Escalus2k4

First let me say hi guys! This is my first post so I hope that I did everything right, if not please point me in the right direction.

Ok here goes, I have a 79 olds 350 vin R 5577523B, that I pulled out of a Delta 88 and put in an 85 cutlass. I know its not the best 350 to choose but 79 is the only year that I can get my hands on. Whats on the Cutlass:

bored .30 over
Edelbrock performer RPM Intake
Holley 4150 650cfm carb
Stock heads (only had a 3 angle valve job done, ran low on cash)
Comp cams Xtreme Energy cam XE262H Duration 262/274, Lift .475/.480
3.42 rear end gears
Flowtech full length headers
Th350 tranny with full manual shift kit

I read that stock the motor makes 170hp and 275 torque, what I want to know is:

1.)How much HP and TQ do you guys estimate that it may make now?
2.)What can I do further to this motor?

I remind everyone that I am on a very limited budget.......

Thanks!!

kevinkpk

To figure HP, you need 5 things, Pi (3.1416) x length of stroke in inches x area of cylinder also in inches x speed x number of cylinders. Thats is what is called the PLANK formula.

Torque I don't know unless you could measure it with a dyno. I should have added that is without any back pressure loss or mechanical loss.

captjim

You left out the piston choice. If you have destroked 22cc dish "stock" aftermarket replacement pistons, your compression ratio is in the 7.5 to 1 neighborhood. If this is the case, there isn't much you can do. The HP and TQ numbers may even be lower than stock. Even that cam is too much for that low CR. Now, if you have the Speed pro flat tops or 6 cc dish, that is another story. The old saying goes "horsepower is in the heads", and is pretty much true. But, you need the cr, cam, induction and exhaust to take advantage of any serious head work. On the street, torque rules. You have a pretty decent set up, as long as the engine has enough compression. If you have the lower CR, I would use a milder cam and a Performer intake.

captjim

"To figure HP, you need 5 things, Pi (3.1416) x length of stroke in inches x area of cylinder also in inches x speed x number of cylinders. Thats is what is called the PLANK formula."

Kevin, I am not sure I understand that??? If you have 2 350s, one with 11 to 1, large valves, big cam and a lot of head work and another stock, how does your formula factor in the differences???

kevinkpk

It is still displacement times lenght with Pi (circle), and speed times number of cylinders, you want voulumetric effecincy, try this link from my next door neighbor, retired Tulsa university mechanical engineer, here you go
ENERGY CONVERSION Try chapter 6, this also will deal with thermal effeciencies ect. Or if you want a general good balanced HP calc, use the plank

captjim

I just don't see any possible way of determining HP without some volume component??? An engine is an air pump, right? The problem I see is your formula treats all engines with the same bore and stroke exactly the same with no consideration for cam, heads, etc. I have a couple of computer programs and cam and head flow #s change the HP and TQ results quite a bit. Am I missing something?

kevinkpk

You are somewhat correct, I was replying to a post that had no "special" considerations. It is still lenght x bore x pi x speed x number of cylinders. You want to add into compressibilty factor, fine, or efficiency, fine, or altitude, fine, or position at TDC fine woops (times number of clynders at a given speed), or mechanical efficiency, fine, or voulumetric effciency, fine, also with volume effective you need iso rating of the fuel/air mixture, that an altitude (listed). How far do you want to figure isentropic BHP? Or do you want to figure real BHP, how far can you go? I was posting a general HP formula for someone that asked. I'd say if you need to get down to it on your particular engine, take it to a certified shop with a dynameter. Also the plank is just for a naturally asperated carbuerated engine. Not to be so defensive, sorry, and thanks for the reply.

Jim, you have computer program for calculating HP, this guy might not. Not trying to be a stick in the mud, and I do appreciate your post, thanks.

captjim

Not trying to argue, at all, tying to learn something new I think the formula you are proposing will give the potential HP. Or maybe maximum. I tried using the formula, but the "speed" part got me. Those factors you mentioned are very minor details, while cam lift, head flow, etc are major factors. Your formula only takes into consideration cylinder size and speed, not the head flow. So, and correct me if I'm wrong, but under your formula, every 350 ci engine will make the same HP at a given RPM, right? Yet, those other factors will change the HP number DRASTICALLY. There are 125 hp 350s and 750 hp 350s

kevinkpk

Jim, if the stats are the same, diameter, stroke lenght, and speed, yes This was something I learned in dealing with aircraft engines years ago, however theory is still the same. In regards to speed thats just that, my owners manual for my 70 delta states it will do 310 hp at 4200 rpm 10.25 CR (455/w 2 bbl). Speed is critical in any engine be it otto or brayton cycle as far as horsepower goes.
If you have a computer program that does Hp calc's great, I'd say you either have alot of other parameters to plug into it, or it assumes such, or those parameters you tell it, it calculates from that for the final value.

88 coupe

On topic:

At your power level/budget, a 350 is a 350. Unless you are planning on making "hardcore" power, yours is as good as any of them.

Easier to call it a 355. Either way, it's not enough gain to measure.

The phrase is redundant. If it has less than 3 angles, it does not qualify as a valve job.

Bragging rights excepted: In the real world, actual HP and Torque numbers are of little use. “Advertised ratings” are worthless.

There are a lot of factors involved but, depending which short block you started with, you may have picked up 20 HP.

Depends on your budget, and what you want to do with the car.

At this point, see if you can find a local shop that has a distributor machine and a mechanic, who knows how to modify an advance curve, and take the car there. A "performance tune" might cost a couple of hundred, but at this point, it will get you the most “bang for your buck”.

Norm

88 coupe

Pi x 3.385” x 44.1” x 5252 RPM x 8 = ?

You have the numbers. Explain, for us, how your formula works.

Explain what it is, and how it is relevant to the topic?

To calculate brake horsepower:

To calculate HP From ET and Weight:

To calculate HP From miles per hour and Weight:

Norm

captjim

" You have the numbers. Explain, for us, how your formula works."

I'm with Norm on this one. I tried it and as soon as you use any RPM figure, the HP 3 gets ridiculous. I have often stated that HP is an overrated stat, just a function of torque and rpm. Again, the problem I see with this formula is that every Olds 355 will come out the same, regardless of head, valves, cam, etc. It really isn't very much use in this case. And, as Norm mentioned about the tune, build/tune for low end torque and throttle response and it will be a fun car to drive. I dyno'd my car, makes 240 RWHP. Not much, right? Runs high 13s with a 3.42 gear in a wagon, very responsive, fun to drive, turn-key. So, don't get too carried away with an arbitrary HP number.

88 coupe

Quiet, isn't it?


We can begin, with the actual formula:

IHP (Indicated horsepower) = PLANK/33,000

Now, let's compare it to the formula (edited for simplification) in post #2.

How many discrepancies can you find?

Welcome to the internet.

Norm

Oldsguy

Math, I never liked it but have to use it. Darn! it is so exact and exacting.

captjim

Well that makes more sense. I asked him to clarify the "time" part, there is nooooo way it could work using rpm, as soon as you multiplied by 5000, the HP number gets stupid. I can't believe I wasted 15 minutes on it. As to the "internet" comment, true. You certainly can't make serious decisions on an engine project based on screwball information.

kevinkpk

You know what I tried to help, if this wasn't correct i appologize.
As far as my goals are to be as all knowing as Norm, but one thing I will not be as Norm is a pompus ***. Happy new year to all.

J-(Chicago)

Although Norm's posts come off as harsh, we have to appreciate the fact that he is a great filter of false information on the site. We all seem to share a goal of having the greatest Olds site around, and his posting style simply makes people think twice about posting inaccurate information, which in my opinion is a good thing.
Not a good thing to have people become frustrated and argue.
To lose either of you dedicated member's help on here would not be beneficial at all.

captjim

I have had my run-ins with Norm, on this and other sites. I agree that he could be kindler and gentler, we all have our own styles. I felt like I was polite in this thread, giving you several opportunities to clarify and explain. If you post BS, you are going to get called on it. That formula had 2 glaring flaws, the fact that all Olds 350s will come out the same and the "time" factor. Even if all the other components came out to .1, multiply it by 5000 rpm and you get 500 HP. It just made no sense at all.

There is just so much bogus info on the internet. Guys repeating over and over stuff that they have read. Take intakes. How many times have you read "the Performer is just an aluminum copy of stock, the RPM is the only choice for a performance engine" Ever lay a Performer beside a stock intake? They are NOT identical. I did tests at the track, my 9 to 1 355 is quicker with the Performer over the RPM. Same with cams, most guys over cam a 350. And part of that is that their CR estimates are way off. I care zero about HP, it is all about drivability and ET for me. Read this, if you want to. http://www.oldspower.com/vb/showthre...ower+overrated
Most guys have no idea what HP is or what it means. HP cannot be measured in a running engine in a car. They measure torque, then use a formula to determine HP. And since the dyno controls the rate of acceleration, amongst other things, the HP # is arbitrary, IMO. I race, Norm races. A lot of what we post is from experience, not books. I try and share my experiences and be helpful when I can, help others avoid mistakes, many of which I learned the hard way.

I apologize to you if I sounded insulting, I did not mean it to be that way, and was not referring to you with the "screwball" remark, that was aimed more at the bad info and advice that gets tossed around so much. The thing is, guys used this bad advice, build an engine, only to find that they have wasted a bunch of time and money. I certainly don't know it all, and am always trying to learn new things. I do know a lot about street driven, low-mid CR 350s, as I have built, driven, and raced quite a few of them.

88 coupe

Help = Posting only accurate information.

You too, can create the same illusion.

Simply post only what you know is fact. Then, if you are asked to do so, clarify it. Finally, if you do make an error, acknowledge it.

Norm is not the one who engages in flames/name calling.

Norm

88 coupe

Reference was, to the "wealth of misinformation"* that is found there.

Norm

*Thanks to Bill Travato

Olds64

If you want to see some intense automotive engineering formulae then check out the following book.

http://www.amazon.com/Engineering-Fu...9221092&sr=8-1

I did a thesis with the help of this book and I learned more than I ever wanted to know about how an internal combustion engine works.

88 coupe

You mean those times when you started flaming/name calling, because one of your errors was pointed out? Errors that you made because you read something into a post, that was not there?

Political correctness/azz kissing, is an impediment to accurate communication.

Is that all you found?

Norm doesn't race. Norm uses timeslips to tune his street/highway cars.

Good example of PC/azz kissing interfering with communication. You did not insult anyone. If someone reads an insult into your post, it is not your problem, and there is no reason for you to apologize.

It would be more productive, to post the the "offending" quote, along with something like "Not what I said", "read it again", or "read what is actually there".

Norm

Olds64

CHECK IT OUT!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hillyblue/1030954461/

captjim

Originally Posted by captjim
........ That formula had 2 glaring flaws ........
Is that all you found?

No, just the 2 most obvious.


Originally Posted by captjim
........ I apologize to you if I sounded insulting ........
Good example of PC/azz kissing interfering with communication. You did not insult anyone. If someone reads an insult into your post, it is not your problem, and there is no reason for you to apologize.

It would be more productive, to post the the "offending" quote, along with something like "Not what I said", "read it again", or "read what is actually there".

Norm

Just trying to be nice and respectful, not something everyone here feels the need to do. There is more than one way to make a point.