Re: Euro spec horsepower

[Scott Fisher <sfisher71@domain.elided>]

--- Mark Battley <m.battley@domain.elided> wrote:
> Scott Fisher commented..
> 
> >"accuracy" (there, that's a nice neutral way of
> >putting it) of that 150 bhp figure for the European
> >versions.  (If these are rare, Italian miniature
> >horses, for example, or if this is gross versus
> >net, for example...)
> 
> No rarer than some American horses of the same era.
> :-))

Yes, the phrase "horsepower measured at the brochure"
is well known in dealing with Detroit muscle-cars of
the late Sixties.  

> The 150 is a SAE figure, sometimes termed "gross".

So here's another question for the history buffs out
there.  I looked over the "Gold Portfolio" which has
been on my desk since somebody asked about weights a
couple weeks ago, and I can find only oblique
reference to the U.S. horsepower ratings of 2000
Spiders before 1977.

A little work with a calculator proves interesting. 
The Australian magazine Sports Car World (well, at
least they're in your hemisphere, Mark :-) published a
November 1974 review, titled "Alfa Equals Finesse." 
This article cites the maximum power of the Spider
2000 as 112 KW/150 bhp.  A few pages later, a "Car
South Africa" report lists the same 112 KW/150 bhp
relationship, BUT goes on to list a net KW rating of
95.  Ah-HA!  So... if 112 gross gives you 95 net, then
150 gross gives you (click, click, click) 127 and
change net.

So here's the question for the European Alfa scholars
out there:

We poor benighted Yanks have always griped and
grumbled that the Europeans got better stuff than we
colonials did, and have used the Euro 150 bhp versus
US 125 bhp (a figure for which I can find NO
documentation in the Gold Portfolio, interestingly
enough) for pre-catalyst Alfas as evidence of this.

Contemporary documentation, when analyzed carefully,
would seem (weasel word alert!) to indicate that the
difference between the two ratings might have been
primarily due to a difference in rating systems, NOT
due to any substantive difference in the cars built
for US regulations.

Why do I care?  Well, like many people, I've
considered upgrading to Euro cams (which objectively
have more lift, overlap, and duration than the US
cams, at least according to one catalog) and Webers as
an upgrade from the US "junk."  BUT -- if the U.S.
cars, with the lower lift/shorter duration cams,
really only produce 2 bhp less than their European
cousins once you measure them on the same yardstick,
why bother with carbs?  

Or -- and here's a logical question for the group --
could it be that the Spica actually produces the same
power with a weaker cam that the Webers do with a
stronger cam -- could the whole point of putting Spica
on the U.S. cars was to give them the same performance
as the European cars, AND meet smog laws?  (This, of
course, would be consistent with EVERY OTHER
IMPLEMENTATION OF FUEL INJECTION SINCE THE INVENTION
OF THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE, that injection
produces more power than carburetion, but of course
Alfas are Different.)

Well, as usual, this raises more questions than it
answers, and I suspect I've missed a lot of crucial
observations in my puzzling over ancient volumes of
forgotten lore.  Anybody got a couple thousand dollars
for parts and dyno time so we can go run some
definitive tests?  

--Scott Fisher
  Tualatin, Oregon
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

--
to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided