@Will

Making rated power: http://www.youtube.com/watc...LSqc&feature=related

The early PJB cars were making 160ish untuned and in automatics. I'm only concerned with the getrag myself...so I stand by my 175 bone stock # and 25hp driveline loss across the board for a getrag equipped Fiero ~4800 rpm.

[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 01-18-2011).]

quote Originally posted by stickpony: dude, frictional loss isn't a percentage at all rpms, it is INCREASING with the rpms at a linear rate, peaking at close to 18%. So, now you are calling GM liars and their documentation in their own manual is a lie? come on man. as to your Dyno's Will, yeah i don't KNOW that every engine out there would hit 200 HP on an engine dyno, but it is a safe bet that when many engines both here and in the cadillac forums consistently graph with similar numbers that it is more than likely accurate. i HIGHLY doubt that GM rated a 180HP to be 200HP in a Cadillac, someone would have figured it out, whether it be a magazine. another thing you are entirely overlooking are the CV axles, which absorb ALOT more power than straight axles from a RWD car. CV joints are very loose and have alot of play in them, and there are two in each axle on each side. and yeah, i don't have studied numbers to tell you how much power they lose, but i guarantee you it is alot more than the axles in RWD cars. simple logic would dictate that. You ask people to post proof, but until you post proof that DISPROVES us, your claims are just as baseless as ours supposedly are. get a clue.

I said a percentage OF TORQUE TRANSMITTED. The frictional loss is going to be a percentage of torque, without regard to RPM. For TORQUE loss, RPM doesn't matter. The POWER loss is simply the product of torque loss and RPM, just like power output of an engine is the product of torque output and RPM.

Not sure what you're talking about re: calling GM documentation a lie, but I have found quite a few errors in GM shop manuals over the years.
If you're talking about the 4 Nm number quoted above... I'm not disagreeing with that, but understanding the context is important. That 4 Nm what it takes to turn the transmission with ZERO torque across it. IE, the transmission on a stand with nothing on the output and a motor with torque meter driving it. With 4-5 Nm of torque at the input, 4 goes to turning the transmission. That's fluid dynamic loss due to viscosity of the oil. With 80-100% loss, 4.9's must be making 800+ HP to put 150 to the ground

Obviously, when the transmission is transmitting 300 ftlbs, it certainly doesn't chew up 80% of that...
Or even 18%. I'd be VERY surprised if the *brake* (constant RPM) loss was more than 5%.

Dynamic measurement (changing RPM) measured on a chassis dyno lumps the energy it takes to accelerate the driveline components in with the frictional and viscous losses. Obviously, the largest chunk of driveline inertia by a long shot is the flywheel/clutch assembly. Even with a 14# stock V6 flywheel, the assembly weighs close to 30#.

Do you have a citation (or amplifying information) about the power consumption of CV joints?

It's interesting that you say I should believe what you say due to simple logic, yet you don't accept the simple, logical things I say (frictional losses through a gear mesh, for instance) because my final number is different than yours.

[This message has been edited by Will (edited 01-18-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Will: Thanks for the link. 16x/200 through an automatic is what I would expect. I don't think it's 25 HP across the board, but 175/200 is a 12.5% loss, which is in line with my expectations. I'm simply unfamiliar with the collection of 4.9 dyno information.

Like I said, based on GM's quoted rating and the net result of the swap done on a getrag-equipped Fiero where the peak hp is in the 4500-5000 rpm range, 25 hp seems like the best # to use when estimating driveline losses. Forget % because it's 25 hp whether it's a 2.8, 3.1, 3.4, 3.8, 4.9 etc...

2.8L @ 140 hp typical stock good running dyno is 115 rwhp
3.1L @ 150 hp typical stock good running dyno is 125 rwhp
3.4L @ 160 hp typical stock good running dyno is 135 rwhp
3.4 TDC @ 210 hp typical stock good running dyno is @ 185 rwhp
3800 NA @ 205 hp typical stock good running dyno is @ 180 rwhp

You can look at the archives and see this pattern.
My stock 88 2.8 dynoed at 112 rwhp one month before it threw a rod.

All I'm saying is that for a given driveline, the loss is the same at a given rpm range regardless of the engine and engine power. It seems to be 25 hp at the peak hp of the various "stock" swaps we've seen for a getrag-equipped Fiero in the 4300-4800 rpm range for peak power. If, however the peak HP is at 6000rpm, the loss may be up to 30hp...we'd need to analyze more engines that are rated at that rpm.

