luckily, I have sourced a bunch of bits for my 202 red.
extractors, WW stomberg on manifold, Yella Terra head, mild cam and electronic ignition.
what kind of power would it be making stock.
and then with all these bits?
thanks.
ballpark power figure for 202
Started by
_tyre fryer_
, Apr 05 2007 03:53 PM
27 replies to this topic
#2
_ChevLX_77_
_ChevLX_77_
-
- Guests
Posted 05 April 2007 - 04:05 PM
With all your bits i would be saying between 100-110rwhp.
Not sure on stock someone like REDA9X would be able to help you with that.
Not sure on stock someone like REDA9X would be able to help you with that.
#3
LOWS2
-
- Members
-
- 1,485 posts
Forum Fixture
- Location:Sydney
- Joined: 29-January 06
Posted 05 April 2007 - 04:36 PM
Im getting a similar setup built within the next few weeks
- twin strombergs
- cam
- minor head work (standard 202 head)
- extractors + exhaust
once its installed i will be getting it dyno tuned and will post up some power figures.
- twin strombergs
- cam
- minor head work (standard 202 head)
- extractors + exhaust
once its installed i will be getting it dyno tuned and will post up some power figures.
#5
_fat-torrie_
_fat-torrie_
-
- Guests
Posted 05 April 2007 - 07:08 PM
you can get 300hp out of 202. read up in last months Street Machine. its very imforimative. 
#6
MRLXSS
-
- Members
-
- 12,400 posts
The Render Garage
- Name:Matt
- Location:Upwey, Melbourne
- Car:355 LX Hatchback, DeLorean DMC-12, LX SS Hatch, VY Cross8 Crewman
- Joined: 09-November 05
Posted 05 April 2007 - 07:33 PM
fat-torrie, That would prob be a blue 202. They have a lot of potential in them. I have read up a bit on how to hot them up. you can get 120kw out of them without really doing anything!
#7
_gstar_
_gstar_
-
- Guests
Posted 05 April 2007 - 07:39 PM
So what did they do to it?you can get 300hp out of 202. read up in last months Street Machine. its very imforimative.
#8
_tyre fryer_
_tyre fryer_
-
- Guests
Posted 05 April 2007 - 07:55 PM
I bought that issue.
hp with the old head on it.
but they did 'heaps of work' to get the head flowing well.
yes it was a blue motor block but apparently it is exactly the same as a red except less corrosion.
100hp? how many killowatts is that?
hp with the old head on it.
but they did 'heaps of work' to get the head flowing well.
yes it was a blue motor block but apparently it is exactly the same as a red except less corrosion.
100hp? how many killowatts is that?
#9
_timbotorrie_
_timbotorrie_
-
- Guests
Posted 05 April 2007 - 08:11 PM
100 hp is about 75 kilowatts
a standard 202 has about 75 hp at the wheels through a manual box
a standard 202 has about 75 hp at the wheels through a manual box
#10
_73LJWhiteSL_
_73LJWhiteSL_
-
- Guests
Posted 05 April 2007 - 08:42 PM
To give you an idea, my stock 173 (with exctrators, 2" and commodore electronic dizzy) pumped out a mind blowing 48.4kw on the dyno.
Its not a 202 but that gives you an idea.
Steve
Its not a 202 but that gives you an idea.
Steve
#11
_TORANA IN THE BLOOD_
_TORANA IN THE BLOOD_
-
- Guests
Posted 05 April 2007 - 09:20 PM
After about $1500 worth of head work and cam to go with my stroker bottom end with tripple stromies on my 186 stock car, i got 140rwhp i was stoked.
#12
_tyre fryer_
_tyre fryer_
-
- Guests
Posted 06 April 2007 - 12:02 PM
how can my motor with all that stuff be making just 75kw (100hp) when an xu1 with not much more makes 147kw, nearly double the power?
#13
_LX_SS_
_LX_SS_
-
- Guests
Posted 06 April 2007 - 12:45 PM
i've got a 202 red motor, full build, 264 cam, i've upgraded to efi and added a turbo, my goal is 150kw / 200hp tops, if i get that stoked, otherwise won't settle for less than 170hp (at rears).
thats running thru a nissan 5 speed and the crappy holden salisbury diff.
thats running thru a nissan 5 speed and the crappy holden salisbury diff.
#14
_73LJWhiteSL_
_73LJWhiteSL_
-
- Guests
Posted 06 April 2007 - 01:03 PM
Are you talking claimed figures or real figures?how can my motor with all that stuff be making just 75kw (100hp) when an xu1 with not much more makes 147kw, nearly double the power?
