Yes 80 at the wheels is very good: remember that the three-quarter-hypoid transmission of the Fulvia is quite greedy; William probably has about 110 at the flywheel.
Paul
camshafts
-
Geoff
Re: camshafts
Paul -
Can you tell more about power losses through transmissions? The rule of thumb here is about 15-20%, but perhaps the Lancia indirect drives or hypoids take more? Any data on this - or any estimations? Its a lot easier to do chassis dyno tests than putting engines on the dyno.
Geoff
Can you tell more about power losses through transmissions? The rule of thumb here is about 15-20%, but perhaps the Lancia indirect drives or hypoids take more? Any data on this - or any estimations? Its a lot easier to do chassis dyno tests than putting engines on the dyno.
Geoff
-
Huib
Re: camshafts
A good dyno operator should be able to seperate the two by doing the right tests. That is what the guy who operates the dyno I went to last time told me. He did explain it, but it didn't stick. Sorry.
-
P. de R. Leclercq
Re: camshafts
Power consumed by transmission.
We used to discuss this a lot. First, the Fulvia has a hypoid final drive unlike the spiral bevel generally used these days (?).
Second the five speed consumes more power thanthe four speed (source: "Competition Zagato book).
For estimating power at the flywheel, operators measure the drag whilst slowing down; they say that this tells them how much has been lost in transmission, driveshafts, tyres etc. We always believed that, at least with a hypoid, this is not so, since the hypoid under drive load engages in a sliding motion; driven backwards, we felt was not quite the same thing.
Finally one must bear in mind that transmission losses are torque losses. I.e., the faster the engine is turning, the greater the loss.
It is said that the factory lied about the horsepower produced; in fact if you do the sums based on the factory curves, you will see that all is not correct in terms of the realtionship between horsepower and torque.
Has anyone here had a Fulvia engine on an engine dyno?
Peter Gerrish told me years ago that he had tested lots of 1600s on the rollers. He said that a good standard car would make 82HP at the wheels, at about 6200rpm. At the time I had a standard 1600 and I got 82HP! If the factory was NOT lying then this suggests a loss of 33HP... I find it extraordinary that the factory gave the same output figures for the Fanalone and the S2 1600. A glance at the finish of the cylinder heads on the two models will tell you that this simply cannot be true!
Paul
We used to discuss this a lot. First, the Fulvia has a hypoid final drive unlike the spiral bevel generally used these days (?).
Second the five speed consumes more power thanthe four speed (source: "Competition Zagato book).
For estimating power at the flywheel, operators measure the drag whilst slowing down; they say that this tells them how much has been lost in transmission, driveshafts, tyres etc. We always believed that, at least with a hypoid, this is not so, since the hypoid under drive load engages in a sliding motion; driven backwards, we felt was not quite the same thing.
Finally one must bear in mind that transmission losses are torque losses. I.e., the faster the engine is turning, the greater the loss.
It is said that the factory lied about the horsepower produced; in fact if you do the sums based on the factory curves, you will see that all is not correct in terms of the realtionship between horsepower and torque.
Has anyone here had a Fulvia engine on an engine dyno?
Peter Gerrish told me years ago that he had tested lots of 1600s on the rollers. He said that a good standard car would make 82HP at the wheels, at about 6200rpm. At the time I had a standard 1600 and I got 82HP! If the factory was NOT lying then this suggests a loss of 33HP... I find it extraordinary that the factory gave the same output figures for the Fanalone and the S2 1600. A glance at the finish of the cylinder heads on the two models will tell you that this simply cannot be true!
Paul
-
Geoff
Re: camshafts
P. de R. Leclercq wrote:
> Has anyone here had a Fulvia engine on an engine dyno?
>
> Peter Gerrish told me years ago that he had tested lots of
> 1600s on the rollers. He said that a good standard car would
> make 82HP at the wheels, at about 6200rpm. At the time I had
> a standard 1600 and I got 82HP! If the factory was NOT lying
> then this suggests a loss of 33HP... I find it extraordinary
> that the factory gave the same output figures for the
> Fanalone and the S2 1600. A glance at the finish of the
> cylinder heads on the two models will tell you that this
> simply cannot be true!
>
I seem to remember that one of these is DIN hp, and the other is SAE. The difference is that DIN horses are more powerful than SAE, by quite a bit - even as much as 10%. One of these (DIN) has the ancillaries on the motor, the other does not. The SAE is closer to today's numbers. So the later 1600 is 114 hp (SAE) and the Fanalone (I think) was about 130 hp SAE, or 114 DIN.
Geoff
Geoff
> Has anyone here had a Fulvia engine on an engine dyno?
