what are the realistic peak HP on a top quality front running blueprinted stock 07-10 GXSR engine, with a good exhaust and electronics? etc?
Dyno #'s on a well built GSXR?
what are the realistic peak HP on a top quality front running blueprinted stock 07-10 GXSR engine, with a good exhaust and electronics? etc?
every dyno will vary,, the ey is the dyno operator and consistent variables.
But in the low 180s would be the highest.. at the wheel.. not at the crank that is.
How does a stock gsxr make 180 hp at the crank let alone the wheel? I believe you but how do you get those #'s stock unless there is some type of work other than electronics and exhaust. Without giving away any secrets, what are some of the typical standard work everyone does? so far I have a Dean flashed ECU, titanium Headers. I know people blueprinting but how much HP can you get from that? is it legal to do some REM finishing and coatings? and does that even do anything? can you mess with the timing? I know people in MC racing getting 180 hp but they decked the heads and adjusted timing, is that legal?
depends on the dyno but real numbers are in the low to mid 170HP on a wheel dyno. Best we ever saw out of the 05/06 was 163HP so add 10 onto that for a 07/08 K7 block.
GH
Edge Engineering Inc.
My understanding is that if you limit yourself to pump gas (193-194 octane) then that best numbers for RWHP are middle 170's. If you run fuel the numbers break into the low 180's. This is after maximizing what can be maximized (ignition timing, fuel injection, pressure, duration, length, airbox/intake design, etc.). Also there are some benefits to be gained from dry sumping...reduces parasitic losses.
Hasty Horn
correct as hasty horn said.
It never ends on the tuning aspect of getting all the variables to squeze that last hp out of an engine.
I don't know, sounds awefully high. I need to call George Dean as see what he can pull out of proper setup.
The stock bike's find themselves more limited by the need to pass EPA sound and emission requirements than by mechanical limitations.. The 2009 European R1 is 8-10 HP up on what the US version is allowed....largely due to electronic (ECU) and airbox differences.
Thus a good pipe, modified ECU (with piggyback Power Commander or equivalent), and modified airbox can make a lot of difference. These engines also seem to respond to a slight increase in fuel pressure. Using a dry sump system to stabilize oil pressure (and reduce temp) is good but the HP advantage comes from sucking air out of the crankcases which reduces the HP loss that occurs when that reduced volume air pocket (wet sump) has to be compressed (again and again).
Hasty Horn
I wanted to get the Bazzaz self mapping PC but I have a Dean flashed ECU and was told I'd need to switch back to a stock ECU, is this correct? Also you mention a modified Airbox, what is a modified airbox, how do you modify it correctly?Thus a good pipe, modified ECU (with piggyback Power Commander or equivalent), and modified airbox can make a lot of difference.
Last edited by RoadKillMafia; 08.28.10 at 12:58 PM.
I have no hidden knowledge as to which is the better setup electronically, only a good dyno and lots of testing would reveal that.
From my point of view (largely 2009 R1 based) the stock OEM airbox when compared to the Euro version had some serious intake restrictions that could be physically removed. More importantly, our chassis's usually provide an opportunity to seriously increase the volume of the airbox when compared to the bike's OEM system. At first glance the freedom to redesign the intake system would seem to be straightforward and the advantage of building your own ram air would suggest that increasing HP should be possible.
What we have seen is that most everyone has, at the very least, retained the lower portion of the airbox and struggled to adapt an upper airbox half to the bodywork. Some with good result and others not.
Our chassis's also provide greater room for pipe design as well but most don't have the time and money to spend to build many pipes of different designs in order to select the best. My point (and I do have one) is that theoretically the advantages offered by mounting these engines in a four wheeled chassis should be capable of exceeding what is/has been accomplished by the bike racer's constrained by the same restrictions that FB labors under.
As I understand the FB rules, there is nothing preventing you from using a "piggyback" device as long as the OEM ECU is still an integral part of the system. However, a complete replacement of the OEM ECU is prohibited. Honesty would force me to point out that making the OEM ECU part of the "system" could be as simple as using it as a ground so that it's removal stopped the engine from running.
Hasty Horn
Last edited by HastyHorn; 08.28.10 at 5:41 PM.
which means !!
under current FB rules you could electronically use entirely a pectel or motec engine management ecu to complete control every aspect of your motor and use your stock ecu as simply a power conduit to the motec or pectel management ecu.. HENCE piggy back.
