Fwiw I was very happy with the quality of the Dan Olson pans he fabbed up for me.

I have the canton deep sump offshore pans. Mine doesnt have any kickouts. Icdeppl has the version with the kickouts. Both have the trap doors inside them. 6500 rpm on dyno , oil pressure stsys steady. Icdedppl did have an issue with a little oil psi decrease at higher rpm, but found that was a plumbing issue with the remote lines.

I bought two of them new at same time, they appeared identical,traap doors in both of them only move a small amount before the wires/springs limit there travel, i NEVER had drainback isdues with these heads or block ever, its not like they are holding 8 quarts. It IS that the pump is NOT seeing all the oil in pan, oh, and IF oil gets past 200 degrees problem starts to go away, ie, water thin oil flowing better .

News at 11 and its almost 11! Lets talk correction factors, everyone loves big numbers, cfs are SUPPOSED to correct observed hp to a standard so that if you dynoed a engine on 10 diff days with totally diff weather it should produce same corrected results, its done using algorithms accounting for humidity, air temp, elevation thats turned into air density then used to take obs hp and turn it into a correct number for that particular day, the moment ANY of that data is incorrect the numbers become almost meaningless unless you are making back to back changes at that moment. The more and more i run this dyno and study /analize the data the more i see slight flaws w the cf, were talking slight. There is also friction factor calculated into the depac based on bore and stroke, i dont know very much sbout it and even norm isnt 100%on it but its based on something depac calculated years ago. So heres what i see, if you make a pull and make 1000 hp OBSERVED and weather dictates a 102.2% cf, your corrected hp SHOULD be 1022 but if this happens at 6000 w depac it ends up being more like 1030, it seems to add about .8 of 1 % at 102.2, if rpms are 6500 it seems to add more like 1%. Now, lets say cf goes from 102.2 to 104.4, corrected hp SHOULD go to 1044, if friction factor adds .8 of a % at 6000 it should show 1052 but it doesnt, it starts to also get corrected more, friction wouldnt really go up unless its assumed pumping losses increase from more water in air, i dont buy it. Also, if this algorithm was figured out in the 90's how does the friction of MY 548 compare having coated pistons, shaft rockers and roller lifters? Norm did tell me recently he could try to figure out how to turn it off but being we are half way thru doing this im not changing everything and starting over.

So how does this cf affect this engine in particular that i dont like? I pulled this a million times w the modded 4150, what ive seen is when cf is at 2 to 3% we made 675 corrected hp/650 to 653 OBSERVED hp and 625- 627 ft lbs tq with mufflers pretty consistently
When cf goes to 5 to 6% the corrected hp goes to 680 to 683 and tq goes to 632 to 635 corrected, a little tiny bit generous. As mentioned, i just made a major investment in a different brand of dyno data aquisition ,just orrdered a desk top tower computer to run it all, going togo on soon. It has its own weather correcting program, weather station, modern algorithms, going to be ran side by the depac, will be REAL iteresting if it spits out higher, same or lower hp numbers. ANY real computer/wire rigging michigan boys feel like donating some time to come help set this up, lol, my son who is much better than me at it is on vacation then when he gets back monday i have a two week backlog of jobs he has to get going on in shop!

Smitty, with correction factors, i have a question.

If you had a dyno sheet, and lets say it shows observed, and corrected power numbers, as well as the correction factor used.

If the correction factor shows say, 1.08, does that automatically mean the corrected numbers should read 8% higher than the uncorrected or "observed" number ?

So, back to the only real part 90% of you guys care about, HP NUMBERS W EFI, drumroll please:
At 1.028 cf AFTER adding/subtracting fuel and timing i made 691 corrected hp thru the mufflers/663 observed, AT THIS CF our BEST carbed hp was 677corrected/652.8 observed, a SOLID 14 hp gain (at 6400).
Tq peak, after turning timing up to 36 degrees THEN raising it/lowering it, blending it, i was able to get upper tq back to good numbers.
Again, at 1.028 cf, 630/631 ft lbs at 5000/5100. Going down to 4400, if was able to bring corrected tq up from 530's to low 570s with more timing, at 36 i actually had .7 degrees kr on pull in that area, backed it down two .degrees for safety of engine. W carb previously after it was tuned out we have seen corrected tq in mid 580s at 4400, so still down 15 ft lbs, looking from 3000 to 4600 against a good carbed pull there are other areas were we are still down 20+ft lbs of tq even after tayloring the timing curve. This motor cannot afford to give up ANY tq if its going to be used the way it is (at this point it prob has a cam change, cu in change, compression change in its future).

You would think yes BUT with depac they read about 9% higher because of this k factor/friction factor

I could come do some wiring this weekend probably. Let me know what your work schedule is.

