely in the toilet.

We've worked very hard for the reputation we have today and wouldn't do anything to jeopardize that or intentionally try to mislead anyone. Our products speak for themselves. Shops all over the country run our heads and the worlds quickest and fastest modular powered vehicle (6.33 @ 224mph) also has our CNC heads.

Regards,

Rick LeBlanc
Livernois Motorsports