bhp

[John Hess]

Can you imagine how out of tune an auto would have to be for ANY spark 
plug change to give an additional 50 Horsepower?

----------
From:  Sandy[SMTP:sganz at wgn.net]
Sent:  Monday, June 09, 1997 9:46 PM
To:  diy_efi at coulomb.eng.ohio-state.edu
Subject:  Re: bhp

At 01:34 PM 6/9/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Tom, I can't tell if that is a serious question or not.
>
>If it is, the reason the hp ratings of today have reached the level 
of the
>hp ratings of 71 and before is that modern engines are >much< more
>efficient (ve) than in the old days, and they are built for higher 
rpm
>operation (higher operating rpm = more hp for less torque).
>
>If the question was not serious, then the reason is the manufacturers 
now
>use split fires and slick-50 for their dyno testing, which are worth 
at
>least 50hp+.

Split fire plugs do nothing, and I doubt that slick 50 does much 
except
clog the oil filters (no flames) just sounds a bit JC Whitney-ish, as 
50
free HP from that alone is on the edge of a bad joke.


>
>At 02:20 PM 6/9/97 +0000, Tom Cloud wrote:
>>help ....  I've started a firestorm on the Bronco list
>>when I said I'd observed in a '77 Motors Manual that the
>>bhp ratings on all Ford/Mercury full-size vehicle engines
>>dropped 100+ hp from '71 to '72 and that the hp stayed
>>down until '77.  Was the way bhp calculated or measured
>>changed in '72 or was the EPA-mandated changes the reason
>>for the drop ????  If the way it was measured is what
>>changed, then why have all the bhp numbers now risen
>>back to the pre-'72 numbers and in fact many engines
>>have even higher bhp outputs.

Look for compression drop, smog equipment, etc. Also I can't recall, 
but I
thought that the way the HP was measured was changed at one point or
another. But i can't really remember for sure.

Sandy