Scott - You will kill the class with that kind of torque and less weight (or the same weight) than an A2 Golf. I do want to see where the thing falls in the process, but something is going awry in your logic there. The 2.5 liters of displacement does make a difference - even if flow is not ideal for the motor. This is evident in the torque performance of the motor, which is what actually moves our cars down the track. My understanding is that the Duke is typically not a rever due to mechanical challenges (weak crank) as much, or moreso than top end breathing. Yet it makes great low end torque because, well it has almost 50% more displacement than my motor.
[/b]
What, is there a new VW i don't know about, at 1.5 litre? If not, then come on Chris, the statements here have been close to accurate...let's keep it that way. .7 is 39% of 1.8, not 50%. Yes, my displacement is greater than yours, but how relevant is that if the engine doesn't use that displacment to produce greater HP and Torque?

Yes, the engine does have mechanical challenges (tho not necessarily the crank). But the top-end breathing was definitely not designed to handle the revs, which can easily be seen on my HP chart.
The one thing we need to remind ourselves, is that it is all well and good to share our dyno data, and talk about it, but these graphs are in no way comparable to each other, other than on very basic terms - even if all generated on the same brand of machine. There are too many variables at play that impact the data collected on a dyno to consider a factor to compare data from one type to another, or even to compare my numbers to Kirks on an apples to apples basis. I have also not found the same correlation that Andy mentioned about dyna-pak reading lower than other dynos, I have found that to be the case with dyno dynamics machines though.
[/b]
That is what i have been saying ALL along. That specific examples mean little. However, the process has to base it's number on SOMETHING, and i believe it is the more generic stock numbers, along w/ other factors. And the stock numbers actually agree pretty well w/ the specific examples here.
My previous motor was a stock 60k mile engine, with a header and correct fueling/timing. It returned 96hp and 103ft-lb on the same dyno, this at least removes one of the other variables, and is the best way to use a dyno - as a before and after measurement. It does tell me that we did not get the oft quoted 25% improvement. Yes we had done some easy mods before, but the numbers for my used motor were not that far off the numbers for a healthy stock motor on that dyno.
[/b]
Andy can correct me if i'm wrong, but i do not beleive the 25% number AT ALL means that each car will acheive that. My car obviously has not yet. It was simply chosen as a method of allowing consistency in the initial classing of cars via the process.
The bottom line is that there are physical characteristics of engines that impact their performance and performance potential, just as there are for a chassis, or braking system. The process, from my understanding, tries to take some of this into account to get us in the same ballpark and sends us racing to sort the rest out. If we want to use dyno runs to class our cars, we should look at what classes NASA has to offer, because that is not an IT consistent approach IMO.
[/b]
I don't think that anyone here is proposing that we use dyno runs to class our cars. That is a whole different topic.
IMO if it comes out as close to the A2 Golf as the numbers you just quoted, it will be off the mark, and that car will dominate the class on most tracks.
[/b]
I disagree that it will dominate any MORE than the MkIII Golf. The numbers i chose put it OVER 2lbs/hp worse than the MkIII Golf, at about the SAME torque (using *stock* hp and torque).
Like I said, I would like to see where the process puts your car - if it was not reviewed in the Great Adjustment.
[/b]
That's all i am asking, for it to be reviewed via the process.