So remember, driveline losses are a function of the driveline/drivetrain, not the engine. The engine makes a rated power at the flywheel. Now the engine then needs to overcome frictional losses imposed on it by the drivetrain. Those losses scale with RPM, not engine power.

So a 1000 flywheel HP @ 4800 rpm will lose 25 hp in a fiero and dyno @ 975
Just like a 140 flywheel hp @ 4800 rpm 2.8L Fiero motor will dyno @ 115.
I hope this makes sense.

quote Originally posted by Will: Interesting thread on 4.9 build for MG, referencing the build that's linked above... http://forum.britishv8.org/read.php?6,13482,page=1 And a 4.9 Miata: http://forum.miata.net/vb/showthread.php?t=162563 Does anyone have an ACCURATE bore center dimension for the 4.9? It's obviously larger than the Northstar (102mm), but it would be nice to know by how much.

Fascinating to think that IF the bore centers are 4.4". LS heads might actually work on a 4.9 block. Can you imagine how light that engine would be? And better yet, an EASY 300 HP. It would be a lot like an LS4 in the end though. Makes me wonder how much an LS4 weighs.

Edit: 478 lbs (does not include power steering pump, wiring harness, or computer) Thats not light, Im surprised.

[This message has been edited by Fierobsessed (edited 01-18-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Fierobsessed: Fascinating to think that IF the bore centers are 4.4". LS heads might actually work on a 4.9 block. Can you imagine how light that engine would be? And better yet, an EASY 300 HP. It would be a lot like an LS4 in the end though. Makes me wonder how much an LS4 weighs. Edit: 478 lbs (does not include power steering pump, wiring harness, or computer) Thats not light, Im surprised.

I thought the Chevy bore center was 4.440...

I doubt that the 4.x bore center is *that* large. I did realize today that I could snag a head gasket to measure the bore center... and even compare to SBC gasket.

The 4.9 is something of a frustrating engine. The short block looks like a really good architecture. The deep set head bolt threads and large bore center mean that there's potential for lots of cylinder pressure AND significantly increased displacement. The wet liners are a so-so item but more from the standpoint of longevity than power production.

However, the heads are SO BAD that getting power out of the engine is like getting blood from a stone. With GOOD aluminum heads, the long block could weigh 350 lbs and make over 400 HP. That's cooking with gas... but it just isn't going to happen.

I've always seen the number 4.4" bore spacing used with Chevy. I know that the LS retained the 4.4" spacing as well. The nice part is that they went to the 10 bolt heads for the LS. So if the bore spacing is the same as the Cadillac, its somewhat likley the head bolt holes will pretty close. You could shift the holes slightly by milling the holes off to one side just a little. The water ports APPEAR to be compatible, Not saying they are. I'm not seeing much to say that this wouldn't be a really interesting avenue. It pretty much comes down to bore spacing. However, Im betting that the bolts are located slightly further away from the row of cylinders. That could spell defeat as well. Also, I think Ford uses 4.4" spacing, and 10 bolt heads too. It would be great if you or anyone else has some means of either shooting down, or confirming the idea.

From this thread: http://realfierotech.com/ph...topic.php?f=3&t=3376

quote The Dark Side of Will Really good info on MOI and some testing to demonstrate how huge the effect of MOI is on dynamic power output: http://www.popularhotroddin..._increase/index.html http://www.stockcarracing.c...ucing_moi/index.html http://www.superstang.com/horsepower.htm The Mustang in David Vizard's longer article put down 85 fewer HP and 140 fewer ftlbs in 1st than in 4th. This 85 HP difference is ALL due to MOI. I think that 50 HP of that is accessible through the installation of a very light clutch & flywheel.

Here is a link for a dyno run on my stock 4.9 with a 4 speed. Use the red and green lines, that is with the VSS to the ECM. The other runs is what happens when you don't have the VSS to the ECM.

http://www.frontiernet.net/~jgunsett/DynoRun.html

Jack

When you guys are done arguing the minute differences between modern-day RWD drive train losses and transverse drive train losses, go back and look at the link I posted.

