Yea but thats at about 800-900hp that the tires will actually spin on the rollers. at 300-500hp this is a nonissue. No way that car in the article was spinning the tires on the rollers giving false readings!
New super chevy with fuel hilborn fuel injection
- Thread starter BRYAN FUGATE
- Start date
I just spoke to the car owner/builder. He didn't really offer much other than he was a little disappointed with the numbers. He has since changed to a Tremac 5 sp and Ford 9 in rear. He said he would like to go back to the dyno and check again but probably wouldn't because it " really does not matter". I offered my opinion that the article did a disservice to him but he didn't have much to say. I have since noticed something in the article that pisses me off. For those who have the article, notice Fig,22. Dyno chart for hp that shows FI hp reaching 256 hp at 5,000 rpm, then starts to fall. The carb hp reaches 236 at 4,900 BUT notice the chart line for the carb engine ,,, it is on the way up but the the run was aborted at that point and hp reading at 5,000 is N/A. None of this crap makes any sense. The numbers should have sent red flags waving and bells going off to the owner , dyno shop and Hilborn Co. Chassis dynos are used to measure and tune much more powerful cars than this one. I can't imagine Hilborn not following up on this. Who would pay $8,000 to buy their product with this type of improvement? Drivability is one thing but one expects some significant performance gain also. It will be interesting to see if this is the end of the subject or will Super Chevy do a follow up.
Nice detective work and follow up Ronnie. I agree 100% that nobody will buy a product without cold, hard evidence that it does infact deliver. "Improved Drivability" is an opinion anyways! To some, good drivability is the fact their 1500hp turbo Mustang doesn't overheat in traffic. To others, drivability means being able to drive the car on long trips, with air, cruise, good ride etc. To say the car showed signs of "improved drivability" is tough to gauge. Perhaps the injection system really didn't perform well on the dyno and they had to "skew" the results so to speak? The horsepower numbers were way down regardless of what the intention was of the article for both carb and injected testing. Sometimes, parts cost a lot but don't perform all that well on a given engine too. Such is life. But there are far too many issues with this particular test. Seems fishy to me! 
My 474 W is either mild or wild. I have the carbs hooked up progressive. On one four barrel I can putt around town pretty tame, if I nudge the other four it's game over, hang on!
Another fact that was somehow left out was the carbs were out-of-the-box jetted. No attempt of re-jet on the dyno. The EFI , of course, was programmed with a lap top to get best performance.
At a friends shop, his chassis dyno would have trouble keeping tires hooked at anything above 300hp or so. They use to chain the car to the ground and tighten it down, would help some but slippage was a real problem. Type of tire used made a big difference. Don't ever use slicks or soft compound tires as they blow apart. The best tires seemed to be narrow, hard rubber street tires. Must be some real modern up to date chassis dyno that can hook 900hp
Check out latemodelthrottle.com. A friend of mine owns this shop. They have an AWD Dynoject dyno. Works great. It often has 1000+hp cars on it without any issues hooking up! SO I don't buy it that a 300whp W motor showed false readings at UNDER 300whp! That just crazy
Probably because the one I'm refering to is very old, the newer stuff is probably much better.
I read that article and was very disappointed in what they showed. We use the Hillborn set ups and they usually give around a 50 hp gain on a 480 c.i. Engine . Very bad ink for the W motor.