So this is a MANUAL dyno, you control sweep rate with your left hand, this TB is rated at 2200 cfm, is IT giving up some of our lower rpm tq because its too big, would pulling it at less than 100% throttle show a gain then? Did that, held brake at 4400 before doing any changes yesterday, dyno was showing 530 ft lbs,started easing up on throttle, only wentdown, i was thinki g MAYBE it would spike up 20 ft lbs,it did not. Norm says once throttle blade arent straight up and down any throttlung of the air to make it act smaller would be nagated by disrupted sir flow in his opinion. His best guess why our tq in lower rpm ranges is still low is maybe the injector spray acrossed port is disturbibg air flow or there just isnt enough velocity to break fuel being sprayed up enough to burn quite as well. Its bsck to raing so no.more testing till we have another dry as ir, 50 degree 2%cf day, it appears that will be saturday. Next things on agenda, make baseline pull, do some quick and dirty fuel pressure raising/lowering and pull motor from 2800 to 4600 to see IF there is any of that lost tq to be found, add 1"more spacer under tb (has nice 1" 4 hole entry piece norm built right now). Then swap rons 90degree elbow and 105 mm monoblade on, see what that does. After saturday , no more pulls untill data aquisition is completely done, might be two weeks as shop is real busy right now. Then on to 500 efi manifold testing!!

Saturday, wife is working at church from 2 till 7, its my first day off so i will definately be at shop dynoing, especially since i see good air coming lol! Call me, we can make pulls and swap parts then maybe sort out this new install, ill even buy lunch! Going to be bolting your parts on too, bring any air ducting you might have for that tb as we have to get air to it from away from headers, maybe a old cai kit you might have or something?

I'll see what I can dig up. I could at least grab some modeling clay and form a bell inlet around the TB opening. I also have some new 4" rigid exhaust hose that should slip right over the TB. I'll come up with something.

Saturday looks like a great day for me to come out then! Giggidy!

One last thing before getting to work, so after tweaking fuel, timing making 690 ish corrected hp thru mufflers, last pull, time for fxxxxxxg glory pull w open headers, let see 700!! Nope, made same peak hp/tq within 2 or so ay peaks BUT picked up that 20 ft lbs of tq from 3000 to 4600 its been missing, doesnt do alot of good though, its not going to be in a boat w dry, unmuffled open headers

Below is how Superflow does it (add's friction hp loss)
Issue is that they, like others, either assume 15% of engine hp is lost too friction, or they have a friction hp loss # based off of stroke.

Yeh - great right ? Said sarcastically

Superflow uses the following formula using FHp in CBHp

CBHp = (OHp + FHp) x CF – FHp
CBHp= corrected power
OHp=observed power
FHp=frictional power
CF=correction factor

Since you are running a MEFI3, I would love to see a stock Mercruiser MPI manifold on this too see the difference. Cool work.
,

LOL.

http://www.snoringmouthpieceguide.co...ce-266x300.jpg

Waste of time, I did previously have a modified mpi intake on this exact motor on this dyno, it made 630 hp with biggest bored out tb that exist, tons of port work on intake and slightly modified plenum, it made like 622 with 65 mm tb and 614 w stock. With 10 degrees less duration cam than this one on Crocketts dyno 10 years ago made about 647 w 20/w50 oil, made 655 or 657 with 5w40 synthetic but not same dyno. Same intake made 560+ hp on a .004 over 8.8 compression 502 with slightly modded 088 iron heads and 500 efi cam after extensive tuning, no accessorys, dry dyno headers at J607

so a 700 hp motor at 1.05 cf has a friction factor of 5.25 hp added to cf vs observed? sounds about right compared to depac
I think the depac friction factor is slightly more generous or motor doesnt have quite 15% friction as at 2.8% CF am gaining 28 hp from CF at 663 observed when it would be 18.56 actually.
What this means to all the normal guys reading this who are scratching there heads: the higher your CF is on dyno, the less accurate your numbers are PERIOD. At one point Roccard came on here showing a 454 or 502 making 710 + hp w edelbrock 9-1 290 cc heads on 91 octane for sale, problem is he showed bsfc and lbs hr fuel used, motor used like 290 lbs per hr fuel at hp peak at .5 bsfc, he did NOT show CF used. So doing some real easy math, 290 x 2 (being bsfc was .5) is 580, thats how much hp worth of fuel he used at .5 bsfc, the numbers dont lie, so motor made 580 observed hp and was corrected 22.4 %, you would have to be dynoing in a monsoon at 5000 feet elevation to have a 22.4% CF, totally lies and BS, he quickly got ran off this board. You will ALSO notice that some very good looking dyno sheets from well known builders have been posted on OSO thru the years and you will OFTEN see BSFC and lbs per hr whited or blackened out, why, whats to hide??