I would probably guarantee to you my buddy has one of the highest specific output non-Nitrous / non-forced induction 4.9s in the country. His e-mail address is on that website.

------------------
Todd,
2008 Jeep Patriot Limited 4x2
2002 Ford Explorer Sport 2dr 4x2
2002 Ford Crown Victoria LX
1987 Pontiac Fiero SE / V6
1973 Volkswagen Type-2 Transporter

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: Like I said, based on GM's quoted rating and the net result of the swap done on a getrag-equipped Fiero where the peak hp is in the 4500-5000 rpm range, 25 hp seems like the best # to use when estimating driveline losses. Forget % because it's 25 hp whether it's a 2.8, 3.1, 3.4, 3.8, 4.9 etc... 2.8L @ 140 hp typical stock good running dyno is 115 rwhp 3.1L @ 150 hp typical stock good running dyno is 125 rwhp 3.4L @ 160 hp typical stock good running dyno is 135 rwhp 3.4 TDC @ 210 hp typical stock good running dyno is @ 185 rwhp 3800 NA @ 205 hp typical stock good running dyno is @ 180 rwhp So a 1000 flywheel HP @ 4800 rpm will lose 25 hp in a fiero and dyno @ 975 Just like a 140 flywheel hp @ 4800 rpm 2.8L Fiero motor will dyno @ 115. I hope this makes sense.

Your data interval is from 140-210 HP. 1000 is outside your interval by more than 11 times the width of the interval. That level of extrapolation is rarely valid.

It *looks* like 25 HP, but remember that you're dealing with the vaguaries of engines that may or may not make rated output, have been moved from the chassis in which they were rated to a different one with different intake and exhaust, computer problems, etc.

[This message has been edited by Will (edited 01-20-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Will: They're not so minute. Have you or the guy in question posted the pictures of the headwork here before? I think I recall him offering to make those steel rocker bridges for people.

If you're comparing a 73 Cutlass with a slushbox to Cobalt SS, then I would guess there would be a vast difference.

But if you're comparing a Pontiac Solstice to a Fiero V6, I would presume it would be almost negligable.


My buddy doesn't really post a whole lot on here, he doesn't actually own a Fiero anymore. He spends more time on the Citation forums. I don't think he was the one that was offering to build those bridges, but he does have them. He's a friend of DarthFiero, I think that guy did some of his ECM tuning for him. The guy he got the heads ported / worked over from has been doing this stuff for quite some time. I don't know exactly everything he did, but if you (or the original poster) want to contact him, his contact information is listed on the web page and he can give you lots of detail.

The guy also had his car running on a hydrogen cell for a while. He had it where the TPS controlled a voltage adjustment which would replace a certain percentage of fuel with hydrogen gas through a vacuum tube that connected to some contraption he installed in the alternate battery location of the citation. He was getting 40+ miles to the gallon and improved horsepower too...

The guy does all kinds of stuff...

------------------
Todd,
2008 Jeep Patriot Limited 4x2
2002 Ford Explorer Sport 2dr 4x2
2002 Ford Crown Victoria LX
1987 Pontiac Fiero SE / V6
1973 Volkswagen Type-2 Transporter

Isn't the biggest chunk of the drive train loss the wheels/tires? I would think so. Relative to the power of the engine alone, two giant flywheels attached would definitely reduce the ability
of the engine to accelerate.

quote Originally posted by Will: Your data interval is from 140-210 HP. 1000 is outside your interval by more than 11 times the width of the interval. That level of extrapolation is rarely valid. It *looks* like 25 HP, but remember that you're dealing with the vaguaries of engines that may or may not make rated output, have been moved from the chassis in which they were rated to a different one with different intake and exhaust, computer problems, etc.

I'm taking actual GM rated #'s and actual dyno's I've seen posted here over the past 11 years. The 1000HP engine was just an example to illustrate my point. When GM rates a motor at 1000HP and we stick it on a getrag in a Fiero, then we will know.

I believe someone dyno'd a stock 87 duke (96hp rate?) and it dynoed at 72 maybe...

You have been too busy looking at a driveline loss value and trying to relate it as a % loss to the power of the engine but I'm telling the driveline loss is fixed at any give rpm. It has nothing to do with the engine, only the engine speed. For instance:

RPM LOSS
-------- ----------
1000 6 hp
2000 9 hp
3000 13 hp
4000 20 hp
5000 30 hp
6000 45 hp

Using your logic, a 2.8 suffers and 18% loss, so if all engines suffered an 18% loss a TDC should net 172hp but we all know they dyno in the mid 180's in a Fiero with no mods. The 3.4 DOHC does peak at 5200 rpm, so I wouldn't be suprised if the loss @ 5200 rpm was closer to 30hp. Frictional losses scale with RPM, not what engine is attached to the transmission.

My 3.400 motor dyno'd at 187 rwhp. Are you telling me that I'm making 228 flywheel horse power from a cast iron head 3.4 with a roller cam and Fiero intake? Considering I made that power at 4100rpm, 207ish flywheel hp is more believable.

[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 01-20-2011).]

quote Originally posted by BigGuyTinyCar: Isn't the biggest chunk of the drive train loss the wheels/tires? I would think so. Relative to the power of the engine alone, two giant flywheels attached would definitely reduce the ability of the engine to accelerate.

Energy in a rotating part is proportional to the square of rotating speed. Since the wheels and tires rotate much more slowly than the flywheel (especially in lower gears), their effect is MUCH smaller, but still significant.

quote Originally posted by Will: Solstice has a hypoid bevel final drive mesh. Transverse drivelines do not. Solstice will lose more power to friction.

You're not bringing me into this...

I'm simply posting here with respect to the 4.9.

------------------
Todd,
2008 Jeep Patriot Limited 4x2
2002 Ford Explorer Sport 2dr 4x2
2002 Ford Crown Victoria LX
1987 Pontiac Fiero SE / V6
1973 Volkswagen Type-2 Transporter

quote Originally posted by Will: Energy in a rotating part is proportional to the square of rotating speed. Since the wheels and tires rotate much more slowly than the flywheel (especially in lower gears), their effect is MUCH smaller, but still significant.

Agreed, but energy is also proportional to the square of radial distance from the center of rotation (i.e. moment of inertia integral). In the 1:1 drive gear
where most dyno runs are done, the difference in rotational speed between the engine and the wheels is the same as the final-drive-ratio (3.63 for the Getrag,
3.55 for F40, 2.73 for the 4T60E). Wheels/tires are at least that amount larger in radius than most of the rotating gears, axles, etc. Now, granted the gears,
etc are solid steel and have considerably higher density than alloy and rubber, but energy is only linearly proportional to mass.

[This message has been edited by BigGuyTinyCar (edited 01-20-2011).]

quote Originally posted by BigGuyTinyCar: Agreed, but energy is also proportional to the square of radial distance from the center of rotation (i.e. moment of inertia integral). In the 1:1 drive gear where most dyno runs are done, the difference in rotational speed between the engine and the wheels is the same as the final-drive-ratio (3.63 for the Getrag, 3.55 for F40, 2.73 for the 4T60E). Wheels/tires are at least that amount larger in radius than most of the rotating gears, axles, etc. Now, granted the gears, etc are solid steel and have considerably higher density than alloy and rubber, but energy is only linearly proportional to mass.

Flywheel is pretty large (~12" diameter). In 4th, the overall ratio of the 282 is 3.4:1. This means that each single unit of MOI of the clutch/flywheel counts for 3.4^2 = 11.5 units of MOI in the wheels/tires. In first gear, that equivalence goes up to 160:1. At 30#, the stock clutch/flywheel assembly is close to as heavy as one stock wheel/tire.

[This message has been edited by Will (edited 01-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Will: Flywheel is pretty large (~12" diameter). In 4th, the overall ratio of the 282 is 3.4:1. This means that each single unit of MOI of the clutch/flywheel counts for 3.4^2 = 11.5 units of MOI in the wheels/tires. In first gear, that equivalence goes up to 160:1. At 30#, the stock clutch/flywheel assembly is close to as heavy as one stock wheel/tire.

But aren't we trying to determine the losses after the flywheel?
It would seem to me the flywheel counts as part of the engine, so I'm assuming auto manufacturer engine power measurements are made with the flywheel already on the engine.

quote Originally posted by J Gunsett: Here is a link for a dyno run on my stock 4.9 with a 4 speed. Use the red and green lines, that is with the VSS to the ECM. The other runs is what happens when you don't have the VSS to the ECM. http://www.frontiernet.net/~jgunsett/DynoRun.html Jack

so those two dyno runs were 164 HP and 158 HP respectively, thats behind the 4 speed. average between them is 161 hp, for a total driveline loss of 39 HP, which is a 19.5% power loss. thats pretty close to my 18% figure!! in fact, it makes my 18% figure look conservative.

so go ahead Will, i am waiting to hear your BS about what was wrong with the dyno results, and how these don't reflect real world losses to the wheels....