According to Holden my 173 should make 115hp at the flywheel, but on the dyno with my mildy tweaked 173 (extractors, 2" & electronic dizzy) managed 48.4rwks (65rwhp) which manages maybe 60kw (81hp) at the flywheel. looks like i am short 34hp and thats on a motor with non standard exhuast and ignition.
My point is Holdens figures were often inflated.
Also the race car will make more than that.
From memory at dyno day I went to a long time ago a LC XU-1 with similar to XU-1 spec 186 made 102rwkws (136rwhp) on the dyno and a LJ XU-1 with similar to XU-1 202 made around 112rwks (150rwhp).
Allowing 25% for drive train losses still only gives around 170hp, 187hp at the flywheel.
Anyone got any race car figures?
If you really want to know easist way is to stick the car on a dyno.
Steve
Edited by 73LJWhiteSL, 06 April 2007 - 01:04 PM.
#15
_Aquarius - LC_
_Aquarius - LC_
-
- Guests
Posted 06 April 2007 - 02:01 PM
^^I agree with you steve,factory power claims are often misleading.Dr terry put up an exellent post some time back,.........goes off to look for said post...............here ya go!!
__________________________________
Hi Guys.
Peter UC has got it nearly right.
The problem is, over the years GM-H (& just about everybody else) have used many different methods to advertise their engine outputs, & that's the important word, 'advertise', because of course, bigger is always better, isn't it ?
When the 202 was 1st seen in the HQ series it had an output of 135 bhp. This was SAE 'gross' horsepower. This motor remained unchanged for all HQ/HJ/LJ/LH & early LX (up to 6/76) but in late 1974 the figure had already dropped to 110 bhp, although there were no real changes. They even gave the metric equivalent of 87 kW, because we were going metric at the time. Yes, I know the charcoal canister was introduced & there were minor plumbing changes but the engine still had the same output. The reason for the drop was they were now using SAE 'net' horsepower. This was a newer, more realistic measurement that gave a truer indication of the engines output with its accessories attatched.
In July 1976 the dreaded ADR27A was introduced & the figure for the run-of-the-mill 202 was now 109 bhp (81 kW) for the manual & 118 bhp (88 kW) for the auto. The auto ran a better camshaft. These figures were still in the new SAE net measurement. Contrary to popular belief, & as you can see, the ADR27A engines did not have less power than the previous models, they just not drive as well, low in the rev range, especially when cold beause of the leaner carby set-up & the restricted vacuum advance in the lower gears, but when warm & in top gear, they were fine. In fact they had no less power, they had slightly more in the auto.
When the VB Commodore was released, it still used the same basic HX/HZ/LX/UC ADR27A red 202, but its figures were published in the new DIN net standard. The engine still had the same carby & pollution gear as the other cars of the time but the ouput was stated at 64 kw for the manual & 69 kW for the auto.
For the Blue motors in the VC/VH/WB cars, the normal 202 now had 83 kW DIN net, quite an improvement over the VB, which is probably the best sign of how much better a Blue head/manifold/Varajet/HEI ignition combination is over the old single carby red set-up. Remember this still has pollution gear.
In the VK series the carby (EST) motor had an increase of just 3 kW to 86 kW, probably due to slightly better head flow. The EFI motor however had 106 kW DIN net, which is a good increase over the carby versions.
OK, so how do you compare the old motors with the newer ones. You can't just use the fact that 1 hp = 0.746 kW because the old HP is a different sized horse. If we use the fact that 135 bhp SAE gross (HQ) = 110 bhp SAE net (HJ) = 69 kw DIN net (VB), that means that 135 bhp old school = 69 kw new school. That means 1 kw DIN net = 1.956 bhp SAE gross, which means that the VK EFI motor with 106 kw = 207.3 bhp, which is more than the advertised bhp of an LJ GTR XU1 @ 190.
A friend of mine built an LJ Torana with a stock EFI motor (with all its so-called pollution gear) & Tri-Matic straight out of a VK Calais in the late 80s & used the stock 3.08 Banjo diff. This thing did consistant 14.0 seconds at the drags so I can quite believe the 200 Kw figure, the best stock LJ XU1s did low 14 secs. The other bit is that the EFI's peak HP figure is @ 4400 RPM where the LJ XU1's peak is @ 5600 RPM, which makes the EFI so much more drivable with a wider torque band.
Of course all these are at the flywheel & not at the rear wheels but at least you can compare them. The power loss % due to driveline losses is another difficult subject, because it seems to differ so much from car to car. I'll go there when I've worked it out.
Dr Terry.
