I've just had the car in to a 'specialist to have a few bits looked over.

 

He put it on a dynomometer.. It's only delivering an estimated 280 BHP!! :crying: (It's faster than that!!)

 

Anyway, the reason for my post is this. He reckons the front crank seal is weeping oil.

 

Go on tell me, how bad a job is it?

 

I'll be drowning my sorrows if you need me!!

Exhausts,prop,gearbox,clutch and flywheel off for the crankshaft oilseal.

 

Is yours auto or manual?, and is it standard?, as I believe 280bhp is about right for a standard auto tt I think.plus if the engine has never been rebuilt thats pretty good I would have thought :)

Thanks for the reply Dill...

 

It's an auto but he says it's the seal at the front of the crank that's leaking. What are the ramifications on that?

 

I'm a bit disappointed with the BHP result as it's got a decatted straight through exhaust, freeflow conical aircleaner and a MINES chip. Had expected a bit more than the 280 he estimated. I was expecting somewhere around 350. Other than the oil leak, the engine's got a clean bill of health too as he's done compression checks and everything and he reckonned it was as sweet as a nut.

Front crank seal does not need all that lot taken off lol, its at the front of the engine, but you will need the water pipes off, front cam cover and cambelt off as you need to remove the crank pulley. I guess price wise you are looking at a cambelt change price.

Sorry mate, just re-read it and saw the 'front' bit!, I read between the lines and wrongly thought rear seal.

 

Thats the trouble with dynos, I had my 3.0 omega engined calibra on one last year and it made 199.6 bhp and 216lb/ft of torque which I was happy with as the bhp was around standard but the torque was higher so not bad for a 150k ex-police engine!.How come it was 280bhp 'estimated'?, is his dyno not that accurate?, and was that at the flywheel or the rear wheels?.My reading of 199.6 was re-calculated and gave somewhere around 156bhp at the front wheels,taking in to account the losses through the transmission.My mate has got a bored and stroked ford torino thats around 7 litres and 500bhp and his losses around 90bhp through the autobox and diff!.

 

If it drives nice and goes well I wouldnt get hung up on bhp figures, unless you want an accurate figure to gauge the effectiveness of future mods by.

The dyno' showed 240 RWBHP which he did a bit of 'man maths' on and came up with 280 FWBHP.

 

He reckoned because it was an auto the computer couldn't adequately compensate fro the transmission losses.

 

But you're right though, the car does go well, and I doubt I'll be doing anything drastic with it performance wise so I'll let it be.

 

Thanks Groover, that's kind'a what I expected.

You could check the compression, if that's down a bit then it may explain it?

You could check the compression, if that's down a bit then it may explain it?

 

Had a compression test done while it was in and the guy said that considering the engine is 23 odd years old, the compression is surprisingly good which is why I was surprised by the lack of gee-gees.

Had a compression test done while it was in and the guy said that considering the engine is 23 odd years old, the compression is surprisingly good which is why I was surprised by the lack of gee-gees.

 

Did he tell you what the figures were mate?

He did, but I can't remember what the figures were off the top of my head. I'll post them up when I get the report.

sounds about right tbh were did you have it dynod? what dyno was it? do you have a graph?

isnt the auto engine 280 at the flywheel anyways ... so when this is hucked up to auto box u will loose there plus the main drive train too

 

so if your getting 280 now with auto box then i would say your bang on ...

 

its about 25% loss from engine to wheels little more with auto about 28%

Edited February 13, 201213 yr by MarkDerby

I just thought it'd develop a bit more having been slightly tweaked was all.

Screw it!

 

Whatever it pumps out it's a veritable handful compared to the slightly less powered, (220BHP allegedly!), Pajero I've been driving for the past eight weeks!

 

Gonna have to be nice with the throttle for a bit I think.

 

What's the betting it snows tomorrow as I left the Paj' with the garage to sort a couple of things?

Edited February 14, 201213 yr by Big Rod

Did he tell you what the figures were mate?

 

It was a leakdown test he did and the figures are....

 

1,2,4 & 6 have 1% leakdown

5 has a 5% leakdown and 3 has 7%.

 

He reckonned they were excellent results.

It was a leakdown test he did and the figures are....

 

1,2,4 & 6 have 1% leakdown

5 has a 5% leakdown and 3 has 7%.

 

He reckonned they were excellent results.

 

Sorry mate, that's a bit too technical for me lol. I thought that compression test results were given as a psi figure. iirc a new engine should give 176psi on each, although 140 - 160 is more realistic and considered decent for a 20 year old one. I thought a leakdown test was done to see if the compression rate increased, if so then it's a valve issue causing the loss?

 

I'm sure one of the experts will be able to confirm/deny this.

Sorry mate, that's a bit too technical for me lol. I thought that compression test results were given as a psi figure. iirc a new engine should give 176psi on each, although 140 - 160 is more realistic and considered decent for a 20 year old one. I thought a leakdown test was done to see if the compression rate increased, if so then it's a valve issue causing the loss?

 

I'm sure one of the experts will be able to confirm/deny this.

 

Basically, rather than the compression guage we all know and love, this doohicky screws into the plugway and pumps air into the combustion chamber when the piston's at the top of the compression stroke, (all valves shut). Then a gauge measures the loss of pressure, 'leakdown'.

 

It wasn't for performance diagnosis, I wanted him to check for blown CHGs.