ALFAGTV6.COM

Hamishm00 · Post by **Hamishm00** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 5:31 am

I'm sure someone will tell us the exact bhp shortly.

ar4me · Post by **ar4me** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:45 am

Now we're veeery far from the topic again and this has nothing to do with JJ's chassis weight

I spent the better part of the past 3 days taking out unneccessary wiring, components, etc and chipping out sound insulation material. It is like a tin can now, and tapping the roof now sounds like a steel drum. Some progress since the 2423 lbs weigh-in, but probably not that much.

Regardless of crank hp, I'm pretty happy with the wheel hp

- they are real and is what matters. Getting the crank hp is kind of a guess anyway, and for practical purposes it doesn't really make any difference whether it is 347, 360, or 375... Of course, it can be an interesting academic discussion, but short of dynoing the engine out of the car on a stand, will we ever know?

The car is not for street driving so passsing emissions is not an issue, and it obvisouly provides less restrictions in the engine development. I will probably try get some gas measurements at some point - just to see...

Jes

Hamishm00 · Post by **Hamishm00** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:22 am

Yeah, and with the right set of cams, she could be even better.

The GTA cams advanced 20 degrees on the 3.45l engine that used to be in my 156 were very mild. Power dropped heavily after 6200 and she had trouble hitting the rev limiter. I can only imagine they must be milder on the 3.7. Or is it just the Jo'burg fuel?

junglejustice · Post by **junglejustice** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:03 pm

Cams are a GTA stage 2 - maybe 10.4 mm lift inlet and 272 degrees... VERY mild - but holds 300 plus from 6300 to 7K and beyond - no drop off...

347? I'll take it!

Besides, the drive-line losses on these cars are virtually a known by now.... There are enough stock standard cars that have been dyno-tested to be able to draw the real numbers.

For example: Fresh GTV6 2.5 12 valve stock standard rated at 155 in SA pulls 103-105 on the dyno at 6000 foot. 17% for altitude is a scientific known, so driveline loss = 15% in that example.

301.5 at sea level through the same/similar drive-line = 354.

Fresh 2000 GTV6 pulls 84 at the wheels from 122 rating = 14% drive-line loss (at that altitude - on that dyno...)

Anyone want to post local sea-level numbers of a stock standard car? I know that there was just a session in SoCal...

Strong, special 3.7? Maybe...
I dunno; 6 ITBs, the headers, the lighter GTA lifters, the open exhaust - no cats, running GoTech versus say a Haltech or a combo Unichip/stock ECU, how about the huge intake plenums and custom intake runners, the loose clearances - it all adds up...

the 396 CuIn "375" TurboJet??? Chevy SS right behind probably still needed jetting, but it pulled 275-275-280....

Also, compare to the stock 375 hp C5 that pulls the same power ATW on this sea-level dyno as the Milano - maybe GM lied...!!!???

junglejustice · Post by **junglejustice** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:14 pm

Little ant says: "...I wanna do this..."
Grasshopper: "...you're nuts... world is flat"
Ant does it and grasshopper says: "...can't be done - don't believe it - you'll fail...!"
Ant prooves it and grasshopper says: "...problem with the numbers..."
Ant verifies it and grasshopper says: "...naaah, crappy thing - didn't want it after all - can't be done/not real/never - looks like crap any way, pissoff hey..."
Ant says: "...oh well..."
Grasshopper goes back to flat world...

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:25 pm

Hej JungleMonk

Do you really think those engines put out factory specs? You can't just grab a rolling road number and accurately compare it to a factory spec...

Rolling road readings are pretty much useless unless you compare them with another reading done on the same bench with the same vehicle a couple of hours apart. i.e. while mapping.

But I'm sure you know this, right?

junglejustice · Post by **junglejustice** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 pm

On the subject of weights - always wanted to do this and revive the original I4 vs V6 conversation;

Just weighed my rebuilt 1750 going in to the GTV Vintage racer project - 255 pounds DID NOT include the following:

Starter, brackets, pulley/belts
Alternator & hardware
ECU & Harness, distributor/cap/wiring harness etc - electronics...
Tailhousing/bellhousing
Headers

With all of his added, we are looking at well over 300 pounds for the 4-banger...?

Our V6 "monstrosities" that was going to be turning these Milano/75s in to "nose-heavy under-steering pigs" weighed 410 pounds INCLUDING all of the pieces mentioned above as well as the inatke manifolds etc etc...

Say 100 pounds extra in exchange for a reliable extra 150-200 horses? Sure! Any day of the week.

The A/C, evap core, P/S & hydraulic hoses etc etc removed probably saved AT LEAST that on top of it all. We still have carbon fiber fenders/bumpers/hood/trunk to go, as well as fuel cell etc etc.

As it sits now, with no cage in it (mostly center to rear-biased), we are at a 52/48 - front/rear weight distribution... Not bad.

junglejustice · Post by **junglejustice** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:03 pm

Hey BigDick,

(What happened to BigSwede any way...?)

If Alfa, (or any other car manufacturer for that matter) put out a "rated horsepower" number, one would expect that any unit straight off of the assembly line would produce a number (at the crank) at least within, say 2-3-4% of that rating, no?

Then, given literally hundreds of the same make and model tested on the same dyno (even though it is "only" a rolling road), over and over, one MUST start to draw a base-line for the model’s REAL ATW power, no? Yes.