Dr Terry Posted: Nov 15 2005, 06:33 PM
__________________________________
Hi Guys.
Peter UC has got it nearly right.
The problem is, over the years GM-H (& just about everybody else) have used many different methods to advertise their engine outputs, & that's the important word, 'advertise', because of course, bigger is always better, isn't it ?
When the 202 was 1st seen in the HQ series it had an output of 135 bhp. This was SAE 'gross' horsepower. This motor remained unchanged for all HQ/HJ/LJ/LH & early LX (up to 6/76) but in late 1974 the figure had already dropped to 110 bhp, although there were no real changes. They even gave the metric equivalent of 87 kW, because we were going metric at the time. Yes, I know the charcoal canister was introduced & there were minor plumbing changes but the engine still had the same output. The reason for the drop was they were now using SAE 'net' horsepower. This was a newer, more realistic measurement that gave a truer indication of the engines output with its accessories attatched.
In July 1976 the dreaded ADR27A was introduced & the figure for the run-of-the-mill 202 was now 109 bhp (81 kW) for the manual & 118 bhp (88 kW) for the auto. The auto ran a better camshaft. These figures were still in the new SAE net measurement. Contrary to popular belief, & as you can see, the ADR27A engines did not have less power than the previous models, they just not drive as well, low in the rev range, especially when cold beause of the leaner carby set-up & the restricted vacuum advance in the lower gears, but when warm & in top gear, they were fine. In fact they had no less power, they had slightly more in the auto.
When the VB Commodore was released, it still used the same basic HX/HZ/LX/UC ADR27A red 202, but its figures were published in the new DIN net standard. The engine still had the same carby & pollution gear as the other cars of the time but the ouput was stated at 64 kw for the manual & 69 kW for the auto.
For the Blue motors in the VC/VH/WB cars, the normal 202 now had 83 kW DIN net, quite an improvement over the VB, which is probably the best sign of how much better a Blue head/manifold/Varajet/HEI ignition combination is over the old single carby red set-up. Remember this still has pollution gear.
In the VK series the carby (EST) motor had an increase of just 3 kW to 86 kW, probably due to slightly better head flow. The EFI motor however had 106 kW DIN net, which is a good increase over the carby versions.
OK, so how do you compare the old motors with the newer ones. You can't just use the fact that 1 hp = 0.746 kW because the old HP is a different sized horse. If we use the fact that 135 bhp SAE gross (HQ) = 110 bhp SAE net (HJ) = 69 kw DIN net (VB), that means that 135 bhp old school = 69 kw new school. That means 1 kw DIN net = 1.956 bhp SAE gross, which means that the VK EFI motor with 106 kw = 207.3 bhp, which is more than the advertised bhp of an LJ GTR XU1 @ 190.
A friend of mine built an LJ Torana with a stock EFI motor (with all its so-called pollution gear) & Tri-Matic straight out of a VK Calais in the late 80s & used the stock 3.08 Banjo diff. This thing did consistant 14.0 seconds at the drags so I can quite believe the 200 Kw figure, the best stock LJ XU1s did low 14 secs. The other bit is that the EFI's peak HP figure is @ 4400 RPM where the LJ XU1's peak is @ 5600 RPM, which makes the EFI so much more drivable with a wider torque band.
Of course all these are at the flywheel & not at the rear wheels but at least you can compare them. The power loss % due to driveline losses is another difficult subject, because it seems to differ so much from car to car. I'll go there when I've worked it out.
Dr Terry.
Dr Terry Posted: Nov 15 2005, 06:33 PM
#16
_tyre fryer_
_tyre fryer_
-
- Guests
Posted 06 April 2007 - 02:56 PM
thanks Dr. Terry you bloody genius.
so does that mean I should follow dad's advice after all and dump all that crap and just go the EFI head route with a better cam?
so does that mean I should follow dad's advice after all and dump all that crap and just go the EFI head route with a better cam?
#17
_LX_SS_
_LX_SS_
-
- Guests
Posted 06 April 2007 - 07:19 PM
are you going to use an efi system with aftermarket computer or a gm delco vn ?
if not i wouldn't bother using an efi head.
if not i wouldn't bother using an efi head.
#18
_tyre fryer_
_tyre fryer_
-
- Guests
Posted 06 April 2007 - 08:05 PM
i dont know I'm just sick of every conversation with my dad (whos been a mechanic for 26 years now) sounding like "dad, what's a good carb..." "for f*ck sakes stop playing with this cabie bullshit EFI is the way to go"
I swear if he had a choice he would have had EFI as a son instead of me.
I swear if he had a choice he would have had EFI as a son instead of me.