Sal at philly is doing this for his honda motor as the stock ecu with all the bike sensors removed goes crazy.. and thats why west race cars aborted the honda program back in the days from what I heard.
current rules as read are if you unplug your stock ecu the car must stop running. which it would if its feeding a entire piggyback unit the power.
Hope this doesnt raise a stink.
But by doing this it doesnt mean you are going to squeze more power out of your engine.. I mean those japanease ecu designers developed there ecus and spent millions to squeze ever ounce of power out of there bikes to begin with..
If anything I see this helping the introduction of bringing in new engines to FB that have complicated electronics that will simply not run in a car as it would put the ECU into safe mode or Limp mode..
Can't unring that bell, Nicholas.Originally Posted by Nicholas Belling
I think that I read the rules on the ECU the same, basically as long as it is there and actually connected (and not doing anything) it's legal. I guess that rules can be interpreted slightly differently by everyone. At the end of the day if someone calls you out on your car/ motor you need to be able to defend it. Although I understand that no one has ever had their motors checked which isn't great because it opens the door to people making even slight changes that might not be legal since there are no worries of anyone ever checking.
I still can't see 180hp to the wheel on a stock GSXR but if there is a legal way I'll find it. although I know one MC racer that swears to me that he's had a no BS fresh SS engine on VP fuel do 183hp. I'm not really sure what the rules are for the SS class but it isn't exactly stock. I'm going to talk to a few more engine builders and see what they say.
Interesting interpretation of the ECU rules. Good luck with that. Personally I am not against all that. I polled the DSR guys and all of about 3 or so use a full on aftermarket ECU. Just like senor Belling said, the Japanese bikes have pretty advanced systems there. Plus the major tuner for DSR and FB just reflashes anyway. I think the advantages, if you could spend the time and the money to have the aftermarket ECU meet the flashed ECUs, is disabling the electronics of the newer engines and controlling other systems on the car. Things like shifters and such.
With respect to HP, I really think it depends on the Dyno. George quoted 171 at the wheels for me on my 06 on his dyno. THis was with a reflash of the ECU, race fuel, and the Stohr exhaust header. He was able to get several more with the 07/08 and I am assuming more progress with the 09. Don't know the number though.
Ken
Let's not forget that George (like everyone else) applies a set of standard adjustments to the number derived on that particular day and depending upon atmospheric conditions that number may go up (or one assumes ...down). This is standard practice in order to better compare between dynos. If one doesn't do this the guy with a dyno in Denver will never be able to achieve what the dyno does in Death Valley (at night, when it's cooler).
Hasty Horn
So are you saying that my ECU that was re-flashed by George Dean is not really doing anything since I'm in Florida and George is in WA? Someone else tole me the same thing and that was why I want to get a self mapping Bazzaz system so I can re-map it everytime I'm at the track. The differences in track locations and differences in the weather can be adjusted every time with a laptop at the track.
HP
John Paul, why doubt him? All George does is build the best engines out there, and shares all his information with everyone. Do you really think that you can map an engine better than a guy who lives to build race motors? And who has been doing it for more time than you have probably lived?
You need to concentrate on the more important things like driving and tuning your chassis; let the engine builder build you a great motor, put it in the car, and drive it.
I know you are relatively new at this; please don't fall into the trap of trying to have the most powerful engine out there when you have not gotten hundreds, nay thousands of racing miles under your belt. You would be better with a standard, stock ebay motor, and practice your driving skills until you can drive the wheels off your car. That typically takes at least a full season for somebody who has been racing at the top of, say, karting. For someone else who is not at that level, it typically takes two to three years.
And in terms of arguing horsepower numbers, be careful! There are a few "shops" out there that's tell you what you want to hear just to take your money. Personally, I like to kick butt with a good motor, then lie and tell everybody its an Ebay 1,100 wreck! Makes me look like a better driver!
Whan I run someone new in a class, I will not run them with a good motor; it is three races with a mule before they can use any of the added power of a good motor. And if they are not using the brakes and turning capability of the car completely, they are stuck with the mule a little longer. They learn to drive faster sooner. Why? Because they don't have a crutch of a powerful motor.
If you are looking to be competitive, get a motor built by someone who builds bike-powered cars. These engine do not work the same as a bike-built engine. Someone like George Dean will not inflate dyno sheets to make himself look better. If anything, I would suggest he underestimates his engine outputs. I know from experience that his engines hold together, and work as well as any engines out there.
