Dyno Graphs for stock 2.0L vs Camper Special

[Bleyseng]

Raby posted these in his newsletter and Colin was asking if there were any for these engines. The difference is torque is where you really feel in a CS vs stock.

[airkooledchris]

I know they always push it as 'in the combo' and all, but I wonder how much of that would be gained with just a change to the 9550 cam and how much of that depends on Len's heads.

Now that a "camper special" is a turnkey only option, with a year wait and $12k bill, it would be nice to know that you could go with a simple cam change during your next build and get that same torque - without having to spend new car money for just an engine.

[bretski]

Now that a "camper special" is a turnkey only option, with a year wait and $12k bill.

:jawdrop: Seriously? Granted, I haven't wandered over to Jake's site in quite some time (years), but daaaaaaaaaaayum...

[Amskeptic]

Raby posted these in his newsletter and Colin was asking if there were any for these engines. The difference is torque is where you really feel in a CS vs stock.

I am delighted to find that the stock engine has a very nice flat torque curve. 95 ft/lbs at 5,000 rpm is only 5% off the peak at 3,000 rpm, hardly dropping off the face of the earth.

(thanks for posting this)

[SlowLane]

Raby posted these in his newsletter and Colin was asking if there were any for these engines. The difference is torque is where you really feel in a CS vs stock.

I am delighted to find that the stock engine has a very nice flat torque curve. 95 ft/lbs at 5,000 rpm is only 5% off the peak at 3,000 rpm, hardly dropping off the face of the earth.

And it barely drops to 90 ft/lb at 7000 RPM... uhh wait, has anyone been able to drive a stock 2.0L to 7000 RPM without the valves floating and beating holes into the pistons?

What's more, since horsepower is simply a product of torque and RPM, how in the world does the stock 2.0L develop more power up to 2800 RPM than the camper special? Something doesn't jive between thos two graphs. If the HP lines intersect, so too should the torque lines.

Sorry, my skepticism is showing...

[Bleyseng]

I know they always push it as 'in the combo' and all, but I wonder how much of that would be gained with just a change to the 9550 cam and how much of that depends on Len's heads.

Now that a "camper special" is a turnkey only option, with a year wait and $12k bill, it would be nice to know that you could go with a simple cam change during your next build and get that same torque - without having to spend new car money for just an engine.

I have installed only the 9550 cam on one engine and it does make a difference but not as big a difference if you go to bigger valves (42x36) and the cam change.
It would be nice for someone to post a actual dyno sheet of a stock engine. Hmm, Colin sometime soon w/ Bob D?

[poptop tom]

I really have nothing at all to add regarding dyno graphs and torque.

But I did build an engine using Raby parts. And did it for a hell of alot cheaper
than $12,000. That would be the route to go if spending the big money, and then waiting a year
plus isn't what suits you. I don't have the exact amount spent, but can get those figures.

I used Jake's 9550 cam, Mahle P & C's (from Jake), and purchased his valvetrain upgrade kit.
I also changed to 72-74 HE and exhaust. Exhaust purchased from Raby.

My stock VW heads were sent to Adrian, at Headflow Masters, along with all of Jake's parts
(42x36 valves, etc). Adrian inspected and did the rework.

Other than an oil leak I've yet to identify the origin of, I'm really happy with the power and performance
with this engine!!

[yondermtn]

Those graphs aren't showing for me.

[yondermtn]

oops, now I see them.

carry on

[sped372]

What's more, since horsepower is simply a product of torque and RPM, how in the world does the stock 2.0L develop more power up to 2800 RPM than the camper special? Something doesn't jive between thos two graphs. If the HP lines intersect, so too should the torque lines.

That was the first thing that jumped out at me too. Doesn't add up.

[dingo]

i thought Torque and HP should intersect at 5252 rpm

[sped372]

i thought Torque and HP should intersect at 5252 rpm

Not quite...

HP = Torque (in ft-lbf) * RPM / 5252

The 5252 is just a scalar to account for the ft-lbf. If you wanted to relate horsepower to torque in some other unit (like say, in-lbf) you would use a different number in place of the 5252 but the overall formula stays the same.

Bottom line, because HP is directly proportional to both torque and RPM, if 'Engine A' produces more torque over it's entire RPM range than 'Engine B', then 'Engine B' CANNOT make more HP at a given RPM than 'Engine A' - it just can't happen. Something's goofed.

[dtrumbo]

That was the first thing that jumped out at me too. Doesn't add up.

Be careful questioning the great-one's numbers.

[sped372]

I'm not jumping to conclusions or pointing fingers, merely stating what my trained eyes perceive. It's like seeing 2 + 2 = 5.

[SlowLane]

Be careful questioning the great-one's numbers.

You mean 99? No question about it. They're his forever and ever...

Sorry, slightly off topic. C'mon now, Raby's good, but he's not God (or even Gretzky).