#19
TerrA LX
-
- Members
-
- 14,241 posts
Fulcrum Fixture
- Location:Sid 'n' knee
- Joined: 31-May 06
Posted 06 April 2007 - 09:40 PM
carbies rule, so does efi, all comes back to the maintained condition, combination and the tuner, for now i reccomend a reco on the stuff you have now and then start saving/planning for the future upgrade which will probably entail a complete drive train change.
Edited by ALX76, 06 April 2007 - 09:41 PM.
#20
_LX_SS_
_LX_SS_
-
- Guests
Posted 06 April 2007 - 10:11 PM
efi vastly outweights carbie as far as tunability, economy, power , you just simply cannot compare the two
#21
_tyre fryer_
_tyre fryer_
-
- Guests
Posted 07 April 2007 - 01:30 AM
okay.. understood.
what would I have to do to the engine/head before i bolt the head on??
what would I have to do to the engine/head before i bolt the head on??
#22
TerrA LX
-
- Members
-
- 14,241 posts
Fulcrum Fixture
- Location:Sid 'n' knee
- Joined: 31-May 06
Posted 07 April 2007 - 02:12 AM
^ install the head gasket correctly.
#23
_Keithy's_UC_
_Keithy's_UC_
-
- Guests
Posted 07 April 2007 - 09:10 AM
Mate, lots can be done to make the motor make more power, but most of it is in the cam and head.
My 179 is making 140rwHP, which at the flywheel would be around 186HP... To convert it to kW, 102 @ wheels and 140-ish at the flywheel.
I have done some headwork, mild-to-wild cam and balanced bottom end, roller rockers, and a decent exhaust.
To put it in speed perspective, i run 14.7 @ 100mph with a 4speed and 3.08:1 diff ratio in full street trim.
I would say your 202 would be making around the 110rwHP mark with the cam and twins... It's all in the head now! I spent $1200 on my head, and it was worth it.
Cheers
Keith
My 179 is making 140rwHP, which at the flywheel would be around 186HP... To convert it to kW, 102 @ wheels and 140-ish at the flywheel.
I have done some headwork, mild-to-wild cam and balanced bottom end, roller rockers, and a decent exhaust.
To put it in speed perspective, i run 14.7 @ 100mph with a 4speed and 3.08:1 diff ratio in full street trim.
I would say your 202 would be making around the 110rwHP mark with the cam and twins... It's all in the head now! I spent $1200 on my head, and it was worth it.
Cheers
Keith
#24
orangeLJ
-
- Members
-
- 10,261 posts
Yes, yes I do post alot!
- Joined: 02-May 06
Posted 20 April 2007 - 10:24 AM
in regards to the EFI question, if you have a quick read of the latest street machine, there is an article on "Barry Grant" the dude that started, and still runs DEMON carbies. He has some pretty interesting comments on carbies VS efi even though his company makes systems for both now. According to him (and i think he would be a worthy source) a carby can out perform an EFI setup, it just needs to be tuned and put together correctly. Also refers to the whole "EFI is bolt on power" and says that it is crap.
i personally have no idea, im a carby man, they are easier in my eyes, and i rekon with a well tuned carby you can get as good, if not better fuel economy then EFI, just depends on the motor more then anything.
My VK EFI calais i used to have
(i regret selling it) was a pig on fuel, yes it was heavier, but my torry, with a worked motor and triple carbies, could get almost double the km per ltr.
just food for thought.
i personally have no idea, im a carby man, they are easier in my eyes, and i rekon with a well tuned carby you can get as good, if not better fuel economy then EFI, just depends on the motor more then anything.
My VK EFI calais i used to have
(i regret selling it) was a pig on fuel, yes it was heavier, but my torry, with a worked motor and triple carbies, could get almost double the km per ltr.just food for thought.
#25
_tyre fryer_
_tyre fryer_
-
- Guests
Posted 20 April 2007 - 04:38 PM
I've got the latest issue of 'best holdens' never heard of it before but it's the guys that run 'v6 conversion' and his son has a UC hatch with a s/c 3.8 making 210kw.
that's alot of power for a car like that and apparently it can outrun HSV/FPV's.
just goes to show power to weight rules.
OrangeLj I agree with you. it's up to the motor. I reckon it's just that modern engines (that are more fuel efficient and powerful through and advance in technology) all have EFI so we relate the two.
that's alot of power for a car like that and apparently it can outrun HSV/FPV's.
just goes to show power to weight rules.
OrangeLj I agree with you. it's up to the motor. I reckon it's just that modern engines (that are more fuel efficient and powerful through and advance in technology) all have EFI so we relate the two.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
