This subject has probably been done to death, so I apologise for raising it again, but I find myself being tempted into the 'eager parent' trap, ready and willing to spend obscene money in the hope of a few extra watts of power to give my son the best opportunity....bla bla bla.
So, I seem to have established that dyno readings have all sorts of pitfalls/limited use/different atmospheric conditions etc etc, but I get the impression that RPM's readings seem to be about 1.8Hp lower than UFO's, and the simple fact is that I have nothing else to go on. It just isn't practical to pursuade a bunch of people to all assemble at the same place at the same time, and let me swap engines around while my son runs round the track several times with each one to see which is best - you get the picture.
Anyway, time for a question! If my current engine peaked at 5.4 on RPM's dyno when it was new 6 months ago, would I be wasting my money spending over £2,000 on an engine that shows 7.3 on UFO's dyno, given that mine might get an extra 0.1Hp by now anyway? Would it be fair to say that in terms of peak power, there is probably very little between these two engines? Even if that's true, does the 'shape' of the power/torque curve make enough of a difference to justify the extra money?
Sorry to go on!
|
|