Hey all,
A guy named Mark Broadhead (I think) has a mini that ran the newcastle hill climb with. 165hp from a mini engine .... AWESOME i reckon!!!
Here are the pics
Lucas
| ausmini https://ausmini.com/forums/ |
|
| Challange for Brad !!! https://ausmini.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=12672 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Konzo [ Sun Oct 30, 2005 8:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Challange for Brad !!! |
Hey all, A guy named Mark Broadhead (I think) has a mini that ran the newcastle hill climb with. 165hp from a mini engine .... AWESOME i reckon!!! Here are the pics
Lucas |
|
| Author: | simon k [ Sun Oct 30, 2005 9:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Challange for Brad !!! |
mini_magic_au wrote: 165hp from a mini engine .... AWESOME i reckon!!!
fwoooarrr, that is awesome - love the look of the crossflow with webers on - though his 165 is probably at the crank, not the wheels... not to disparage the grunt that little monster must have! |
|
| Author: | Konzo [ Sun Oct 30, 2005 9:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
it hit a bump and got air bourne before landing and taking the hairpin .. good effort i reckon he did say it was dyno'd to 165hp |
|
| Author: | simon k [ Sun Oct 30, 2005 9:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
maybe it is at the wheels then..... sweeeet mostly unrelated rant... in the latest miniworld, they have a dyno test and they're all quoted as HP at the crank, which is really dumb to quote off a chassis dyno when the way they usually work it out is as a percentage loss through the transmission - you can't tell me that if you take a gearbox, put a 998 on it that gets a wheel hp of 30hp, a loss of 25%, making the engine 40hp, the transmission cost 10hp. Then put a stonking hot 1330 on the same gearbox, that gets 75hp at the wheels, a loss of 25%, making the engine 100hp, the transmission costing 25hp - no way! it's all the same hardware, the percentage loss doesn't change... wankers |
|
| Author: | drmini in aust [ Mon Oct 31, 2005 6:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
That dyno figure would be at crank, not wheels. Crossflows in race trim give around 165-170 at crank. Greig Malaure's winning Nb car (just about as fast with him driving, but 5 port) has 157HP at crank, on Russell Engineering's engine dyno. 
To get 165 at wheels you would be looking at a real strong motor with forced induction.
|
|
| Author: | gafmo [ Mon Oct 31, 2005 6:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Very Noice..any more pic's from the weekend 
|
|
| Author: | 13secmini [ Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
hehe very nice and awsome numbers put out by that motor, id say crank dyno but still unreal. You think that motor would make a good daily?  Just over 100hp per L not bad for 1950's tech.
|
|
| Author: | graham in aus [ Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yep! At the Crank on GR's Dyno, suprisingly flexible too, but prolly NOT Streetable!!
|
|
| Author: | inazuma_x [ Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
holy crap...165hp NA...thats...awesome...i'd supercharge it
|
|
| Author: | inazuma_x [ Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
skssgn wrote: maybe it is at the wheels then..... sweeeet
mostly unrelated rant... in the latest miniworld, they have a dyno test and they're all quoted as HP at the crank, which is really dumb to quote off a chassis dyno when the way they usually work it out is as a percentage loss through the transmission - you can't tell me that if you take a gearbox, put a 998 on it that gets a wheel hp of 30hp, a loss of 25%, making the engine 40hp, the transmission cost 10hp. Then put a stonking hot 1330 on the same gearbox, that gets 75hp at the wheels, a loss of 25%, making the engine 100hp, the transmission costing 25hp - no way! it's all the same hardware, the percentage loss doesn't change... wankers what are you disagreeing with? the fact that the hp loss increases? |
|
| Author: | Angusdog [ Mon Oct 31, 2005 7:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I agree thoroughly with the original point: Why measure HP @ the wheels, then extrapolate that back to the crank? You drive with your wheels, what happens at the crank is immaterial. Unless of course you want tossers claiming their mini puts out 100 horse... |
|
| Author: | inazuma_x [ Mon Oct 31, 2005 7:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Angusdog wrote: I agree thoroughly with the original point: Why measure HP @ the wheels, then extrapolate that back to the crank? You drive with your wheels, what happens at the crank is immaterial. Unless of course you want tossers claiming their mini puts out 100 horse...
most cars are rated at the fly...rather than at the wheels...all new cars are advertised with numbers at the fly...they are bigger...instead of horse power you can say kilowatts...sounds more impressive
IMO as long as you are honest about which it is...it makes no difference... PS. my goal is 100hp atw
|
|
| Author: | Mini Mad [ Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
A genuine 100HP at the wheels isn't easy to acheive..the best we got out of a big block on our dyno day was 80.1atw... ..your going to need 8-port or some form of forced induction.. 100HP sounds far more impressive than 74Kw... |
|
| Author: | inazuma_x [ Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Mini Mad wrote: A genuine 100HP at the wheels isn't easy to acheive..the best we got out of a big block on our dyno day was 80.1atw... ..your going to need 8-port or some form of forced induction..
100HP sounds far more impressive than 74Kw... forced induction was the plan 
yeah i know 100hp sounds better than 74kw...but 100kw sounds better than 100hp and since kw at the fly roughly equals hp at the wheels you can say kilowatts instead of horsepower if you are quoting numbers at the fly
|
|
| Author: | cush [ Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Angusdog wrote: Why measure HP @ the wheels, then extrapolate that back to the crank?
coz the number is bigger
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC + 10 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|