I use Dawie as a reference ONLY because I know of no-one else who has tested more of the same make and model on the same dyno than he has – providing us with very reliable interpreted numbers for the parasitic drive-line loss of this particular model of vehicle.

So, given his consistent findings over years (under a variety of conditions) and on MANY examples, I tend to believe the numbers.

In the absence of you (or anybody else for that matter) stepping forward with a verified crank-dyno number for a stock motor, (as well as a number for the 3.7), we are left with NO CHOICE but to extrapolate "at the crank numbers"...

What does it matter any way? How does it relate to my post about weight?

What is the point that you are arguing Mats? I made a statement; you seem to want to dispute every point/post I make (heck I can not recall ONE SINGLE POST, that you have ever made in response to one of my projects that DID NOT contain negative feedback/input!)

This is why I would rather be working on/driving in the car than doing this. I mean, what is the point, really?

Gotta go. Mats will now post by himself and tell us EXACTLY what the correct way of doing this is...

DaveH · Post by **DaveH** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:38 pm

Mats wrote:Hej JungleMonk,..

junglejustice wrote:Hey BigDick,..

I am under my desk in the fetal position. My hands are covering my head. Hopefully I won't get hit by shrapnel or crossfire. Must keep arse low to the ground...

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:50 pm

Wow, you just gotta love this guy, always making himself out as the poor litte guy who is being picked at by the bullys in school...
How can you think you will be taken seriously when you constantly hit below the belt and act like a child?

Still, you can not calculate parasite losses in the gearbox by using factory numbers and a pull on a dyno twenty years later...
That's just absurd. You can't even compare two different pulls on different tires.

ar4me · Post by **ar4me** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:25 pm

Hmm, I thought this was part of the MD-JimGreek gtv6.com promotion strategy

Though, I did miss the hilarious pics

On a serious note: I'm happy the wheel hp is fairly healthy - serves as a (very) crude sanity check that the entire setup (engine/driveline/gearbox) is without major flaws (causing big losses), or, does it

? Another positive note: From (admittedly) limited driving I haven't noticed any driveline vibrations, hence the driveshaft balancing by forgot-their-name seems ok.

Though, I'm a little concerned about the missing centering capability at the hubs. I have previously experienced some vibration by using a milano centering ring (58.6 mm) on a 164 wheel (requires 58.1 mm). So, without any centering, except by the lug nuts, I'm wondering about vibration issues... Any experience, guesses, etc?

Jes (totally off topic

)

junglejustice · Post by **junglejustice** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:34 pm

Nice save Jes! (Take attention away from one thread hijack with another thread hijack...!

It's all good.

I don't think that wheel vibration is your problem. At this point (from the few limited trips around the tree-killers shop) - ear-drump vibration is my big concern!

Hamishm00 · Post by **Hamishm00** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:58 pm

JJ, to be fair, and I really don't give a shit either way, you do tend to throw around a lot of numbers, percentages and grail law conversion figures, not to mention horsepower and torque stats. You're gonna open yourself up to abuse.

Hamishm00 · Post by **Hamishm00** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 8:16 am

But having said that, Mats, you sound like a bitter old woman in this thread....

(your clear disdain for me even mentioning the name "autodelta", like it was the name of a dead dog you once loved, or your mother or something, and your attack on JJ (yes it was an attack))

junglejustice · Post by **junglejustice** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 9:13 am

Hamish, while I appreciate your attempts to be fair here and your sincere efforts at dolling out equal scorn in order to help end this, I must say - I resent the notion that I was throwing around arbitrary numbers! As if to say that I am lying or that my numbers are doubtful!?

Mats' tirades aside; the 301.5 number ATW is real. 5 People watched it – 6-7 pulls in a row! Dyno sheet was produced. Period. The 260 foot-pound number is real. It's on the dyno sheet - Jes will post it here. Period. The 2423 pound number is real (unless you want to tell me that Group 2's corner scales are shit...)

The only stab at the unknown that I took was clearly prefaced by the word "if" (for those of you who claim English as their first language - please read my 1st post to this thread.) It clearly says: "....IF... you believe a 20% parasitic driveline loss THEN the 301.5 and the 260 numbers bla-bla-bla...TRANSLATE to xyz..."

How is that "...throwing around numbers..."? If that is "throwing numbers around" then so be it! It is then open for Mats or anybody else to come along and say that based on some other testes of stock production cars they found the following….

I mean how much more clear/tentative/careful/reserved/honest/open minded can or need a person be on this forum here to not receive scorn and all hell of insults to one's efforts from King Mats Big Dick Swede....!!!!????

I said IF you believe a 20% driveline loss! That was not even the point of the post! Mats clearly missed it...

I’ve said it before: It isn’t fun for someone to come on here, ask questions or make posts about their projects – only to be insulted and criticized by a handful of people who dominate the thread! I dare anyone to produce ONE (1) post where Mats had anything good to say about any of my efforts!

It all stems from an old news/water under the bridge tiff with another member here THAT WAS LONG SINCE RESOLVED, but Mats just does not seem to want to let go…

Look how far OT we got from my post about the car's weight just because you have a pouncing spider lurking in the corner waiting for me to make a statement that can be torn to shreds! This hobby and the notion of "sharing information" really are becoming more work and aggravation than what it should be.

By the way...