Dyno Graphs for stock 2.0L vs Camper Special

[Amskeptic]

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
If the HP lines intersect, so too should the torque lines.

Sorry, my skepticism is showing...

Good for you. I like a challenge to the conventional wisdoms that are being written and cast into stone as we speak ...

At 2,000 rpm, the stock engine is putting out 55 hp@ 95 ft/lbs to the CS engine's 40 hp@ 120 ft/lbs.

This makes no sense.

I will say, for the record, that VW was far more dedicated to useable torque at low rpms, this to help the bus-driving "housewife" (their term) launch without embarrassment. The cam profiles are also designed to allow an automatic transmission to load it down without stalling.

VW was NOT interested in life beyond the stock horsepower peak. Who would wind their family wagon out to 5,400 rpm?
Colin

[Amskeptic]

Be careful questioning the great-one's numbers.

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

Coffee... keyboard.

[gorge runner]

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

Be careful questioning the great-one's numbers.

Perception is more important than reality. Those graphs will make more sense after a couple pints of Kool-Aid.

[dingo]

" 5252RPM is not a significant point in a physical sense. It is merely the RPM at which a graph of torque in pound-feet and power in horsepower would cross when drawn on the same piece of paper.

Using metric units, the unit conversion constant is 9549, not 5252 like it was when pound-feet and horsepower were being used. This means that a graph of power and torque versus revs using metric units would have crossing curves at 9549RPM instead of 5252RPM. "



thats why the graphs make no sense

[SlowLane]

Phew. Took me awhile to figure out how to generate this, but here is a horsepower chart that matches the torque values claimed in the originally posted torque chart.
[album]270[/album]
Incredible, no?

[dingo]

the graph shown on his website is much more realistic with imminent intersection at 5000rpm
http://www.aircooledtechnology.com/ind ... &Itemid=76

the torque graph shown here on page 1 of this thread has completely wrong RPM units...should be more like 0 - 4000

[Bleyseng]

I will say, for the record, that VW was far more dedicated to useable torque at low rpms, this to help the bus-driving "housewife" (their term) launch without embarrassment. The cam profiles are also designed to allow an automatic transmission to load it down without stalling.

VW was NOT interested in life beyond the stock horsepower peak. Who would wind their family wagon out to 5,400 rpm?
Colin

That's why VW had the small valves in the bus, to help low rpm torque.