midgerooski, (well, it's late, I'm tired, etc, etc . . . )
Finally got around to getting the SuperFlow WinDyn Data Viewer Software up and running on the desktop. "Simple" installation and troubleshooting
only took a day, and based on current customer comments about SuperFlow technical support I guess I should not complain.
But I now am able to present a "slide show" of dyno development, re: 999cc BMC in permutations from under 60 bhp at the start to the eventual 95.1 Shetland ponies. With notes and insights, hopefully. If the monsoon season abates here below the cheddar curtain, I'll get it up prior to:
Dynothon Part Deux!!Graham,
Final numbers on the 1310cc: 142.4 bhp @ 8100 rpm and 100.0 #/ft TQ @ 6500 rpm. This was with a distributor ignition with about 4 degrees of "spark scatter/spark retard". And the dyno pull was done at a 300 rpm/sec acceleration rate, only Buddha and the dyno operator know why. Their previous best was 140.4 bhp @ 8400 and 99.3 TQ @ 6600 rpm, so plus ~ 1.4%. A crank trigger would likely gain 1% or so and a 100 rpm/second test rate would add ~1/1.5%. Their previous best pull was done at 200 rpm/sec, so I am at a loss as to why that condition was not repeated. I suspect that properly set up and tested, the engine would be in the 145 bhp area, perhaps a bit more with lower bsfc as it was run fat, (
much fatter than the previous best), again no reason given.
That would be 110.9 bhp/litre and they are at 108.7 bhp/litre.

BUT, and perhaps more importantly, their little jewel is no longer defacating valve train bits with every dyno pull. Something about F=
ma or somesuch other Newtonian crap . . . . . . . .
(And it is crap, I know, I asked Karl Rove.) Gee, I'll bet they could make 175 bhp if they could reduce all that
valve train drag . . . . . . .I suspect that for that kind of bhp, midgerooski would sell his mom & sister, or even a (gasp!!) Les Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sorry Chris, my EB2DC is long gone . . . . .

Fordboy