Tom
Tom Owen
Owner - Browns Lane and Racelaminates.com
Brownslane is correct.
And george has been doing race motors for the car racing world since before our time..
I like to refer to him now as the " Motor Magician " he said it once to me. He lives breathes this stuff. and what he does, his builds, biopsies, freshens, dynos, testing, etc.. its an art.. simply " magic "
After spending 100's and 100's of hours with george and talking to countless people who were involved with george prior to myself getting to know goerge.
All I can say is he is a stand up guy.. Honest. Truthful. Does what he says and if he makes mistakes which we all can and are only human he makes right on them. And george doesnt feed people answers that they want to hear to make them feel good about there horsepower or this or that.. just the real damn facts.. isnt that what we all want.. good or bad.
Personally I couldnt say enough good things about george and his dedication, love and passion to this sport.
Thanks george for staying in and supporting the community as you do.
First off , I know that George Dean is EXCELLENT. Seceond, I don't know where you got the idea that I'm questioning George Dean or that I doubt this dyno #'s. First off I don't know what his engine produce nor did I ask. Ask a matter of fact I wrote that I needed to speak to him about this topic and see what he can do for me. Hastyhorn brought up that tuning an ECU is best done in the area you will be driving and I asked if that meant one done in a completely different atmospheric conditions would not be as effective.
And I don't appreciate you painting me in that picture. I know what I have to do.
Last edited by JohnPaul; 08.31.10 at 9:52 PM.
No.
Re-read Hasty's post.
Cheers,
Rennie
Sorry, I read it wrong and that is makes me feel much better.
Dyno Numbers
Hello, I get this question asked all of the time, How much horsepower does my engine make? I always give them the answer "ON MY DYNO", (because this is very important) it makes X amount of power. Because all dyno's will tell you somthing different and it's not because one dyno measures a higher number than another, For that matter if you are dealing with an inexperienced dyno operator the engine may have a different horsepower number on each pull.
Years ago the people at Dynojet research decided to build a dyno to test motorcycles on upon completion the motorcycle they chose to use was a Yamaha V Max because it was the biggest baddest bike on the planet, it showed 94 Hp, The Yamaha people were advertising 140 at the crank, So they skewed the numbers to read about 120Hp and thats how these numbers came to be the standard
Correction factors are the biggest reason that a dyno reads what it does, The correction factors are determined by temperature, humidity, barometer. and these factors are calculated in to the final horsepower number and there are a few common correction factors used, STP, SAE, ECE, DIN,ISO and JIS, Each one has its own parameters for the barometer, temperature, and humidity. For instance the STP correction factor is 59 degrees, 29.92 InHg in dry air. The SAE correction is 29.23 InHg in dry air at 77degrees, So you ask which one is right? the answer is they both are. On my dyno it also has what is called corrected wheel power, Thats the number that is being produced in my dyno room at that time,
Attachment 21038
The dyno graph I have attached is of a F1000 engine of one of my customers, and it shows the three different correction factors, Three different horsepower and torque numbers all on the same dyno pull. What one is correct? All three!! I started using the STP correction factor about 9 years ago and now I have over 20,500 dyno pulls so its hard to change, I decided to use the STP factors because the motorcycle people would complain that my dyno wasnt reading right because tha magazine said their bike made more power that what my dyno was telling them, After I started using the STP numbers it made them alot happier. They are just numbers guys!! Dont get all wrapped up in them, as long as you use the same dyno and have the same dyno operator every time things should be repeatable,
So to answer your question John Paul ( on my dyno about 180) or 152
Does that help answer some questions as well Roadkill?
My dyno also does blow air at the front of the engine the same speed the rear wheel is turning, So i usually am pushing from 60 to 150mph of wind in to the air box.
I hope some of this helps I really cant type all that quickly and it has taken about 2 hours to compose this,
George
Hey! I'm sorry for any misunderstanding that I might have caused. My intentions were honorable. I've had this same conversation with a lot of bike owner's who have watched their bike being dynoed and looked over the shoulder of the operator and been dismayed to see that their bike doesn't match up to some magazine's published numbers.
