New born P51 engine

Lem Evans wrote:17 better than VP113

It busted 1,000 w/o the Q.

I kinda thought it would have gone more then 17 with Q?

I think it was base lined on 113 it's oxygenated too.

IDT-572 wrote:I think it was base lined on 113 it's oxygenated too.

That's still a very good pick up.............

IDT-572 wrote:

IDT-572 wrote:I think it was base lined on 113 it's oxygenated too.

That's still a very good pick up.............

Q651

IDT-572 wrote:I think it was base lined on 113 it's oxygenated too.

Correct...that was going to be my 1st observation.

The 2nd is that there was no tuning on Q16, just one pull to get some heat back in the oil and the 'power' pull that I posted.
The A/F read out died toward the end of the 113 session...so...there is no way to know if Phillip's educated guess on the jet up for the Q was perfect or merely darn close. At any rate we'll never know if there were a few more there are not. In my opinion it really didn't matter any way.....it was a fruitful day and time to go home

How much more jet from the 113 to the Q.

I would say Phillip didn't miss the jetting enough to make another change................. lol

68formalGT wrote:How much more jet from the 113 to the Q.

I didn't ask.

Lem Evans wrote:

68formalGT wrote:How much more jet from the 113 to the Q.

I didn't ask.

Thanks Lem.

68formalGT wrote:

Lem Evans wrote:

68formalGT wrote:How much more jet from the 113 to the Q.

I didn't ask.

Thanks Lem.

I will ask if you wish.

Lem Evans wrote:

68formalGT wrote:

Lem Evans wrote:

68formalGT wrote:How much more jet from the 113 to the Q.

I didn't ask.

Thanks Lem.

I will ask if you wish.

I was curious as we have had quiet a few guys running 113 in the past and switched to Q16. While 17 horse is a really good increase I was wondering how much more Q was needed to get that difference?

68formalGT wrote:

Lem Evans wrote:

68formalGT wrote:

Lem Evans wrote:

68formalGT wrote:How much more jet from the 113 to the Q.

I didn't ask.

Thanks Lem.

I will ask if you wish.

I was curious as we have had quiet a few guys running 113 in the past and switched to Q16. While 17 horse is a really good increase I was wondering how much more Q was needed to get that difference?

Don't get too caught up in the peak HP # when you are considering the performance value of Q vs 113. What Q does to the tq and hp curve is massive.
The Q made more power at 6,400 rpm than the 113 did at 7,000 rpm.

Lem Evans wrote:Don't get too caught up in the peak HP # when you are considering the performance value of Q vs 113. What Q does to the tq and hp curve is massive.
The Q made more power at 6,400 rpm than the 113 did at 7,000 rpm.

Does that usually happen with all the builds you try Q with?

68formalGT wrote:

Lem Evans wrote:Don't get too caught up in the peak HP # when you are considering the performance value of Q vs 113. What Q does to the tq and hp curve is massive.
The Q made more power at 6,400 rpm than the 113 did at 7,000 rpm.

Does that usually happen with all the builds you try Q with?

Yes, it's usual.

With all the new fuels out is Q still the leader for N/A high compression, carbureted engines?

68formalGT wrote:With all the new fuels out is Q still the leader for N/A high compression, carbureted engines?

There is some other voodoo stuff out there that's said to make more power but, you get into price and availability issues plus the feed back I've gotten indicates that the Q is much more forgiving relative to the tune up window.

Q16 is where I'd personally want to be.

Lem Evans wrote:

68formalGT wrote:With all the new fuels out is Q still the leader for N/A high compression, carbureted engines?

There is some other voodoo stuff out there that's said to make more power but, you get into price and availability issues plus the feed back I've gotten indicates that the Q is much more forgiving relative to the tune up window.

Q16 is where I'd personally want to be.

Thanks Lem, that's good to know. We don't get a lot of discussion on fuels here.

Another observation about the Q16 pull:

The last 10 data points were 6,300 through 7,200 rpm......average HP in that range = 1,014.

Thats cool!

Lem Evans wrote:Another observation about the Q16 pull:

The last 10 data points were 6,300 through 7,200 rpm......average HP in that range = 1,014.

That's pretty awesome!!

Very nice Lem,congrats to all involved. Although it probably wouldn't have happened w/o Fabio's input.

bbf-falcon wrote:Very nice Lem,congrats to all involved. Although it probably wouldn't have happened w/o Fabio's input.

Be nice....Fabio can always be counted on for some immoral support

68formalGT wrote:

Lem Evans wrote:17 better than VP113

It busted 1,000 w/o the Q.

I kinda thought it would have gone more then 17 with Q?

Here is the missing part of that deal. If the package was designed to run a steady diet of Q16 rather than 113 fuel, it'd had a compression ratio of 15/1 or better rather than less than 14/1.
Maybe that's the extra power you were looking for?

Wow that is really stout, beat my build by almost 100 hp. I had stock P51 heads but more compression. But I did pick up a lot at the track (3/10ths) once the heads were ported by Charlie and titanium intake valves were added. This is the highest hp P51 deal that I have seen.