| Author |
Message |
Roger Red Hat
Site Subscriber
Joined: 13 Oct 2004
Posts: 4722
|
| Posted:
Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:17 pm |
|
|
|
|
Dan
Site Subscriber
Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 3547
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 30, 2005 5:25 am |
|
i asked him how he arrived at the figure and if it is proven:
137bhp standard, gas flowed 8bhp,cammed 8bhp, exhaust 8bhp, filter 5bhp, chip 12bhp, ported throttle body and inlet manifold 8bhp, take off around 21 bhp because of age of engine. gives estimate of 165bhp. i know it has to be as it is so quick. i would guarantee it on a rolling road to be around 165bhp. |
|
|
|
|
astrojon007
Site Subscriber
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 731
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 30, 2005 5:49 am |
|
TBH it seems he's being pretty fair about the power figure as it seems to be quite a conservative estimate.
I would have thought the cams, chip and headwork would give 35-40 bhp at least (at least it should be if the manufacturers of the cams and chip are being truthfull)
From what I found on websites even the mildest cams should give 16bhp more , the chip on average is 12bhp and I managed to get an estimate of 20bhp for the headwork (Not sure about headwork really)
I don't think u would really get all that from it but surely the gains in conjunction with other parts ie cams + head would be better than the parts seperately cams = 16bhp head = 20bhp whereas both = 45(or something)
I'm not sure how it really works from that point of view but it seems his estimates are conciderably lower than the parts manufacturers claim and he's take off 20 odd bhp for age of engine.
Just thought I'd add this, according to bb/k-tec/prima those mods would give a grand total of 210ish bhp if the figures they quote are right. Add the combined effect of parts together making better gains than seperately 220-230 ish (WHAT A LOAD OF C**P) Basically the so called "experts" rekon you would get another 50 odd bhp on what this guys claiming.
Who is right about it all might I ask? |
Last edited by astrojon007 on Fri Sep 30, 2005 7:04 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Chris H
Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 19978
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 30, 2005 5:58 am |
|
lol 16bhp from cams.
lol at 45bhp from them all as well.
150bhp is more realistic. |
|
|
|
|
astrojon007
Site Subscriber
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 731
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 30, 2005 7:12 am |
|
See thats more what I thought.
These companys don't half play us all for fools. I'm glad there are people like Chris H about to set the record straight. |
|
|
|
|
stan
Gay Rights Activist
Joined: 07 Apr 2004
Posts: 1268
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 30, 2005 2:51 pm |
|
I feckin hate "max power" performance quotes! does my head clean in! |
|
|
|
|
astrojon007
Site Subscriber
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 731
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 01, 2005 7:56 am |
|
It confuses the hell out of me TBH. Why can't they give an honest quote for their power figures.
They should under quote really, then every one who bought their products would be like "wow this works better than I thought it would". 
Much better, everyone's happy. |
|
|
|
|
Roger Red Hat
Site Subscriber
Joined: 13 Oct 2004
Posts: 4722
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 01, 2005 9:17 am |
|
but if that is the case, you have to lowerprices of it.
people want what they pay for, and if your saying its only going to produce (for argument sake) 10 bhp, when it actually produces 15, people will want to pay less.
pros and cons to it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