The formulas and mathematical methodology for establishing torque and rpm (and by calculation HP) are well known and accepted. IF everyone was experiencing the same atmospheric conditions at the same time the numbers should be damn near identical. But conditions are never the same. Thus the development of "correction factors" by various organizations in an attempt to standardize the results. It's too bad that we have so many organizations with their own agendas providing those correction factors. One has to select one of those standards and stick to it in order to provide comparable numbers
My assumption was that John Paul was suffering from seeing numbers off a local dyno which put his expectations in conflict. I either provided too much information or not enough.
Almost all of the latest Superbikes have pressure and temperature sensors built into their ECU's inputs and this includes pressure sensors within the airbox itself. These are designed so that the ECU can respond to differences by adjusting the fuel injection. It's my assumption that a re-flashed stock ECU from George takes that into account. So his ECU is adjusting itself for atmospheric conditions.
It has also been my experience that George builds a very good engine built for DSR (or FB) use. Which means that it is much more likely to survive than an engine built for your regular street rider. Our running conditions place a lot more stress on an engine than your average street rider (yes, even the crazy one's) can generate.
Sorry for the turmoil, George.
Hasty Horn
Mr. Dean, I just wanted be very clear: this thread was never a question of what your engines produce. I would never question your abilites (and if you read the thread I didn't). I have no idea how what I wrote got interpreted as doubting your work. You have proven that you can build some of the best engines in the industry.
The questions were:
1) what were the max HP people were getting out of stock GSXR.
2) was an ECU flashed in one area effective in another completely different area of the country (this was a question brought up by a well respected engine builders). And if I wanted to use the Bazzaz self mapping PC would it work with your ECU.
I'd also like to say that this is a hobby for me, no one is paying me, I'm doing it because I love it. And a major part of the fun for me (and I'm sure most of us) is the build. I want to know as much as I can learn about everything, so I'll ask the questions and if people are nice enough to help great. And whether I'm in the front or back of the pack, race or track day, I want a good car, engine, equipment etc.
George: I'll call you later today.
JohnPaul, to help give you the best answer to this question, tell us why you are asking and what you plan to do based on the answer.
Horsepower
All of todays fuel injected ECU's have an atmospheric air pressure sensor, and they tell the ECU what altitude you are driving at, and make compensations in the ECU Maps, If you want to run a Bazzaz unit with the self map feature it wont matter if the stock ECU has been re flashed or not, Set you target air fuel ratio and go have fun,
George
I ask for a bunch of reasons but mainly so I have a bench mark of what the stock engines capabilities are and learning some things I didn't know, what works what doesn't. Also because I'm curious.
As far as what I plan to do, I figure I'll listen to what people have to say and come up with a plan I think will work for me. I pretty much know what needs to be done: good exhaust, electronics, race fuel, good intake design, clean injectors, fresh motor new plugs, dry sump (depending on who you ask) etc.
After talking to a lot of very smart people, the aero package is where you make speed and time, so maybe I should be looking in that direction. I don't any idea where to start.
OK. I was thinking you might want to plug the numbers into a formula or something.
Although I've never been in the position to actually do it, I like Carroll Smith's advice to get engines from a respected builder (such as GDRE), install it, do the "care and feeding" as per the builder's instructions, then don't worry about it. How wonderful to just think about driving and chassis tuning and not think about that 1 or 2 HP that may or may not be available after a lot of trial and error. Just think of all the performance variables other than "the lump".
Besides, whatever you end up with could easily be exceeded by the manufacturers in the next year or two. That's the nature of the class (with current rules).
Just because he is doing it doesn't make it legal. I don't think he has entered an SCCA race yet, so he hasn't broken any rules yet.
I don't think anyone is worried about his car. If he starts winning races, you can expect to see the protests start coming. The rules allow you to modify inputs(?), not anything else. I suspect they would have zero chance of winning a protest.
JohnPaul- get a good motor and go racing. Don't waste your time with a Bazaaz or anything else for a while. Brandon has had nothing but low mile or zero mile junkyard motors in his car this whole time. It hasn't really slowed him down any.
Mechanical grip is going to be where you make time.After talking to a lot of very smart people, the aero package is where you make speed and time, so maybe I should be looking in that direction. I don't any idea where to start.
[/QUOTE]Besides, whatever you end up with could easily be exceeded by the manufacturers in the next year or two. That's the nature of the class (with current rules).
You are 100% right. I already read that kawasaki is coming out with a 2011 ZX10 that has 200 HP. I also read that Suzuki is close behind redeveloping the GSXR for late 2011 or early 2012. I knew that was going to happen, BMW set the bar very high.