[This message has been edited by stickpony (edited 01-21-2011).]

Don't play percentage games in figuring driveline loss. They are easily manipulated and misleading. 18% of a hundred is 18....while 18% of 200 would be 36, using the same drivetrain components.

One of the GA guys dynoed a 4.9/Getrag combo in Huntsville a few years back.
I remember seeing 170-something. Seems like it was ~175.
Gary Flynt (sp?) also dynoed his 4.9 w/4.10 Muncie. Seems like I remember 168.
The graphs were out there for the longest time. Looks like they don't have them any more, though. (etrackmasters.com)

quote Originally posted by Raydar: One of the GA guys dynoed a 4.9/Getrag combo in Huntsville a few years back. I remember seeing 170-something. Seems like it was ~175. Gary Flynt (sp?) also dynoed his 4.9 w/4.10 Muncie. Seems like I remember 168. The graphs were out there for the longest time. Looks like they don't have them any more, though. (etrackmasters.com)

Gee! 175 ... who would have thunk it?

quote Originally posted by Raydar: One of the GA guys dynoed a 4.9/Getrag combo in Huntsville a few years back. I remember seeing 170-something. Seems like it was ~175. Gary Flynt (sp?) also dynoed his 4.9 w/4.10 Muncie. Seems like I remember 168. The graphs were out there for the longest time. Looks like they don't have them any more, though. (etrackmasters.com)

all this is irrelevant until someone posts actual dyno numbers. a person has already done that, and his average power was 161 HP with a 4 speed muncie... so, keep those dyno posts coming, not speculative posts

quote Originally posted by BigGuyTinyCar: But aren't we trying to determine the losses after the flywheel? It would seem to me the flywheel counts as part of the engine, so I'm assuming auto manufacturer engine power measurements are made with the flywheel already on the engine.

Manufacturer power measurements are made at static RPM. Flywheel on or off is irrelevant. However, when you're looking at the "loss" or difference between power at the crank flange on a brake dyno and power at the wheels on an inertial dyno, the flywheel is a VERY significant contributor.

quote Originally posted by Will: Re-read before you try to stick words in my mouth.

and who does both an engine dyno AND a wheel dyno? nevermind the difficulty of running an SFI engine on a stand outside of a car.... 200 hp is a good round number because thats is the average power output GM came up with. you can mix drinks all day long dude, bottom line is 200 HP is the ONLY number we have to go on when comparing these, because that is the stock output of these engines. unless someone can PROVE otherwise with an engine dyno result, it is safe to assume that 200 HP at the crank is what they are producing. if you are taking the averages of a group of dyno results, then 200 HP is bound to be the average power output at the crank for said group of engines anyways.

as to all the other dynos, FORGIVE ME for not saving every 4.9L engine dyno i have come across over the years that someone posted in a forum from their photobucket account, but the matter doesn't warrant THAT much attention. You keep asking me to prove what these engines produce at the flywheel and then at the wheels with dyno numbers, yet YOU yourself can;t even prove your 10% theory, not even close. the closest you had come to that was Lou saying he gets 175 hp with a 5 speed(12.5%), and yet, he hasn't posted his actual dyno averages either, he has just quoted his highest number without showing the actual dyno results. The minute someone actualy posts dyno results favoring my statement of 18%, you immediately dismiss it, just like i predicted you would.

anyways, i am DONE arguing this point. When the dyno results come back from rob after his car is tuned, i will post them. Then, you will have the TUNED maximum HP numbers for that particular build-up of the 4.9L. they will be behind a 4t60e tranny, which i'm sure everyone will argue the power loss on that as well, but according to all literature i have read and most dyno numbers i have seen, it tends to be about the same as the 4t65e, which is right at 23% loss.