>
> Peter Gerrish told me years ago that he had tested lots of
> 1600s on the rollers. He said that a good standard car would
> make 82HP at the wheels, at about 6200rpm. At the time I had
> a standard 1600 and I got 82HP! If the factory was NOT lying
> then this suggests a loss of 33HP... I find it extraordinary
> that the factory gave the same output figures for the
> Fanalone and the S2 1600. A glance at the finish of the
> cylinder heads on the two models will tell you that this
> simply cannot be true!
>
I seem to remember that one of these is DIN hp, and the other is SAE. The difference is that DIN horses are more powerful than SAE, by quite a bit - even as much as 10%. One of these (DIN) has the ancillaries on the motor, the other does not. The SAE is closer to today's numbers. So the later 1600 is 114 hp (SAE) and the Fanalone (I think) was about 130 hp SAE, or 114 DIN.
Geoff
Geoff
-
P. de R. Leclercq
Re: camshafts
Geoff,
I think that all the Fulvias were quoted in DIN horsepower.
Well at least they weren't Jaguar or Aston Martin horses!
Paul
I think that all the Fulvias were quoted in DIN horsepower.
Well at least they weren't Jaguar or Aston Martin horses!
Paul
-
william vd Sman
Re: camshafts
I'm wondering what the adjustment is in degrees of the cams in modern motors with adjustable cams. I asume only the inlet is altered, probably retarding the inlet for high revs increasing overlap.
-
Geoff
Re: camshafts
P. de R. Leclercq wrote:
> I think that all the Fulvias were quoted in DIN horsepower.
>
I wish.
I wwent back to Puttini, with his reproductions of homologation papers. Also, Altorio has different information, so that's included. In short, there is CUNA, SAE and DIN. Here we go, with Puttini lists first Puttini's CUNA or DIN horsepower, and then the SAE, with Altorio's data last and in parenthesis:
818.130 80 CV 87 CV SAE (80 CV CUNA)
818.302 95 CV SAE (87 CV CUNA)
818.340 101 CV 111 CV SAE (101 DIN)
818.303 103 CV SAE, with the s. 2 at 90 CV DIN (Altorio agrees)
818.540 130 CV SAE (115 CV DIN)
818.540 Var. 1016 (132 CV, probably DIN)
818.740 114 CV DIN (Altorio agrees)
Basically, you pick which scale you want to use and tiptoe through the data. It seems that DIN and CUNA are similar (probably with ancillaries) and SAE is higher by about 10%. So if you accept DIN or CUNA, you have the 1300 standard engine at 90 CV and the 1.6 HF at 115, and var. 1016 at 132 CV.
I suspect (but can't show) that there is a confusion going on with the 1.6 HF engines. I had a 1.6 years ago (Fanalone) and I don't recall if it was a 1016 or not, but it sure was fast. Much faster than a stock s.2 1.6 engine. And a lot cammier.
Geoff
> I think that all the Fulvias were quoted in DIN horsepower.
>
I wish.
I wwent back to Puttini, with his reproductions of homologation papers. Also, Altorio has different information, so that's included. In short, there is CUNA, SAE and DIN. Here we go, with Puttini lists first Puttini's CUNA or DIN horsepower, and then the SAE, with Altorio's data last and in parenthesis:
818.130 80 CV 87 CV SAE (80 CV CUNA)
818.302 95 CV SAE (87 CV CUNA)
818.340 101 CV 111 CV SAE (101 DIN)
818.303 103 CV SAE, with the s. 2 at 90 CV DIN (Altorio agrees)
818.540 130 CV SAE (115 CV DIN)
818.540 Var. 1016 (132 CV, probably DIN)
818.740 114 CV DIN (Altorio agrees)
Basically, you pick which scale you want to use and tiptoe through the data. It seems that DIN and CUNA are similar (probably with ancillaries) and SAE is higher by about 10%. So if you accept DIN or CUNA, you have the 1300 standard engine at 90 CV and the 1.6 HF at 115, and var. 1016 at 132 CV.
I suspect (but can't show) that there is a confusion going on with the 1.6 HF engines. I had a 1.6 years ago (Fanalone) and I don't recall if it was a 1016 or not, but it sure was fast. Much faster than a stock s.2 1.6 engine. And a lot cammier.
Geoff
-
P. de R. Leclercq
Re: camshafts
OK.
Well in a sense I was correct, because the DIN figures you mention are the ones I have always used in connexion with Fulvias.
I still do not believe the 114HP for the S2 1600 though!
Paul
Well in a sense I was correct, because the DIN figures you mention are the ones I have always used in connexion with Fulvias.
I still do not believe the 114HP for the S2 1600 though!
Paul