Smitty, I still have a few more to send, but did you get the emails and attachments I sent after our call a few weeks ago?

I did, i don't have enough ink and paper in my printer to print them all out yet I'm going to forward them to my wife and have her print them at work then when I get a spare few hours I will digest off your data sorry for not getting back with you sooner

No big deal.Just making sure. I haven't sent the final ones yet due to a scanner issue. Save time if you want and just look at these final ones and just refer to the earlier ones if you feel the need.

Sounds like we need a thread devoted just to dynos and correction factors. So if you know the weather conditions you should be able to tell what the correction factor should have been? With the understanding that there are a couple acceptable standards they could be corrected to.

Yes I actually started a thread a long time ago on Dyno correction factors and we had quite a discussion I also have went on Weather Underground for a location when somebody published a bogus dyno sheet, looked up all of the weather data looked up the altitude calculated the station pressure calculated the observe air density went on Wallace racing and we calculated what the dyno correction factor should have been. When I called out the very well known engine builder at that time and asked why he had a 16% correction factor instead of the 5% it should have been his answer was they were using very hot attic air to feed the motor

I'm glad I'm not the only dickhead here. :) :lolhit:

my correction factors always seem to be .96-.99.:party-smiley-004:

Ive dynoed with .97 cf before, made best power at about .380 bsfc too, anybody have a idea what it was? (SB, YOUR NOT ALLOWED TO ANSWER)

So lets say the HP was 753 corrected on sheet, and 685hp observed. The correction factor listed 1.0736 on sheet.

685 x 1.0736 = 735hp
685 x 1.0836 = 742hp
685 x 1.0936 = 749hp
685 x 1.1035 = 755hp

Seems like while the correction factor was 1.0736, it actually added about 9% to the observed number with Depac. Air Temp listed at 84.6 F, 29.211 baro, SG .751,

:throw: Lets go :boat:

Would be cool, but Braap is still in the air. 8"-12" tonight. Bay ice has thinned down, but still plenty thick for a car at 16".

rc motor

Close. Chevy Volt. :) :bunnydance::helmet:

Would it be safe to assume, that if we are talking big blocks per say, that BSFC numbers, can go up with things like, longer stroke cranks, thick piston rings, windage control, aside from the obvious, like combustion efficiency, ignition timing, etc?

I would think that a 700HP 4 inch stroke, running modern ring package good windage,, would have lower BSFC numbers, than a 700HP 4.5" stroke deal running an old school ring package, windage, etc. Seems like some of the guys building NA engines, with low tension rings, vacuum pumps, short stroke, good heads, cam, compression, are getting some really low brake specifics.

Yes, the friction factor thing seems to ad 1% and change, the higher the CF, the worse it seems too. Again, thats why the last 3 or 4 dyno sessions doing serious tuning on this project in search for most accurate hp gains i been taking advantage of the cool, dry air conditions and trying to only dyno when air density is around 98% which puts CF near low 2% range. Now, i have all new dyno data aquisition and software from performance trends i will be installing soon side by side the depac. How the friction factor and CF compares is going to be very interesting!

My brake specifics on this low compression 548 running carbed once you turn it past 5800 are nothing to write home about, once you get to 6000, 6200 they are in the .6 range. They did, however, clean up slightly into the .58s with the efi.
As far as the negative correction factor dyno session and sub
.4 bsfcs i was talking about, it was on a 2 stroke snowmobile on a dyno where the dyno cell was cooled to sub 32 degrees, 2 strokes make best hp on edge of burndown

That's how I tuned mine. Kept removing jet till I saw aluminum, add new piston then go up 1 jet. :)

Smitty, what's norms website? I have a few 4150's, I'm a carb kinda guy.

good cylinder combustion chambers and a close to ideal homogeneous air fuel mixture and run it on the verge of meltdown.

Asking because i see engine builders on speedtalk and yellow bullet getting bsfc's of low 4s or even lower on NA bbc builds. I was always under the impression bsfc's were more an indicator of how efficient the engine build is, rather than the fuel mixture.

When I dynoed my 454 I was around .52 bsfc and that was where it liked it. The next day we dyno'd Jim's 565 and played around with the fuel injection all day and it was about .43 where it ended up at. If that means anything.

Is there a summary of results? What is the outcome?
Carbs suck, EFI rules, some new carb guy who charges lipship prices is king. Is that the jist?

Its not thst simple, there isnt one winner or just one "answer", its a informational thread. The REAL winner, the real winner is Franks buddy whos boat drops to 4 cylinders hot thats getting fixed because of THIS thread and hes never even read it or been involved!:ernaehrung004: