Originally posted by DogHouse
Well I hate to be argumentative, ok not really, but here are the hp/ci numbers we made, also posted in another thread:
With n/a EFI, 91 oct, we made 1.22 @5000, 1.32 @5500, 1.34 at 6000, 1.36 @6500, corrected of course because that's the only way to provide meaningful comparisons of engines tested on different days under different conditions. Yes, in the boat on a normal blazing hot day they will be lower. My boat regularly sees over 6k rpm. This motor also idles between 800-900 rpm and carries over 700 ft-lbs torque from 3100-6000 rpm. No exotic parts here, just a solid roller, coatings, 10.8:1, 36 deg timing, coolant temp while on the dyno in the 150-160 range, no detonation, EFI with knock sensor just in case. Tested on Larry Peto's "fudge factory" dyno. Anyone who doubts the validity of Larry's work or his dyno, just go to Havasu for a poker run and see who everyone is chasing at 165 mph. Ok, this last poker run not withstanding (blown freeze plug, oops, everyone has a bad day now and then). I think that the 1.2 number is a good target for a mellow low maintenance motor (i.e. hydraulic roller valve trane) that can also be tolerant of lessor grade fuels, but it is not the cutting edge of pump gas any more.
Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I HAVE NEVER SAID ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT Larry Peto OR HIS DYNO. Any other engine builder either.
And I believe your engine falls out of the criteria that I related to. Some people focus on the 1.2 thing quoted and fail to see anything else stated.
One more time for the record. N/A ,CARB, STOCK MERCRUISER RANGE RPM's
Maybe not the best forum to use this example in. Jets typically turn more RPM's. I generally keep this info in the gear heads forum. And it is directed primarily for sterndrive engines.
Also no EFI computer adjusting the fuel and ignition curves to allow more compression. Compression and RPM's will make a lot more power.