I am not interested in building a car that would certify for 8s and I am certainly not interested in going that fast personally. I am not about to get kicked off my one local track, that would be silly. You can say what you want about dyno numbers, but flywheel HP is reliable data. I will do what I want, not what people tell me I should be doing...
Just a few suggestions Sean, by all means ALWAYS do things the way you want to do them. The above being said perhaps there is a Buick brethren that has a car that is setup to go that fast that will bolt your engine in their car? Or go to a not so local track to get kicked off from? :Brow: And like I wrote, get a driver that is certified to run those times, perhaps the guy that has the car that is certified to run that fast will drive his car with your engine in it? Its not like your car is waiting for an engine so you can drive it. o No: Perhaps Chris has or knows a guy with a car that can tryout your engine for some track times? It would be a shame to build an awesome RACE engine that never sees it potential at the track. But its up to you, do it the way you want, just some options to consider to raise the sbb 350 to the top of the heap and make a Tomahawk look like a punk. :Brow: Don't you remember the sbb 350 engine thread that claimed 550 HP on the dyno and was sold before it made it into a car never to see track times and how dis-believing people were about the dyno numbers without the track times? I think,as well as most I believe think that the dyno numbers are only 1/3 the equation with the car and the track times being the other 2/3. Its all up to you how you want to proceed though Sean, don't think I'm trying to pressure you to drive that fast, there are people that are already qualified to drive that fast. No shame into not wanting to drive that fast either, I know I don't have any desire too. Maybe you can find a guy that has a car setup to go that fast that will campaign your engine for a season of racing for your book? Boy that would be a great addition to your book, a whole chapter of the details of each race! And of coarse whenever he wins a race with your engine have him agree to split the winnings to help pay for an engine re-fresh after the season is over?(the details would be up to you and the car owner/driver) And again Sean, these are all just suggestions to help make your book more of a success. :TU: Derek
Thanks Derek that is a possibility... Believe me each time I see a 8 second certified Buick for sale on here I am interested.
WARNING: LEARNING AHEAD Coming from academia, Sean's approach is a classic research project. You identify a problem you want to investigate and create a problem statement. Example problem statement, "The Buick 350 small block was made from 1968 until 1981. Buick engineers unique engine compared to it's corporate cousins that provided lower weight, higher stroke, and a stronger block. Therefore, the Buick 350 has the potential for high horsepower applications. There currently is limited research in Buick high horsepower (>1000 HP) applications. A reliable high horsepower Buick 350 will provide a unique engine choice for the discerning builder." The next step is to describe what the purpose of your research is. In Sean's case, he is writing a book for small block Buick engines. The purpose statement could be, "The purpose of this research is to determine the effect of turbo charging a small block Buick engine on the overall horsepower increase. The independent variables will be engine RPM and forced air pressure. The dependent variable will be horsepower and torque." Sean has made it clear he plans to do his testing both NA and boosted using an engine stand. When performing a research study, you try and control as many of the variables as possible. By using an engine stand for flywheel horsepower, he removes the added variables of everything behind the flywheel. He is able to do multiple, repeatable tests to verify the data he is collecting is statistically significant (in most cases, something is not considered significant until 30 samples have been collected. You can reduce data sets and use the standard deviation with a lower confidence interval to account for lower samples sizes. I would be happy to run the statistical analysis on Sean's data collection to proves the validity of the test.) This research is providing invaluable information for small block Buick engines by answering the research questions, "How much horsepower can be made from the Buick 350 small block engine?" "What internal/external components are needed to maximize the power potential of the Buick 350 small block engine?" "Is turbo charging a reliable power adder for the Buick 350 small block engine?" A research project of this magnitude is a lot of time, money, and effort. That is why you scale a research project to a very specific topic. You don't try to solve cancer in one shot. It is small incremental steps that increase the body of knowledge that others can use to do further studies. A typical research project concludes with the results learned from the study as well as recommendations for further work. There is no reason to add additional scope (drag racing) to book about engines. That could be a second edition or whole other book devoted to that problem. Sean's book will provide a lot of knowledge to people who are both looking to make a daily driver (majority) and those looking to drag race (minority). A drag race builder now has access to a lot of information for engine builds that cost him $29.99 (cost of book) compared to spending the thousands of dollars and multiple hours that Sean is giving back to the small block Buick community. This book will be the perfect companion for someone to reproduce or add to the initial results that Sean starts. Keep up the good work Sean.
^^^Agreed^^^ I too would love to see track times of a max effort sbb, but going with a more scientific approach of using calibrated testing equipment in a more controlled environment really will answer alot of questions definitively about the capability of an sbb built to that level. At the track, you have track conditions, air density, driver error, etc etc that can play into so much variation. Again, as much as I'd like to see it, the more controlled and scientific process is the dyno route. If people choose not to believe it, that's their problem. You'll get the "we don't race dynos" crowd, just as much as on the flip side of the "yeah, it ran x.xx, but what kinda max power is it putting down eliminating all those variables" crowd. So one way or the other, you'll find your naysayers on these lovely interwebs. Sure, I'd love to see both scenarios tested, but I think Sean's approach of testing n/a on a dyno, then various stages of boost will provide plenty of proof whether the build concept is sound. If someone discredits his method, then follow suit but do it how they feel it should be done. I'm just happy to see somebody talking and then putting it into practice. "Proving the pudding" if you will. Either way, we all benefit from the info provided, whether it be time slips or dyno sheets. I dig em both personally!
The "scientist" approach is all good and fine for what the engine will do "theoretically" in the real world but it still isn't the real world unless the engine is in a car where an engine is meant to run. A dyno can be fudged to hit a target number, or the engine tuned to reach a number on a dyno that would make the engine explode if shifting through gears in a real car at that same tune. I say skip the dyno and send the engine to the track, that will tell more than any dyno would. A "controlled environment" is just that, controlled, where the outcome can also be "controlled". Derek
Being able to take torque readings from the stand rather than off the load brake should not be understated as a strategy. I think if the general consumer public knew what dyno engineers thought of the "brand blue" way of mounting the load cell it would rock the credibility of the majority of dyno shops out there. This should really help give legit readings. The correction #'s can often be myth-busted, as well as considerations for sweep testing and step testing. Being able to factor out the inertia assumed is the missing component to the BS #'s often seen.
The dyno is an empirical approach, not theoretical. Theoretical is based on assumption and is not verifiable. Sean's test is empirical and will be repeated, i.e. same person, same test equipment on a test sample. If Sean runs a statistically significant sample, it would take someone to reproduce, (i.e. different person, different test set using equivalent test sample (engine)) to independently verify or disprove Sean's results. Testing on the small block Buick engine alone could be called Phase I and is the content for Sean's book. Fudging a dyno would be invalidating your test results and could easily be disproved from someone later down the road reproducing the experiment. Which would make his book worthless to falsify numbers and discredit him as a subject matter expert. Putting a max case scenario engine on a dyno that cannot survive in a street car is still a valid test. An experiment has both limitations (constraints outside the control of the research and inherent to the study being performed) and delimitations (controls put on an experiment by the researcher that may affect results). One of the limitations of the dyno test is that the engine can perform differently in a vehicle. A limitation does not invalidate a test. This is where it would be listed in the future work, that the engine would need to be configured differently in a car and a whole new experiment would be conduced (Phase II). Once this experiment is complete, someone can then continue the research by going to the track (Phase III). This would be an extremely involved experiment based on the number of variables that would have to be taken into account. A design of experiment would need to be created to account for all the variables to give a significant result. You can't skip steps in an experimental process, it is an incremental approach. Experimental data is all about control, it reduces the variability of the experiment. Control is what you want in an experimental approach and how you can show validity. Do not confuse "control" with fraud (knowingly providing false data/conclusions). Each phase will give you valid test results and valuable information if performed in a valid method. Personal bias may make one of the phases more relevant in your mind, but each phase would add to the body of knowledge. It would be nice if we had someone sign up to perform Phases II and III after Sean completes Phase I.
Right there in bold in your own post you are agreeing with me the same time disagreeing with me. The assumption would be that the engine would be able to run the same HP in a car shifting gears @ WOT without exploding. A dyno does NOT shift gears where the RPM drops and climbs again, a dyno is usually half the time an actual QM run would be.(so an 8 second engine on the dyno would only take approximately around 4 seconds from the starting point of the pull, say from 4,000 up to say 7,500 then shut down). Say someone buys Sean's book and builds an engine identical to his, tunes it on the dyno to close to the numbers Sean got, then puts it in a car and it blows up the first pass at the strip with the max tune. The same guy thinks that was a fluke and builds another one the same way and BOOM, the same result. So the numbers from the dyno were only theoretical that the engine could run because when the engine was actually ran at the track, running the same tune it makes the engine explode. PS Just because your post is long winded with big words doesn't make you right. uzzled: Derek
I will help you out with a bit more education. We both agree to the definition of theoretical (based on theory and not verifiable). You are missing the concept of what Sean is doing. He is performing an empirical experiment that can be verified/reproduced by another, i.e. NOT theoretical. His testing is on the engine only, nothing to do with the engine in the vehicle. It would take a separate experiment for the testing you are talking about. You're stating a hypothesis, (i.e. a researchers statement based on what has occurred or may occur) "engine would be able to run the same HP in a car shifting gears @ WOT without exploding". In order to prove your personal hypothesis, someone would do exactly what you stated in bold above. If the outcome happens as shown above, your hypothesis would be rejected and the alternate hypothesis would be accepted. I do think this would be a great round of testing to do, but out of the scope of Sean's book. This round of hypothesis testing has nothing to do with Sean's earlier test results. The dyno results will still be empirical results You're trying to compare apples and oranges from the dyno testing to in car testing. As I stated before, one of the limitations of the engine dyno test is that the engine can perform differently in a car. The readers of the book would understand this. If you're looking for a book on Buick engine performance in track testing, this book is not for you. Your testing of a track car is just as valid as the engine testing Sean is doing. I would look forward to seeing your research as well. The more Buick research the better in my opinion.
An engine's function is to propel a car not to run on a dyno.(period) They call it "dyno testing" for a reason, because it is just that a test that tells us what the engine HP will be theoretically in the vehicle it will be installed in(the purpose of an engine). We can go back and forth this way with never agreeing, so I will agree to disagree with you. IMO dyno numbers are cool but meaningless at the same time, they are only theoretical numbers used for WOT tuning and not the say all end all of the ability of an engine. Only when the engine proves itself for the purpose it is meant for(in a car in this engine's case) is when it is not theory anymore when the track numbers doing the math to back track therefore backing up the theoretical dyno numbers is when it isn't a theory no longer but reality proving the theoretical dyno numbers. And I'm not posting as a "hater" just as a devils advocate, I appreciate what Sean is doing and just wanted to let him know what he is in for when he posts the dyno numbers and end it there. Would be cool if Sean has track testing done, but if he doesn't that is his choice, I just didn't want to hear all the whining from the BBB guys when he did post his numbers because I have a feeling they're going to be up there. Track numbers would silence them before they had a chance to speak. Derek
Derick, build a race engine without bringing it to the dyno is like porting heads without flow testing them. A dyno is a real valuable tool in the tool box. A lot can be learned on the dyno long before the rubber hits the road. Class racers spend a lot of money on the dyno before the engine goes in the car for several reason's.
Thanks guys and to be clear I will run the car in the quarter mile, but no faster than 10.00.... Nothing wrong with de tuning and staying consistent.... I bet 99% of the people who buy my book will be looking to build a 12 second car or maybe just a street setup that's better than stock... Rationally and $ for $ I do not think the Buick 350 is a smart platform to build 1000 + HP it takes so much custom work... But for 350-650 Hp it is an awesome platform.... Sure a few will push over 650 but only devoted race cars really need more power.
The dyno testing is really the only way to begin this process. A starting point. A torque curve isn't theoretical, but the conditions and corrections MAY vary somewhat. Again, removing the rotational inertia from the brake and shaft etc. and eliminating another metric to the formula is the best possible way to eliminate the inconsistency seen. For better explanation of that, please visit Depac's website...if it's still up. There are WAY more things to get right with the car to be able to equate real world expectations. A proven 9 second chassis would do very different with the same engine than any decent condition stock musclecar. For the record, I think there's a ton of incorrect dyno testing out there. Gotta start somewhere though.
If you "detune" and run the car in the QM you probably would be better off not posting or including those ridiculously slow times compared to what the max tune dyno numbers end up at. Just saying, would make the dyno numbers sound like a scam. Look everyone my engine made the record torque and HP for a sbb 350 on the dyno so I can run 10.00s, seriously. LOL! Derek
Or let off at half track for some verifiable valid times. Maybe re-install the engine in a certified and proven car.
