long standing misconception RE:202 power output
#1 _LC2250_
Posted 09 November 2005 - 10:28 PM
Different pollution laws have caused different restrictions to the power possible from the different coloured 202's.
Can anyone here confidently state the power in kw (or hp) for the fly or rear wheel of each of these stock motors (red, blue black etc.) and if they are pollution gear motors or not?
I'm asking this as the time of the year is coming when I'll have enough flush money to put a different motor in the LC and I just want to know what is most compatible and of course most importantly which will deliver the most power (with or without work done).
Cheers
-Al
#2 _Yella SLuR_
Posted 10 November 2005 - 05:58 AM
Dyno Day Info
Black motor would have had more development than the red, so if I were doing it, I'd be going for the black motor.
Edited by Yella SLuR, 10 November 2005 - 06:01 AM.
#3 _workinprogress_
Posted 10 November 2005 - 07:44 AM
Im sure that there will be someone else on this site with some proper facts and figures to prove me wrong but there is what i would go off.
#4 _LC2250_
Posted 10 November 2005 - 12:19 PM
Going by these site that I found in my mad wanderings last night
http://www.uniquecar...n_red_motor.htm
http://users.mrbean....er/choosing.htm
it looks as though up until 1974 (HJ) the red motors were slowly creeping up to the 101kw(130'is hhp) mark (most definitely at the flywheel). Then the motors dropped back down considerably with the introduction of the pollution gear.
Could a motor with pollution gear legally have it removed and be tuned back to the like'ness of the pre-pollution gear motor. Thus leaving it as black being the most powerful as Yella and workinprogress have both said (thank yee).
Any more thoughts?
-Al
#5 _Yella SLuR_
Posted 10 November 2005 - 01:03 PM
#6 _workinprogress_
Posted 10 November 2005 - 03:01 PM
So if it is this easy to get away with having no emmisions gear then why bother?
#7 _Flamenco_
Posted 10 November 2005 - 03:31 PM
#8 _LC2250_
Posted 10 November 2005 - 03:57 PM
-Al
#9 _ToranaGuy_
Posted 10 November 2005 - 04:13 PM
Cheers
ToranaGuy
#10
Posted 10 November 2005 - 04:57 PM
Note: If you're going strait LPG (like i plan to), then I believe you don't have to worry about any pollution gear. I know that you don't need a carbon cannister or anything, but there may be some things you still need.
#11 _LC2250_
Posted 10 November 2005 - 05:13 PM
That in mind ... what other stuff would be needed in a car as far as looms or other things to swap in an efi motor?
Going by the charts on those links above the efi is definitely more powerful than the carby ones.
#12 _ToranaGuy_
Posted 13 November 2005 - 10:03 PM
The EFI in the VK setup is rather simple, and wouldn't take much to swap in. I thought about it, but i'm going turbo and the VK EFI inlet doesn't fit with the strata exhaust manifold. Without work that is.But who wants to bastardize their toranas that much with the addition of an efi motor.
That in mind ... what other stuff would be needed in a car as far as looms or other things to swap in an efi motor?
Going by the charts on those links above the efi is definitely more powerful than the carby ones.
My g/f's bro has a Vk carby wagon, and all the EFI gear lying around. We looked into how hard it would be to fit it to the Wagon. It's a rather easy update, plug in the new wiring into the bay, and it add's a few relays to the fuse box, really simple. It was originally going into the LH Torana of his, but now he's going to shove in a v8. So the EFI could go into the VK.
Wish i had some time, i'd love to swap it in, the carby in the VK is FSCKED and should be leaks more fuel than it drinks. My my g/f's bro doesn't really care, too lazy to fix his DD. I think he has too many cars.... lol
Cheers
ToranaGuy
#14 _ToranaGuy_
Posted 14 November 2005 - 11:08 AM
That's a great article about the conversion, i didn't realise that you could write so many words on the subject, as it's really not that hard.
I've gotta print that to show my g/f's brother.
Cheers
ToranaGuy
#15 _73LJWhiteSL_
Posted 14 November 2005 - 11:52 AM
202 XU-1 I think was more powerful.I thought the EFI black motor was the most powerfull of the stock 6's. Can't remember it's power output off the top of my head tho, but it was ahead of the pre pollution 202.
Cheers
ToranaGuy
My 173ci is supposed to have 118hp and the 202 130hp. On the dyno my mildy tweaked 173 (Extractors, 2 1/4", Electronic dizzy) made 48.4rwks. Which is 64.9rwhp. Allowing for drivetrain losses of 20% thats still only 77.88fwhp
Steve
#16
Posted 14 November 2005 - 04:35 PM
#17
Posted 15 November 2005 - 06:32 PM
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.
#18
Posted 15 November 2005 - 06:33 PM
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.
#19 _Yella SLuR_
Posted 15 November 2005 - 08:38 PM
Also, award for the second double post on the new forums.
#20 _ToranaGuy_
Posted 27 November 2005 - 03:19 PM
106KW din net for the VK efi, wow, that's a huge improvement over any other holden 6cyl from the factory, except the xu1, where it's a small gain. I gotta tell my g/f's bro about that, maybe it will motorvate ( lol ) him to fit the EFI to the wagon, about 24% more power bolt on.
Cheers
ToranaGuy
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users