[This message has been edited by stickpony (edited 01-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by stickpony: 200 hp is a good round number because thats is the average power output GM came up with. you can mix drinks all day long dude, bottom line is 200 HP is the ONLY number we have to go on when comparing these,

Being a good round number or the only number we have doesn't make it accurate. Do you understand the concept of uncertainty? Standard deviation? 3 sigma? You want 200 to mean 200 +/-0.1, but in the context of a swapped engine, it really means 200 +/-20. Even the previous SAE standard for measuring engine output allowed rounding to the nearest 5.

quote Originally posted by stickpony: You keep asking me to prove what these engines produce at the flywheel and then at the wheels with dyno numbers, yet YOU yourself can;t even prove your 10% theory,

I can test my hypothesis, but that requires an engine dyno The nice thing is that you can't prove yours either, which makes this a religious discussion, doesn't it?

quote Originally posted by stickpony: not even close. the closest you had come to that was Lou saying he gets 175 hp with a 5 speed(12.5%),

quote Originally posted by Will: It was a stick right? 10% would be much more realistic. I don't think it's 25 HP across the board, but 175/200 is a 12.5% loss, which is in line with my expectations. I think at 300HP, it's about 10%. I think at higher power levels, loss % will be lower, but los amount will be higher. If you take GM power ratings as gospel (we don't know how accurate they are in current time), then it's 18% on a 2.8. One thing to remember is that there's a tolerance for everything. 115/140 = 82%, but 115/135 = 85%. Is the loss 18% or 15%? Did the Fiero engines make 140 HP or 135? They were rated at both values... While we can assign numbers to lots of variables, there are significant inaccuracies and uncertainties that make it very difficult to make an iron clad pronouncement. We can simply put bounds on it and error bars for the range. So did the built 4.9 actually get to 285 HP or is it closer to 260? We don't have enough info to say. Welcome to the internet.

Yes, I consistently and unequivocally pronounced that "my way" is absolutely and perfectly true and accurate without exception under all circumstances, forever.

quote Originally posted by stickpony: anyways, i am DONE arguing this point. When the dyno results come back from rob after his car is tuned, i will post them. Then, you will have the TUNED maximum HP numbers for that particular build-up of the 4.9L.

Good. I look forward to seeing interesting dyno numbers from a 4.9.
The driveline loss discussion has to be one of the more common ones in the automotive internet community.

[This message has been edited by Will (edited 01-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Will: Manufacturer power measurements are made at static RPM. Flywheel on or off is irrelevant. However, when you're looking at the "loss" or difference between power at the crank flange on a brake dyno and power at the wheels on an inertial dyno, the flywheel is a VERY significant contributor.

Ohhhhh! Okay, I can buy that, but I have to think that makes it more likely that the "drive line loss" is higher
than 10-12%. Spinning up the flywheel/clutch assembly + all the gearing, axles + brake rotors + two ~50 lb
wheels/tires is definitely going to subtract some serious horsepower relative to the engine (sans flywheel) alone.
My guess is that the biggest contributions to the loss would be in this order: 1) flywheel/clutch, 2) rims/tires/brakes
assemblies, 3) everything else. If that were true, then there would be little difference between transverse vs axial
drive lines. BTW, I'm not trying to be argumentative. Just trying to understand my Fiero.

Edit: Now that I think about it, the horsepower/torque numbers they get from the static-type dyno is only relevant
for something like a truck pulling a load up a hill, or possibly a track racer where the car is as fast as it can
aerodynamically. Anything involving acceleration will be less than the static number due to the inertia of the flywheel,
the crank, pistons, etc.

[This message has been edited by BigGuyTinyCar (edited 01-22-2011).]

Ok....
So, Auto or Manual..??
J/K

------------------
aka. SmoothGT
NotAFieroAnyLonger
CURRENT BUILD:
" SmoothGT-'w8nc' "
RIP. "Little Feather"

Here are a few 4.9 Dyno's I've come accross. Not sure if they were linked in this thread already or not. Just thought I'd add them...

quote Best run was 190.7 HP @ 4100RPM and 282.5 TQ @3000 RPM. The engine is running super rich all the way throught the rpm band. I'm still running the reprogrammed 4.9 chip but it's for a stock engine. We think I should be able to get it over 200 HP and 300 TQ with some fuel tuneing, just have to figure out what to use. Any ideas?? We didnt have the exhaust gas analiser hooked up so we didnt get any readings. However we set of every exhaust gas alarm in the cell and there was plenty of black smoke and burning eyes. I want to get some sort of fuel tuneing device and go back with the exhaust gas analiser and see what we can do. I started at 180HP and 170TQ and after 3 runs with advancing timing got it to the 190HP and 282TQ. I'm sure being able to tune the fuel will help a ton.

From this thread on RFT... http://www.realfierotech.co...3a32c71487349dcd91d7

And another one by PFF member fourpoint9 (hope you don't mind Steve )... (second link has the max HP, TQ was off the chart)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_fk4NqmPEc
http://www.youtube.com/watc...gwpU&feature=related

And this one. This the ASG 5.0 built engine (4.9 based). Not too sure how much I believe these numbers but at least its something... (engine dyno, not chassis)
http://www.angelfire.com/stars/mycaddy/asg.htm#The ASG 5.0 Performance results:

And last but certainly not least... the dyno of Her86GT. This is the 4.9 turbo talked about early in this thread...
http://img.photobucket.com/...ss29/Oct9dynorun.jpg
Posted in this thread originally...
https://www.fiero.nl/forum/A...050119-1-046354.html

[This message has been edited by Fieroseverywhere (edited 01-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Fieroseverywhere: http://www.realfierotech.co...3a32c71487349dcd91d7

I was getting my hopes up when I read the top text where he says it's "stock engine", but then I read further down in
the thread:

quote I'm running the Isuzu 5 speed. Mods are ported heads, ported Allante intake (if thats a mod?), Delta reground camshaft. I've got a MSD Coil, distributor cap and plug wires but dont know if those are any better than stock either.

[This message has been edited by BigGuyTinyCar (edited 01-21-2011).]

I just noticed that too. Stock has a different meaning depending on who you're talking to.

Those mods are the simple ones. All can be done at home if you have the tools and time. As far as power output is concerned, the cam does a bit, headwork does the most, coil, cap and wires do practically nothing (a slight increase in efficiancy if anything). The allante intake is good for a few horses but cost vs gain makes is not really worth it. The money needed for all this stuff could be better spend on a turbo setup.

Just so its out there....

Current drop in bolt on performance upgrades for the 4.9:
1 - Ignition components - Coil, ignition module, plugs and wires.
2 - Cam profile changes - Deltacam is the place to go. Several profiles to choose from.
3 - Keith black Silv-o-lite pistons. Available from summitracing.com in several overbore sizes.
4 - Rhoads lifters. Also summitracing. Several to choose from.
5 - Main and rod bearings. King engine bearings available from summit.
6 - Switching to Allante steel rocker bridge. Cheap and allows higher RPM's without the common failure of the 4.9 aluminum bridges.

This is pretty much it for drop in parts. Anything else needs relatively significant work. As already stated the heads are the weak point. No aftermarket companies address this issue. Start with the heads and you will see gains. A good machinist or race shop can help out a bunch. Lots of material can be removed but the overall design is still flawed.

The basic design of the short block suggests effective use in boosted applications. The headbolts themselves bolt to the base of the block and help provide structural integrity to the block while also helping to reduce overall weight. The "floating" sleeves can be very easily machined to add sealing rings to help with higher boost pressures by creating a more positive headgasket seal. Since they are removable this can be done easily on a simple lathe. The motor has lots of potential. Until the heads are addressed though, no truely significant gains will be found. {My opinion: 4.9 owner, builder, and daily driver. }

[This message has been edited by Fieroseverywhere (edited 01-23-2011).]

Thanks, Fieroseverywhere, that's both interesting and useful. BTW, you may want to change the "drop in performance" phrase above.
The first time I read it, I thought you were warning us of stuff that doesn't work.

[This message has been edited by BigGuyTinyCar (edited 01-22-2011).]

quote Originally posted by BigGuyTinyCar: Thanks, Fieroseverywhere, that's both interesting and useful. BTW, you may want to change the "drop in performance" phrase above. The first time I read it, I thought you were warning us of stuff that doesn't work.

Done. Changed to "bolt on". With the exception of the overbore pistons this holds true. If you do decide to overbore the sleeves for larger pistons, number their position before removing them so they can be put back in the right place. Make sure you have new O-rings handy. I also found a bit of Hylomar helps the seal when puting them back in. Its important to do them right. Coolant will leak into the oil if not.