I follow the bike racing scene and while the BMW-1000 is doing well the non-factory teams are having a lot of engine failure. It's just my opinion but I think that BMW allowed themselves to get closer to the edge than the Japanese manufacturers have allowed themselves. BMW HAD to make a breakaway move if they wanted to enter the SuperBIke arena and they did it with technology and materials AND a willingness to suffer some greater failure.
The Japanese may feel as if they have to follow the same plan. Since our engine demands are significantly more stressful a move to get more HP may not end up being to our advantage.
Only time will tell.
Hasty Horn
The CRB has stated numerous times that they will not let a HP war happen in FB. I think they will restrict the newer engines if they are making another 10 or 20 hp.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
even if it gets restricted to 200 hp it would be very fast and light. But what would be the reason to restrict? I would imagine safety? if so is that because the car was not designed to handle that speed (ie: handling or mechanically) or would it not able to handle impact at those speeds? Or would it be too fast for the field or track? (doubtful) Or restrict ? so it doesn't become a super expensive class? or maybe a combination. just wondering,
Jay may very well be correct.....but you never know what the CRB will do. FB is already an expensive class. Those that think otherwise do not understand the current rules.
As for safety, opinions will differ, and there is very little data upon which to base an intelligent decision (the recent HNR controversy is an example of this). Some people feel that the current FB's are already pushing the limits of how fast you really want to go in a 1000 pound tube frame car. Others I am sure would be happy to drive the cars with 250hp engines.
If you weigh the pros and cons of FB's potential of ever increasing HP, the cons far outweigh the pros. I can't imagine anyone thinking the class will not be worse off with the "planned obsolescence" of everyone's very expensive investments in their current engines. FB has a LOT going for it. It's an awesome class. If they can cap the HP at some level, it will be even better (more people able to be competitive - at lower costs).
Restriction of newer engines that produce more HP will be done to reduce costs. If current engines can make say 175 hp & a newer engine can make 200 hp we will then have an "engine of the year" competition. This would dramatically drive up costs. Remember this is amatuer racing NOT F1.
Saftey is also an issue. While none of us really know the "speed limits" of tubular frames I am pretty sure we are really close. FBs are nearly as fast as Atlantics & they all have composite tubs.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
The difference here is I don't see anyone going to the CRB to try and restrict engine HP. At least haven't as yet. Until someone does likely as not they won't react.
This class isn't FC where a few well-placed SCCA members secretly drive the rules to promote their own self-interest at the expense of new development (i.e. keeping their 20 and 30 year old cars nationally competitive way beyond what should be considered reasonable by playing the "dis-enfranchise" card).
This class is new, fresh, and strives on innovation. It's still in it's infancy and therefore has quite a ways to go before it fully defines itself.
In F1000 I see a lot of like minded individuals who want to see the class grow. Unlike FC which is and has been stagnate for years. That means including allowing other powerplants to be introduced. The way I see it the more manufacturers there are the better, the more powerplant options there are the better. This is far more exciting than watching a bunch of old similarily configured beaten-up formula war wagons tooling around the track.
As George mentions HP is often in the eye of the beholder. How can you restrict a variable that everybody sees differently?
One other thing to consider, the way things are now the life expectancy of an engine in F1000 is half a year at best. With that kind of situation going on we should be more concern with finding a engine with good HP numbers that is reliable rather than worry on what might be fashion tomorrow.
Last edited by Thomas Copeland; 09.01.10 at 1:57 PM.
Thomas,
Where are you coming up with your life expectacy data. I think things have improved tremendously since the "Loshak Pan Modification" This season has had very few engine failures compared to last year that I know of.
Things are getting better, but not yet completely stable. Which is my point on engines. We shouldn't be so ready to exclude any engine make until we can find more that can deliver HP and relibility.
Right now the only one I have any reasonable confidence in is the 2009/2010 Suzuki GSXR-1000. It had a couple of early hickups although for us it ran mostly flawlessly all year. It's appears pretty stable now with all the modification we worked out with George Dean. It has a specific operating procedure that it needs to run under, and as long as you follow it you shouldn't have any issues.
On the other hand we also ran 2007 GSXR engines this year and we had nothng but trouble.
Thomas,
What comparative data do you have from other engine manufacturers regarding reliability in a car?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote