AUTO MATH

HANDBOOK
Easy Calculations for Engine Builders, Auto Engineers,
Racers, Students, and Performance Enthusiasts
Revised Edition

John Lawlor & Bill Hancock

HPBooks
HPBooks
Published by the Penguin Group
Penguin Group (USA) Inc.
375 Hudson Street, New York, New York 10014, USA
Penguin Group (Canada), 90 Eglinton Avenue East, Suite 700, Toronto, Ontario M4P 2Y3, Canada
(a division of Pearson Penguin Canada Inc.)
Penguin Books Ltd., 80 Strand, London WC2R 0RL, England
Penguin Group Ireland, 25 St. Stephen's Green, Dublin 2, Ireland (a division of Penguin Books Ltd.)
Penguin Group (Australia), 250 Camberwell Road, Camberwell, Victoria 3124, Australia
(a division of Pearson Australia Group Pty. Ltd.)
Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd., 11 Community Centre, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi—110 017, India
Penguin Group (NZ), 67 Apollo Drive, Rosedale, Auckland 0632, New Zealand
(a division of Pearson New Zealand Ltd.)
Penguin Books (South Africa) (Pty.) Ltd., 24 Sturdee Avenue, Rosebank, Johannesburg 2196, South Africa

Penguin Books Ltd., Registered Offices: 80 Strand, London WC2R 0RL, England

While the author has made every effort to provide accurate telephone numbers and Internet addresses at the time of
publication, neither the publisher nor the author assumes any responsibility for errors, or for changes that occur
after publication. Further, the publisher docs not have any control over and docs not assume any responsibility for
author or third-party websites or their content.

AUTO MATH HANDBOOK

Original edition copyright ©1991 by John Lawlor

Revised edition copyright ©2011 by Michael Lutfy
Cover design by Bird Studios

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic
form without permission. Please do not participate in or encourage piracy of copyrighted materials in violation of
the author's rights. Purchase only authorized editions. HPBooks is a trademark of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.

Original edition: April 1991

Revised edition: September 2011

ISBN: 978-1-55788-554-8

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

10

NOTICE: The information in this book is true and complete to the best of our knowledge. All recommendations
on parts and procedures arc made without any guarantees on the part of the author or the publisher. Tampering
with, altering, modifying, or removing any cmissions-control device is a violation of federal law. Author and
publisher disclaim all liability incurred in connection with the use of this information. We recognize that some
words, engine names, model names, and designations mentioned in this book are the property of the trademark
holder and arc used for identification purposes only. This is not an official publication.
 CONTENTS

Acknowledgments Iv
introduction V

Chapter 1: Displacement, Stroke and Bore 1

Chapter 2: Compression Ratio 8
Chapter 3: Piston Speed 16
Chapter 4: Brake Horsepower and Torque 20
Chapter 5: Indicated Horsepower and Torque 27
Chapter 6: Air Capacity and Volumetric Efficiency 31
Chapter 7: Weight Distribution 35
Chapter 8: Center of Gravity 41
Chapter 9: g Force and Weight Transfer 45
Chapter 10: Moment of Inertia 50
Chapter 11: Aerodynamics 54
Chapter 12: Rolling Resistance 59
Chapter 13: Shift Points 61
Chapter 14: Quarter-Mile E.T. and MPH 65
Chapter 15: Computer Programs 69
Chapter 16: Instrument Error and Calibration 73
Chapter 17: MPH, RPM, Gears and Tires 77
Chapter 18: Tire Sizes and Their Effects 80
Chapter 19: Average MPH and MPG 84
Chapter 20: Fuel Economy and Cost of Ownership 88
Chapter 21: Crankshaft Balancing 94

APPENDICES 101
Conversion Factors 102
Bibliography 115
Index 118
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
When I sat down to process the words that became the
Auro Math Handbook, 1 had the support and guidance of
several valued friends and fellow editors, writers and
photographers.
Past editors Duane Elliot of Off-Road, Jim McGowan of
Guide to Muscle Cars and Muscle Car-Classics, Spence
Murray of Mini-Truck, Mike Parris of Off-Road, Ralph
Poole of Trailer Boats, Lcroi “Tex” Smith of Hot Rod
Mechanix and the late Tom Senter of Popular Hot Rodding
encouraged me to write about automotive mathematics
and accepted articles I did on the subject from 1971
through 1990. Those articles were really the start of this
book.
John Baker and the late Dick Cepek spurred my interest
further by asking me to produce brief mathematical pieces
for the catalogs issued by their respective firms, John
Baker Performance Products of Webster, Wisconsin, and
Dick Cepek Inc. ofCarson, California.
Former Petersen Publishing Co. librarian Jane Barrett
and former editors and writers Dean Batchelor, John
Dinkcl, Al Hall, Jon Jay and Jim Ixjscc all suggested
useful material for the book.
iv
Friends Richard Shedenhelm and James J. Scanlan,
M.D., read portions of the manuscript and offered
excellent criticisms.
Gail Harrington, former managing editor of
MotorHome Magazine, was an unfailing source of personal
encouragement and enthusiasm during the many months
I had to spend my evenings and weekends working on the
book.
Michael Lutfy of HPBooks had the unenviable task of
editing the work of a fellow editor, and a highly
opinionated one at that!
Finally, there's Tom Madigan, a former editor of Off-
Road and author of several books himself. He has given
me his personal support, not only for this book but at
several crucial points in my career. In gratitude, it is to
Tom and his wife, Darlene, that Auto Math Handbook is
dedicated.
Thank you one and all. Without your help, the job of
writing the book would have been much more difficult,
and it would not have turned out as well as it did.
—John I.awlor
 INTRODUCTION
If you 're seriously interested in automobiles and how
the)7 perform, sooner or later you'll have to deal with
mathematics. Virtually all aspects of motorsports, from
bore and stroke, through power and torque, to rime and
speed, involve mathematical calculations.
I recognized this as a young auto enthusiast in the
1950s, and was pleased when I discovered a booklet called
Mechanics of Vehicles by Jaroslav J. Taborek. It was a
collection of 14 articles about the mathematics of motor
vehicle behavior, originally published by Machine Design
magazine in 1957. Taborek was a professional engineer
and he wrote for his colleagues, not for enthusiasts. Much
of his work involved more complex mathematics and for
many of us was simply too complex.
Then in 1961, an article called "Madi and Formulas for
Hot Rodders" by Don Francisco appeared in Hot Rod
Magazine Number One. It was only five pages
long, but it provided some genuinely usefid mathematics
for the aspiring hot rodder, and none of it required more
than a grade school background in math. To the best of
my knowledge, it was rhe first such compilation especially
for car enthusiasts.
In the years leading up to the publication of the first
edition of Auto Math Handbook, there had been
numerous magazine articles and book chapters dealing
with various aspects of auto math, but they all had been at
one or the other of the extremes represented by Taborek's
and Francisco's pioneering and long out-of-print efforts.
They’ve been either ponderous professional tomes or
frankly sketchy popular works. There had been no book­
length collection of practical, elementary math for auto
enthusiasts of average education. That's a gap I sought to
fill with this work by concentrating on math of genuine
interest to the enthusiast, and avoiding anything too
specialized. That dictated a particular emphasis on the
engine and drivetrain, which arc the core of true hot
Although there's plenty of arithmetic, algebra and even
a little geometry, there's no calculus, so you can relax.
However, I did include the formulas for horsepower and
torque, despite the fact that their measurement requires
equipment not likely to be found in the average hot
rodder's garage. The interrelationships of horsepower and
torque arc among the most important principles of
automotive engineering, and can't be ignored in a book
devoted to automotive mathematics.
As a result, the work serves as a useful primer of auto
engineering and performance fundamentals, as well as a
handbook of auto math. Hopefully it will have particular
appeal to younger enthusiasts who are just developing an
interest in the technology’ of auto performance.
Many of the formulas presented could be worked on a
simple four-function arithmetic calculator. However,
some of them will be much easier on an inexpensive
scientific calculator, with pi and parentheses keys, and a
few require a calculator which can find eidier square or
cube roots.
The problem examples in the text were worked our to
eight digits, because that is the capacity of most
inexpensive calculators. However, the solutions were
generally’ rounded off to no more than three decimal
places and sometimes to none at all, depending on the
degree of precision that seemed appropriate in each case.
In the text, single-digit whole numbers or integers arc
followed by a decimal point and a zero, c.g., five is 5-0;
numbers less than one—or 1.0—have a zero preceding
the decimal point, e.g., five-tenths is 0.5.
To enhance rhe value of the book as a reference and
make it simpler to look up a specific formula, each
chapter concludes with a table summarizing the formulas
it has covered. Further, most of the formulas arc written
in plain English or easily’ recognized abbreviations such as
rpm and mph, rather than in algebraic symbols, to make
them as clear as possible to the non-mathematician.
A working engineer who happens to sec this volume
may criticize the limited attention given to the metric
system of measurement—or ro identify it more properly,
the Systcmc International des Unites, or S.I. for short.
The professional may work with such S.I. units as the
merer for length, kilogram for weight and watt for power.
However, the kind of enthusiast I had in mind when I
wrote this book continues to measure in traditional feet,
pounds and horsepower, not in their metric or S.I.
equivalents.
—John Lawlor (1991)
v
INTRODUCTION
I was given the difficult task of trying to improve upon
a bestselling classic by bringing it up to modern standards
while holding true to rhe original intent of a basic
beginner’s math handbook for auto enthusiasts. While die
format has not changed, I chose to include formulas and
equations from additional areas of interest. In this
version, I have included discussions and formulas for
vehicle aerodynamics and inertia.
Some may want more advanced formulas but the intent
was to keep the formulas simple and expose the beginner
to the math necessary to build a basic foundation for
vehicle performance. By using simple formulas, the reader
will have a much better way to evaluate vehicle
performance and understand or predict the results from
potential modifications.
When this book was originally written, dynamometer
testing was just beginning to become available to the
amateur enthusiast to rent and use. Today there are both
engine and chassis dynamometers readily available
throughout rhe country. Aerodynamic testing has now
become available to the serious amateur and hill-scale
wind tunnels are available for rent in selected areas of the
country. For an enthusiast who wants to maximize the
potential of their vehicle, these tools represent a huge step
forward in their development plan.
vi
Perhaps the biggest recent step forward has occurred in
the area of computers. Personal computers and the
specialized software that is readily available for
automotive applications have greatly expanded within the
last five years. Heretofore, mathematical calculations
involving complex formulas and iterative calculations
have been outside the range of all but the most
accomplished engineers and mathematicians. Now a
serious enthusiast can access cutting-edge solutions very
easily. The problem now becomes one of ensuring that
the equation fits the particular solution rather than trying
to manipulate a lengthy formula or struggle with the
advanced mathematics involved.
As technology advances, so do the tools that arc
available. In many cases, today’s serious auto enthusiast
has access to more computing power on their cell phone
or PDA than did the engineers who put a man on the
moon forty years ago. By applying die correct formulas
and letting the computer do the mind-numbing repetitive
calculations, we can solve complex problems in the blink
of an eye, or at least in the time it takes to drink a cup of
coffee.
Have fun learning and using auto math.
—Bill Hancock (2011)

A clear understanding of the relationship between displacement, stroke
and bore is essential for high performance engine building. Photo by Bill
Hancock.
The displacement or cubic capacity of an automobile engine
is the sum of the individual swept cylinder volumes. Think of
the swept cylinder as a volume about the size of a coffee can,
with the diameter being the size of your bore and the height of
the can being the stroke of your engine. However, this swept
volume is not the total volume of the cylinder. The total
volume of a cylinder includes not only the swept volume but
also the compressed volume above the piston when the piston is
at top dead center. The compressed volume is comprised of
the combustion chamber volume plus the volume between the
top of the piston, the top or deck surface of the block, and
plus the volume of the head gasket.
Piston Displacement
To find an engine’s overall swept volume, or piston
displacement, or simply displacement as it's also called, you
must know the engine's bore and stroke as well as the number
of cylinders. The stroke is the distance the piston travels in the
cylinder from top co bottom and the bore is the diameter of
the cylinder.
If you have the factor}' figures for the bore and stroke, you
would probably have the displacement too. So why do you
need a formula for finding it? One reason is that die
displacement given in the factory-supplied spec sheets is
usually rounded up or down to a whole number or integer by
die factory. An integer is a whole number which can be either
positive or negative but docs not have any additional fractions
such as 1 1/2 or additional decimal components such as
1.562. When it comes to precise engine building, it can be
instructive to double-check the stock specs and find the exact
figure. If you happen to be building an engine to comply with
Chapter 1
Displacement,
Stroke and Bore
pi oRn
What is pi? Well, for openers, it is nor a dessert served
with ice cream. Pie is the pronunciation for the Greek
letter, which in mathematics is called a constant. The rules
of geometry tell us that the relationship between the
diameter or distance across the widest parr of a circle and
the circumference or the distance around the perimeter of
the circle is constant. So, no matter how big or how small
die circle may be, the value of pi is the same for all circles.
The value of pi is 3.1415927. It is a dimensionless number,
which means that there is no description such as feet or
centimeters diat follows it. For our purposes, we can use
3.1416 and achieve sufficient accuracy for the calculations
in this book.
the rules for a specific class, it is vitally important not to
exceed the displacement limits for your particular class.
More importantly, if you're building a racing engine to
compete in a class with a specific displacement limit and you
want to increase or decrease the displacement by modifying
the stroke or bore, you need to know how to calculate die
effects of particular modifications. If you change the stroke or
bore, how much will the displacement change?
To find the overall engine displacement, you must first find
the swept volume of a single cylinder, and then multiply that
figure by the number of cylinders. For that, you need to know
the formula for die volume of a cylinder as a geometric shape,
which is pi + 4 or 3.1415927 + 4, which equals 0.7853982.
This number is then multiplied by the square of the diameter
Auto Math Handbook
SYMBOLS
We all know what + plus and - minus mean. When we sec / it
means divided by. When we see numbers followed by a / that also
means divided by. The square of a number is when a number is
multiplied times itself and is denoted by a small figure 2 above and
to the right of the number or symbol, such as x2. So if D was rhe
symbol for diameter, D2 would denote diameter squared or
multiplied times itself. The square root of a number is a value, which
if multiplied by itself would equal die original number, llic symbol
for square root is V The symbol for the cube root of a number, or a
value diat if multiplied by itself and then again by the value would
equal the original number is 3\ . As we progress, we will define
certain values by symbols. Learn what these arc. Not only will they
be needed to solve the problems, but they will be useful in
conversation. Supposed you heard two people discussing a new car
and one said that it had a low "ccc dec." What they referred to was
the Cd or drag coefficient of die vehicle which is another
dimensionless number that puts a value on die overall aerodynamic
shape efficiency, 'rhe old Dodge Daytona and Plymouth Superbird
winged cars had a Cd of 0.27, while a cement truck probably has a
Cd of 25 (just kidding—but the value is large enougn that nobody
wants to measure it).
Cubic
Inch
Displacement
The swept volume in cubic inches of an individual cylinder is found by
multiplying pi 14 by the bore in inches squared by the stroke in Inches. The
overall swept volume or displacement of an engine is simply the volume of one
cylinder multiplied by the total number of cylinders.
and by the height of the cylinder. In an engine, the
diameter of a cylinder is tne bore, and the height is
the stroke, so the formula for finding the cylinder
volume in cubic inches is pi divided bv 4, multiplied
by the bore squared in inches multiplied by the
stroke in inches or:
Cylinder Volume ■ pi + 4 x bore2 x stroke
To find the overall piston displacement of the
entire engine, you'd take the value of this equation
and multiply that by the number of cylinders in the
engine.
Example—As an example, let's sec what the
displacement would be for an 8-cylinder engine with
a 4.0" bore and 3.48" stroke:
Displacement = 0.7853982 x 42 x 3.48 x 8
The answer is 349.84776 cubic inches, which can
be rounded up to an even 350, because the decimal
figure is well over 0.5. Those happen to be the
measurements of a common version of the Chevrolet
small-block V-8.
Decimal Conversion—If either die bore or stroke
includes a common fraction, it must be converted to
a decimal before being entered on an arithmetic
calculator. To demonstrate, take an eight-cylinder
engine with a bore of 3 7/8 inches and a stroke of 3
1/4 inches. In decimals, those figures would be
3.875" and 3.25" respectively, and would plug into
the formula this way:
Displacement» 0.7853982 x 3.8752 x 3.25 x 8
We got those numbers by taking the fraction 7/8
and using our calculator dividing 7 by 8 to get a
result of 0.875 or by taking 1/4 and dividing 1 by 4
to get 0.25. Here, the displacement is 306.62435
cubic inches or, rounded up, 307. This, too, is a
variation of the Chevy small-block V-8.
On a scientific calculator with parentheses keys, it
wouldn't be necessary to prefigure the decimal
equivalents of the fractions. Tnev could be entered as
follows:
Displacement ■ 0.7853982 x (3 + 7/8)2 x (3 + 1/4) x 8
The answer is again 306.62435. But note that plus
[+] signs must be used between the integers and
fractions.
Rounding Up or Down—I mentioned earlier that
it can be instructive to double-check factory
displacement figures. As a case in point, from 1958
through 1966, Ford built a V-8 engine with a bore of
4.0" and a stroke of 3.5", and advertised its
displacement as 352 cubic inches. Then, in 1969, the
 Displacement, Stroke: and Bore

Stroke can be measured

ROUNDING OFF by carefully using a
When wc round off a number, we shorten the one-inch travel dial
indicator and moving
number and thereby decrease its accuracy. So why
the crankshaft 1.000" at
do we round off a number? We generally round a time then resetting
off a number for simplicity and ease of the indicator until the
calculation. Wc round oft in real life all the time. measurement is
When your friend asks "how long does it take to completed or use a
special long travel
get to the track,' die general answer is "2 to 2
indicator. Always double
1/2" hours not 2 hours, 12 minutes and 13.7 check your
seconds. When we need accuracy it is there. We measurements. Photo
wouldn't refer to our car's time at the dragstrip as by Bill Hancock.
"something under a minute" unless of course we
were racing our cement mixer.
So how do we round oft? Let's take the number
3.1415927 (remember pi?). If we wanted to
shorten it and still keep most of the accuracy, wc When the
would round it off to four decimal places. To do crankshaft is out
this we would count five numbers to the right of of the engine,
the decimal point, which in this case would be this handy stroke
checker uses a
the 9. If this number is 5 or greater, we would add
special 0-5"
one number to the value in die fourth place, travel dial
which is the "5” in our example. Therefore our Indicator to make
rounded off number would be 3.1416. Let's try the measure­
rounding off 27.1237945 to two places. It would ment By placing
the two Vees on
be 27.12, because rhe third number to the right
adjacent main
of the decimal point is a 3, which is less than 5, so journals and
we just keep the second number to the right of rotating the
the decimal the same. device, the total
stroke length can
be obtained.
Photo by Bill
Hancock.
company introduced a new, lighter-weight V-8 widi
the same bore and stroke but, this time, claimed a
displacement of 351 cubic inches. To find which Cylinder bore can
figure is closer to the truth, try the formula with a be measured
4.0" bore and 3.5" stroke: accurately with a
dial-bore gauge.
Displacement = 0.7853982 x 42 x 3.5 x 8 This is an
essential tool for
l he actual displacement is 351.85838 cubic
those who want
inches, which should be rounded up to 352 because to do their own
the decimal is well over 0.5. However, Ford has boring or honing.
chosen to round it down to 351 for the later, better­ Photo by Larry
performing engine, probably to avoid confusing it Shepard.
with the older, less efficient unit.
Overboring—Staying for the moment with the
earlier Ford 351—uh, 352—imagine that you have a
well-worn specimen that needs a clean-up overbore
of0.030". How would that aftcct the displacement?
To find out, try the formula again with the bore
increased to 4.03

Displacement = 0.7853982 x 4.032 x 3.5 x 8

The answer is 357.15604 cubic inches or, rounded
Airro Math Handbook

CYLINDER WALL THICKNESS

When boring or honing cylinders, a steel honing plate approximately 1.0" thick
should be bolted to the top of the block using the intended engine fasteners to
simulate cylinder head stress. Photo by Bill Hancock.
While you can increase the Bore by 0.140" it is
highly recommended that you consider having
the bore's thickness checked prior to ever
considering a block, to ensure that the block has
enough material for cylinder wall integrity after
you arc finished. Cylinder wall integrity isn't just
about having a cylinder that won’t leak water into
the bore, but about a cylinder that has enough
strength and rigidity to hold the additional
cylinder pressure of" improved performance. It
must also remain straight and round while doing
so. If the bore is too thin in spots, it will nor be
able to be honed properly and end up being
crooked and oblong. This bore distortion will
result in poor ring scaling, which creates blow by.
Rknu by, as rhe name implies, is rhe volume of
gases that blow by the piston rings and hence do
no useful work on the top of rhe piston. These
wasted gases end up in rhe crankcase and cither
work their way out the breathers or are rerouted
back through die PCV to the intake manifold to
try another trip through the combustion precess.
Today, both OEM and aftermarket
manufacturers have a wonderful selection of high-
performance or race cylinder blocks diat feature
robust cylinder walls, thick decks, four Ixilt main
caps and a host of other features to make them
durable and user friendly to the performance
enthusiast. While they may add weight and seem a
bit expensive, in the end, they are far cheaper than
a fully machined and carefully assembled engine
that will blow out a thin wall on its first hard pass.
A thick-bore race block will make more power
because of its ability to maintain straight round
bores and keep the deck sealed under die higher
cylinder pressures that create higher output.

down, 357 cubic inches. Now, what if you wanted to

know how much you could modify cither the stroke
or the bore, yet stay within a specific cubic-inch
limit?

Stroke
The formula for die stroke is the displacement,
divided by one-fourth of pi, multiplied by the square
of the bore, multiplied by the number of cylinders:

Stroke = displacement + (pi -e- 4 x bore2 x no. of cyl.)

Prior to boring an engine, cylinder wall thickness should be measured on all
cylinders to ensure adequate thickness for your intended overbore. This
checker uses sonic waves to determine the thickness. Photo by Bill Hancock.
Example—Suppose you have a car with a late-
model Ford 352—uh, 351—V-8 and you want to
 Displacement, Stroke and Bore

race in a class with a limit of 366 cubic inches. You

want to keep the stock 4.0" bore but stretch the 3.5"
stroke. How far can you go with it?
The displacement you arc concerned with is 366,
the bore 4.0" and the number of cylinders is, of
course, 8:

Stroke = 366 * (0.7853982 x 42 x 8)

The maximum allowable stroke within the 366
cubic-inch limit would be 3.6406693" or, rounded
down, 3.64", 0.14” more than stock.

Bore
To find either the displacement or the stroke, you
have been using the square of the bore. Conversely
when you have the displacement, to find the bore,
you will have to work with the square root of the
other factors. The formula for the bore is the square
root of the displacement, divided by one-fourth of
pi, multiplied by the stroke, multiplied by the
number of cylinders or:

Bore » \ displacement + [(pi + 4) x (stroke x no. of cyl.)]
Example—If, when building the Ford V-8 for that
366-cubic-inch limit describedearlier, you decided
to stick with the 3.5 stroke, how big a bore could
you use?
Bore = \ 366 + (0.7853982 x 3.5 x 8)
The answer is 4.0795906”. That is the absolute
maximum, so do not round it up to 4.08”, even
though the decimal is over 0.5, or you will be over
the limit dictated by the rulebookl To demonstrate
that point, tty a bore of 4.08" and stroke of 3.5" in
the formula for displacement:
Displacement = 0.7853982 x 4.082 x 3.5 x 8
Those figures provide 366.07346 cubic inches—
and an engine that is too big for a 366 cubic-inch
class. As the National Hot Rod Association or
NHRA states in its drag race rules, "Any part of a
cubic inch is rounded off to the next highest inch."
In other words, NHRA officials would consider your
overbored engine to have 367 cubic inches, and
would dierefore disqualify it. So take advantage of
rounding up when you can. But, like Ford with its
352—uh, 351—know when to round down, too.
Metric Displacement
In die metric system, the bore and stroke are
usually given in millimeters and the displacement in
cubic centimeters. If you use the displacement
formula as is, and enter die bore and stroke in
The Sunnen CK-10 is a popular type of honing machine found in most serious
engine-building shops. In the hands of a skilled operator, it's extremely
accurate. Photo by Bill Hancock.
millimeters, the result will be in cubic millimeters,
which must be divided by 1000 to be converted to
cubic centimeters. You can accomplish diat by
changing the formula to:
Displacement (cc) « (pi + 4 x bore2) x (stroke x no. of
cylinders) + 1000
Example—Let’s try this widi die 6-cylinder engine
in Nissan's original Z car, the Datsun 240Z, offered
from 1970 through 1973. It had a bore of 83
millimeters and a stroke of 73.7 millimeters, or, in
the formula:
Displacement = 0.7853982 x 832 x 73.7 x 6 + 1000
1 hat provides a displacement of 2392.5708 or,
rounded up, 2393 cubic centimeters.
Converting—However, a simpler, more direct way
to find the displacement in cubic centimeters would
be to convert the bore and stroke to centimeters by
dividing them bv 10 before entering them. In the
240Z, mat would change them from 83 to 8.3 and
from 73.7 to 7.37:
Displacement = 0.7853982 x 8.32 x 7.37 x 6
The result is again 2392.5708 or 2393 cubic
centimeters. In using the formulas for bore and
Auto Math Handbook
stroke, you can work with the figures in centimeters
and multiply the result by 10 to convert to
millimeters.
To continue with the Z car: Tn 1974, the 240Z
became the 260Z, with the engine enlarged co 2565
cubic centimeters. The bore was still 83 millimeters
or 8.3 centimeters, but the stroke had been
increased. You can find the new stroke in centimeters
by entering the displacement in cubic centimeters
and the bore in centimeters:
Stroke - 2565 + (0.7853982 x 8.32 x 6)
The result is 7.9011454 centimeters or, multiplied
by 10 and rounded down, 79 millimeters.
For 1975, the 260Z evolved into the 280Z, with
the engine displacing 2753 cubic centimeters. The
stroke was the same 79 millimeters or 7.9
centimeters as in the 260Z, but the bore had been
enlarged. Here is die calculation to find the new
cylinder dimension:
According to the NHRA, "Any part of a cubic inch is rounded off to the next highest inch," so be careful how you round
off your figures. A few thousandths over could mean disqualification. Photo by Larry Shepard.
Bore - v2753 + (0.7853982 x 7.9 x 6)
The bore was 8.5994167 centimeters or,
multiplied by 10 and rounded up, an even 86
millimeters.
Centiliters—If you wonder about the significance
of those figures—240, 260 and 280—they represent
the approximate engine displacement in centiliters, a
centiliter being 1/100 of a liter. A liter, in turn, is
1000 cubic centimeters.
Mercedes-Benz, is another make which uses
centiliters of engine displacement to designate
specific models. The Mercedes 300, for example, has
a 3.0-liter engine and the 500 a 5.0-liter.
Finally, there's the question of converting back and
forth between the two systems of measurement, with
inches and cubic inches on the one hand, and
millimeters, cubic centimeters and liters on the other.
Factors for these conversions and many others will be
found in Appendix A beginning on page 102.
 Disptacement, Stroke and Borf.

FORMULAS FOR
DISPLACEMENT, STROKE AND BORE
pi = 3.1415927 or 3.1416
pi 4- 4 = 0.7853982 or 0.7854
Cylinder Volume = pi 4 4 x bore2 x stroke
Displacement = pi 4 4 x bore2 x stroke x number of cylinders
Stroke = displacement 4- (pi 4 4 x bore2 x number of cylinders)
Bore = \ displacement 4 (pi 4 4 x stroke x number of cylinders)
 Chapter 2
Compression
Ratio
The higher the compression ratio, the greater the combustion, which
results in greater power. That's the credo most drag racers live by.
Photo by Larry Shepard.
The compression ratio of an engine is rhe comparison
between the swept volume of the cylinder plus the compressed
volume when die piston is at bottom dead center versus the
compressed volume when the piston is at top dead center. The
compressed volume is the sum of the combustion chamber,
the deck clearance volume and the head gasket volume.
The higher the compression ratio is, the more the incoming
air/fuel mixture will be compressed. And the more the mixture
is compressed, the more powerful combustion will be.
I lowcvcr, as the mixture is compressed, it gets hotter and there
is a danger drat some of it may ignite prematurely. Thar
phenomenon is called detonation or knock.
Octane Rating
The octane rating of a gasoline is a measure of its resistance
to knock. The higher the octane is, the greater the knock
resistance will be. The greater the resistance to knock, the
higher the compression ratio can be. As with anything, there
are limits, so if you arc contemplating raising your
compression ratio, do some research before you start milling
heads or adding high compression pistons. With the declining
availability and the rising cost of higher octane fuels available
at the pump, we arc limited to lower compression ratios for
street driven vehicles.
Calculating Compression Ratio
The compression ratio isn't difficult to calculate; it's equal to
the stun of the cylinder volume plus the compressed volume
divided by the compressed volume, or:
WHY CUBIC CENTIMETERS?
The question is often asked "Why do we use cubic
centimeters to measure volumes in our engines for
compression ratio calculations?" The answer is really quite
simple. The device for measuring volumes of this size is
called a burette and they are commonly graduated in cubic
centimeters. The volume of a cubic centimeter is handy to
use and gives a fair amount of accuracy for die task at
hand. Somewhere along the line, a burette graduated in
cc’s was deemed size appropriate. It makes more sense than
using droplets or gallons. Cubic inches could conceivably
be used, but it is very difficult to find a burette graduated
in cubic inches. So in the end, we use cubic centimeters
and convert everything else in the engine to cubic
centimeters. For metric engines, where the bore and stroke
are already in millimeters, this makes compression ratio
calculations really simple.
Compression Ratio = (cylinder vol. + compressed vol.) +
compressed vol.
The cylinder volume, as explained in the previous chapter,
can be found with the formula:
Cylinder Volume = (pi -e- 4) x bore2 x stroke
There's one slight catch: Combustion chamber volume is
usually measured in cubic centimeters or cc’s, so you'll also
want the cylinder volume in cc’s. That means entering the
bore and stroke into the formula in centimeters.
 Compression Ratio

COMPRESSION IGNITION 10 Cubic Inch

A diesel engine is classified as a Compression TDC
Ignition, or C.l. engine, where compression alone
is used to ignite the mixture of air and fuel.
Conversely, a gasoline engine which relics on a 90
Cubic
T
Swept
spark to provide the ignition is classified as a S.I. Volume
Inch 1
or Spark Ignition engine. Diesel engines routinely
have compression ratios of over 20 to 1. By
rapidly compressing a mixture of fuel and air, the BDC
heat rise within che cylinder is enough to cause the
mixture to ignite. Sometimes during extremely
cold starting conditions, diesel engines have to
employ pre-heaters and an incoming air-fuel 9.0:1 Compression Ratio
mixture to initiate the burn and get the engine
started. Once the engine starts, the pre-heater is
no longer needed. The compression ratio is the relationship between the combined volume of the
By virtue of the fact that a diesel engine uses cylinder and compressed volume with the piston at bottom dead center and
the compressed volume with the piston at top dead center.
compression to ignite the air-fuel mixture, the
entire ignition system found on a gasoline engine is
nor needed on a diesel. On rhe other hand, the
diesel engine relies on a high pressure Riel deliver}'
pump and a series of fuel injectors to deliver fuel
directly into the combustion chamber at precisely
die right ume to ensure proper engine operation at
that particular load and throttle position. In the
past this was accomplished with a sophisticated
high pressure mechanical fuel pump diat umed die
injector pulse and adjusted the volume for each
point of the Riel map. Today, as in gasoline engines,
this complex task is easily handled by electronic
injectors and a digital engine controller. Because
computers can handle a dazzling array of complex
computations instantaneously, each revolution of
an engine can have different parameters for the
timing and fuel volume for the next injector pulse.
A flat, 1/4" plate of clear plexiglass with a small hole in it, is placed over the
The computer, or engine controller as it is
combustion chamber, so the fluid used to measure chamber capacity can be
sometimes called, looks at a variety of sensor inputs seen clearly. Once the chamber is full, the burette is checked and the amount
and then goes to a series of tables or maps in its of fluid used is recorded. Photo by Bill Hancock.
memory in order to provide die precise amount of
fuel and spark needed at exactly die correct time to
match the needs of the engine.
Cylinder Volume = 0.7853982 x 10.162 x 8.89
That indicates a cylinder volume of 720.74072
If you already have the bore and stroke in inches, cubic centimeters.
you simply multiply both by 2.54 to convert each to
centimeters. If, on the other hand, you have die Measuring Chamber Volume
cylinder dimensions in millimeters, you only need to Now conies the hard part: Finding the clearance or
divide by 10 to find what they are in centimeters. compressed volume. Because die combustion
Example—Let's use the 4.0" bore and 3.5" stroke chamber is irregular in shape, its volume cannot be
of the Ford 351 V-8 as an example. Multiplied by the calculated with a simple formula. You will have to
conversion factor of 2.54, those figures would measure it physically and, to do that, you will need a
become 10.16 and 8.89 centimeters respectively, and burette marked in cc's and filled with a light oil,
plug into the formula thusly: cleaning solvent or rubbing alcohol. Water is not
Alto Math Handbook

This illustration
provided by
Larry Shepard,
formerly of
Mopar
Performance,
shows rod,
piston and
cylinder dimen­
sions. Note the
gasket thickness
and deck height
at the top. Slight
as these may be,
they affect mea­
surement of the
combustion
chamber volume.

recommended because it tends to rust the bo-res
unless the bore is carefully cleaned and dried after
each measurement. The measuring procedure is
called, logically enough, cc-ing.
CC-ing with Engine Assembled—With die engine
fully assembled and mounted on a stand, it should
be tilted so the spark plug hole in the cylinder to be
measured is vertical. With the piston at top dead
center, die valves closed and the spark plug removed,
pour liquid from the burette through the plug hole
until it reaches die beginning of the plug threads.
The amount poured from the burette will indicate
the combustion chamber volume. When utilizing
this method it is best to use a thicker fluid such as a
light motor oil to prevent it from running past the
ring gap in the cylinder.
Example—Suppose you cc just one cylinder head
in the Ford 351 engine I've been using as an example
 Compression Ratio

and find chat the compressed volume is 92.5 cubic

centimeters, and apply that in die formula for
compression ratio:

Compression Ratio = (720.74072 + 92.5) + 92.5

The compression ratio would be 8.7917915 or,
rounded up, 8.8:1.
CC-ing with Engine Disassembled—If the engine
is disassembled, measuring the combustion chamber
volume is considerably more difficult. First, you have
to cc the head. Then you have to calculate the added
volume that will be provided by the gasket. If the
engine had flat-topped pistons which, at top dead
center, were perfectly even with the deck, or top of
the block, that’s all you'd need.
However, that isn't true of many engines. At top
dead center, the piston may stop short of the deck
height. In addition, if die piston top is dished, or
concave, it will increase die compressed volume; if It's not unusual for normally aspirated race engines to run as high as an 12.5-
it’s domed, or convex, it will decrease the volume. to-1 compression ratio. Photo by Bill Hancock.
1/2" Downfill Method—In HPBooks' How to Hot
Rod Snudl-Block Mopar Engines, Larry Shepard of
Chrysler's Mopar Performance offers a technique for
cc-ing the block he calls the "0.500” downfill" or
"1/2' downfill" method. With this method, the head
is removed and the engine is positioned so diat die
cylinder to be measured is vertical, 'llicn rhe piston is
lowered exactly 0.500 inch or 1.27 centimeters from
top dead center. The distance is arbitrary. The point is
simply to be sure that die entire piston, including the
dome, is below die deck and fully witliin die block.
Now, with the burette, you can find the amount ot
fluid required to fill the volume above die piston and
below the deck. By using the formula for cylinder
volume, you can find what the volume would be if
the piston were flat-topped and at zero deck
clearance. The difference between that figure and the
volume you find by cc-ing tells you how much a
dished piston increases the overall combustion
chamber volume or how much a domed piston This instrument, called a dial indicator bridge, is used to measure the deck
decreases it. height, i.e. the distance between the top of the piston and the top of the block.
Photo by Bill Hancock.
Adding Gasket Thickness—Okay, getting back to
your Ford engine, suppose you cc die combustion
chamber in one of the heads and find it has a volume 9.2666664 or 84.266667 cc or, rounded up, 84.27 cc.
of 75 cc's. Your gasket is 0.045" or 0.1143- What would that give you in the way or
centimeters thick; to find how much that will add to compression ratio? To find out, add the cylinder
the chamber volume, apply die formula for cylinder volume to the chamber volume, and divide by the
volume using the gasket thickness in place of the chamber volume, or:
stroke:
Compression Ratio = (720.74072 + 84.266667) +
Volume = 0.7853982 x 10.162 x 0.1143 84.266667
That works out to 9.2666664 cc. With flat-topped The answer is 9.5526606 or, rounded down,
pistons even with the deck at top dead center, your 9.55:1.
total combustion chamber volume would be 75 plus
Auto Math Handbook
The dome of a
piston can vary
greatly in
shape,
complicating
the task of
determining
compressed
volume. One
method of
measuring the
dome volume
is with the 1/2"
downfill
technique
described in
the text Photo
by Bill
Hancock.
Calculating Chamber Volume
If you can use compressed volume to find
compression ratio, can you do the opposite and use
compression ratio to find chamber volume? Indeed,
you can, and it’s a useful thing to know how to do in
order to find exactly what chamber volume you need
for a specific compression ratio. To find combustion
chamber volume, divide the cylinder volume by die
compression ratio minus 1.0, or:
Chamber Volume = (cylinder volume v (compression
ratio - 1.0)
Example—If you wanted to increase the
compression ratio of your Ford 351 to 10.5:1, what
would the overall combustion chamber volume have
to be?
Chamber Volume = 720.74072 + (10.5 - 1.0) or
720.74072 + 9.5
The answer would be 75.867444 or, rounded up,
75.87 cc. You can double-check those results by
reverting to the formula for compression ratio:
Compression Ratio = (720.74072 + 75.867444) +
75.867444
Sure enough, that provides a compression ratio of
10.5:1, bringing you right back to where you started.
Milled Heads
One of the most popular ways to increase
compression ratio is to remove material from die
deck face of the cylinder head with a machine called
a mill. Hence die term milled cylinder heads. The
question then becomes, how much do you mill the
heads for a specific increase in compression? We
must first realize that only a few combustion
chambers have a round area at the deck surface
where they meet die bore. Most cylinder heads have
a fiat area called the squish area and a smaller
irregularly shaped pocket where the valves arc
located. In order to calculate the volume of this
pocket, we cc'd it. Now we must calculate how much
to remove from the deck face in order to reduce the
volume of the pocket. The first step is to find the
area of the pocket.
Let's say that we did our compression ratio
calculations and found that we nad to reduce the
volume of rhe combustion chamber by 5-5 cubic
centimeters. I he question then becomes: how much
must we remove from the deck face of rhe head in
order to reduce the volume by 5.5 cc's?
When we measured the area of the combustion
chamber, we came up widi an area of 6.95 sq. inches.
How many thousandths should we remove? Let's
start by converting cubic centimeters into cu lie
inches. We look in the appendix of this book under
cubic centimeters into cubic inches." We find that if
we multiply rhe cubic centimeters times 0.0610237,
wc will have cubic inches.
5.5 cc x 0.0610237 = 0.33563035 cubic inches
= volume to be removed
Now if wc take our cubic inches and divide by our
total area, we will arrive ar the amount to remove.
0.33563035 cubic inches + 6.95 square inches
= 0.048292”
Or for simplicity's sake 0.048".
If we measured another head but measured in
square centimeters and found the area to be 49.05
square centimeters here's how we would do it:
Let's say that our calculations revealed that we
needed to remove 3.8cc from the combustion
chamber volume. How much should we remove
from the deck face of the cylinder head? Wc know
that our area is 49.04 sq. cm. so we divide 3.8 cubic
centimeters by 49.04 square centimeters and the
result is 0.077 centimeters or 0.77 mm.
Other Ways to Estimate the
Area of the Combustion Chamber
We can use a technique we call "counting the
squares." Simply trace the combustion chamber onto
a piece of square ruled graph paper and count the
squares inside of die line.
Begin by counting only the full squares. Put a dot
in each square as you count it. Write down the
number of full squares, then count and mark the
squares that appear to lie half squares and jot down

that number. Next do quarter squares then estimate
the rest. Add all of these up and see what you get. If
you want to practice, take a compass and draw a
small 3" diameter circle on a piece of ,4" ruled graph
paper. Count the squares and compare your answer
to the true area of 7.08 sq. in. to see how accurate
you can be. You can increase your accuracy' by' using
graph paper ruled to ten aduations per inch or 100
squares per square inch i ou wish.
Displacement Ratio- t he displacement ratio is
the cylinder volume divided by compressed volume,
and it is always 1.0 less than the compression ratio.
For example, the displacement ratio for a cylinder
•with a 9.55:1 compression ratio is 8.55:1. Now let's
see how we use die displacement ratio.
Example—Suppose you want to raise the
compression ratio in an engine from 9.55:1 to 11:1.
How much do you mill the heads?
The existing displacement ratio is, as you’ve seen,
8.55:1, while the new displacement ratio will be 11
minus 1.0 or 10. Begin by subtracting rhe old ratio
from the new and dividing the result ov the product
of the two ratios multiplied together. That figure is
dicn multiplied by the stroke in order to find the
amount the heads should be milled. Here's all that
expressed as an equation:
Amount to Mill = (new disp. ratio - old disp. ratio) +
(new disp. ratio x old disp. ratio) x stroke
Milling in Inches—If the stroke on our engine was
3.5", the figures plugged into the formula would
look like:
Amount to Mill ■ (10 - 8.55) + (10 x 8.55) x 3.5
= 1.45 + 85.5x3.5
That gives you 0.0169591 times 3.5 or
0.0593567" or, rounded up, 0.060" to mill the heads
for our desired increase from 8.55:1 to 11:1.
Milling in Millimeters—The formula will also
work if you have the stroke in millimeters.
Multiplied by a conversion factor of 25.4, a stroke of
3.5" would be 88.9 millimeters. To find how much
the heads should be milled in millimeters for the
same increase in compression ratio:
Amount to Mill = (10 - 8.55) + (10 x 8.55) x 88.9
= 1.45 + 85.5x88.9
That works out to 0.0169591 x 88.9 or 1.5076608
or, rounded up, 1.51 millimeters to mill the heads in
order to increase the compression ratio from 8.55:1
to 11:1.
Now, if you've been observant, you'll notice that if
you calculated the amount to mill in inches first, you
Compression Ratio
Here is a polar compensating planimeter. It works very nicely to give surface
areas for irregular shapes such as combustion chambers. Photo by Bill
Hancock.
wouldn't necessarily need to re-compute the entire
formula again to know what it would be in
millimeters. All you have to do is multiply the
answer in inches, 0.0593567, by the conversion
factor, 25.4. The result is 1.5076608, exacdy the
same as the answer in millimeters.
Using a Planimeter
There is an ingenious device that has been a
favorite tool of draftsmen and designers for centuries
called the planimeter. I won't try to explain how it
works, but suffice it to say that it has served us well
until CAD, computer aided design, arrived a few
years ago. In five minutes, you can use one of these
devices to find the area of any irregularly shaped
combustion chamber and armed with the area, you
simply multiply by the depdi to get the volume of
the surface outlined. Where this device comes in
handy is when you try to figure our how much to
remove from the head to reduce the chamber
volume.
loday, you can still buy a new planimeter, but given
current sales and the state of the art, it is likely that the
planimeter will soon go the way of the old-fashioned
slide rule. ’Diev are available on eBay both new and
used ranging from several dollars all the way to $1500
each. l*or what we are doing, a fairly simple one will
suffice. It will not only let you measure tnc combustion
chamber area but also other engine related areas such as
die area of Intake or Exhaust ports.
'Hie first step is to determine what scale die device
is reading. The instruction booklet will cover the
adjustment settings. If you do not have a calibration
arm, find a piece of graph paper and trace an area of
2" by 2" and sec what it yields. The answer should be
4 sq. inches or 25.81 sq. cm. If the value is different,
adjust the arm and retry until your reading exactly
Alto Math Handbook
A tracing of the combustion chamber outline can be made by holding a piece
of stiff paper over the combustion chamber while moving a soft pencil back
and forth across the paper to shade the edge of the chamber. Once the
shading is done, darken the resulting line representing the outline of the
chamber, and make a start/finlsh mark. Photo by Bill Hancock.
Holding the device by the pointer end, guide the pointer around the outline of
the chamber, making sure the measuring wheel glides evenly around the
paper and doesn't get stuck. Photo by Bill Hancock.
matches your square or circle of a known area.
We start with a tracing of the combustion
chamber outline taken from the deck surface of the
cylinder head.
Initially, it is important to correctly position the
planimeter, otherwise you will run out of travel and
have to start all over again. Make sure that the tracer
point can easily reach the farthest point on the
chamber outline and still not be fully extended. At
the farthest point it is good to still have no more
than a 165 deg. angle between the tracer arm and the
pole arm. Once you have determined an initial
position, anchor the pole weight and hold the trace
arm to guide it on a quick trip around the perimeter
of the chamber shape. If all goes well and you have
clearance, then adjust the dials so that they both read
zero. Pick an arbitrary point on the perimeter of the
chamber outline and make a small mark at right
angles to the perimeter. This mark will serve as your
starr/finish line as you travel around rhe perimeter.
Carefully place the measuring arm down on your
paper so tnat the tracer point is at die start/finish line
and then check the dials to ensure that they are still
reading zero. Carefully drag the tracer point around
the perimeter, being careful to follow the line as
closely as possible. Make sure that the paper template
stays flat and does not move while you are making
your measurements. When you get to the start/finish
line, stop and take a reading, ana then without
moving anything make a second lap. When you stop
at the start/finisn line this time, die value shown on
the dials should lie exactly twice what it was for one
lap. It may take some practice initially for this to
occur, but as you get familiar with the planimeter,
you will grow to trust it. Always make at least two
laps and average them to get a more accurate result.
 Compression Ratio

FORMULAS FOR
COMPRESSION RATIO
Compression Ratio = (cylinder volume + compressed volume) + compressed volume

Cylinder Volume = (pi + 4) x bore2 x stroke

Compressed Volume = (cylinder volume + compression ratio) - 1.0

Displacement Ratio = cylinder volume + compressed volume

Amount to Mill = (new disp. ratio - old disp. ratio) + (new disp. ratio x old disp. ratio) x stroke
 Chapter 3
Piston
Speed
Drag racers need to be especially concerned with piston speed. If it gets too
high, the piston will outrun flame front travel and lose power at best At worst, a
rod or piston will break. Photo by Larry Shepard.
Piston speed is the rate at which the piston travels up and
down in die cylinder, and is usually measured in feet per
minute. The rate isn’t constant. At higher rpm, the piston may
be going more chan 100 miles per hour near the middle of its
Stroke. It slows as it approaches cither end of its cycle, it
momentarily comes to a complete stop when it reaches top or
bottom dead center, and then accelerates as it starts back in
the other direction.
In other words, the piston may be going from zero to over
100 mph and back to zero during each stroke—over a distance
of only 2.0, 3.0 or 4.0 inches! Most people do not believe that
the pistons are stopping twice per revolution in a running
engine! The laws of physics tell us that in order to maintain
the same path and reverse directions, an object must come to a
full stop, even if only momentarily.
If the piston speed gets too high, the primary hazard is that a
piston or a rod—or in some cases both of diem—may break
from the strain. Therefore, when designing an engine, piston
speed will also help define a practical rpm limit. Designers all
work within generally accepted guidelines for average piston
speed in order to make sure that die engine is successful. If the
piston speed calculations reveal that the piston speed is too
high, the only alternative is to shorten the stroke and increase
the bore to keep the displacement rhe same. If the bores get
too big, the other alternative is to increase the number ol
(Minders. If you study the Formula One engine designs over
the years, you can sec these changes resulting from the
demand for increasing rpm.
A secondary problem is diat a piston may outrun flame
front travel—running faster than the expanding air/fucl
mixture is pushing it resulting in a drop in horsepower. That's
not as serious as breakage, but it's not exactly desirable cither.
It's possible to determine the exact piston speed, as well as
the rate of acceleration or deceleration, at any point during the
cycle, but it takes differential calculus to do it. Fortunately,
you don't have to worry about that. All you need to find is the
average piston speed, and that can be done with a relatively
simple formula.
Average Piston Speed
A piston makes two Rill strokes, one up and one down,
during each crankshaft revolution. Therefore, die average
piston speed in inches per minute would be two times the
stroke in inches, times the crankshaft revolutions per minute,
or rpm. The result is divided by 12 to convert it to feet per
minute or fpm, and the formula is:
Piston Speed in fpm = (2 x stroke in inches x rpm) +12
If you divide both the numerator and denominator in the
equation by 2, you can reduce that to:
Piston Speed in fpm ■ (stroke in inches x rpm) + 6
In that form, it'll obviously be a little easier to work with.
Example—In the early days of hot rodding, when die
flarhcad Ford V-8 reigned supreme at the dry lakes and dirt
tracks, 2500 feet per minute was considered the maximum
practical piston speed—not just for Fords, but for all cars.
How did the flathead Ford stack up against that norm of 2500
feet per minute? Introduced in 1932, the early Ford V-8 had a
displacement of 221 cubic inches, with a bore of 3.06" and,
more to our immediate point, a stroke of 3.75 • l et’s see what
its piston speed was at 4000 rpm:
Piston Speed = (3.75 x 4000) + 6
Alto Math Handbook
ROD STRENGTH
Most hot rodders know that as they increase the power by adding
spark timing and increasing the compression ratio that the rod sees
far greater force trying to compress the rod. On the power stroke the
gases pushing down on top of the piston greatly increase the
compressive load in the rod and hence die force is transferred to the
crankshaft to make power. On the exhaust stroke the rod is being
pushed upward in tnc cylinder by the crankshaft and it forces the
piston up the bore causing the exhaust gas to leave the combustion
chamber. As rpm increases however, the weight of the piston
becomes detrimental, and as it races toward the top of the bore on
die exhaust stroke both the piston and the rod see a tremendous load
when they come up for a momentary stop at top dead center
(TOO). For this reason, if you are going to increase the power and
rpm in an engine, you should seriously consider upgrading or
replacing your connecting rods with stronger ones. Some of the
high-end engine simulation programs give a value for rod loading. II
the load in tnc rod exceeds tne strength, the rod may either break in
tension or typically bend in compression.
liston speeds have become possible, but there are still
imits. British tech author A. Graham Bell in his
xiok, Performance Timing in Theory and Practice,
suggested what some of tne limits arc. With a stock
cast-iron crankshaft and connecting rods, he
recommends a maximum of 3500 feet per minute
and, with a forged crank and heavy-duty rods and
main bearing caps, between 3800 and 4000 feet per
minute. At tnc outer limit, he believed that an all-out
drag racing engine which is equipped with super­
duty components, run on racing iuel with fast flame
front travel and revved to the max for only a few
seconds ar a time, may get away with piston speeds as
high as 5000 to 6000 feet per minute.
As this is being written, we can watch NASCAR
engines running in a 500-milc race at speeds of up to
9000 rpm for durations of up to four hours. With a
3.48" stroke, this translates into 5100 feet per
minute.
Rev Limits
What if you wanted to know how high you could
rev an engine without exceeding a specified piston
speed? The formula is:
Rpm = (piston speed in fpm x 6) + stroke in inches
Let’s see what the engine speed of the Fairlane V-8
with its stroke of 2.87 inches would've been at the
old piston speed limit of 2500 feet per minute:
Rpm - (2500 x 6) + 2.87
It could've been run all the way up to 5226 rpm.
And what of its potential against the modern piston
speed standard for stock engines of 3500 feet per
minute?
Rpm - (3500 x 6) + 2.87
That works out to 7317 rpm.
Our comparison of the flathead and Fairlanc V-8s
is instructive because it demonstrates that the same
displacement is possible with radically different
strokes. Let’s be honest, though, 221 cubic inches
was small for a V-8, even by today’s slimmed-down
standards, and the early Fairlane's 2.89" stroke was
unusually short. It shouldn't have been surprising
that the engine was capable of high rpm without
excessive piston speed.
Small-Block V-8 Piston Speeds
But what about high-performance small-block V-8s
typically found in Mustangs and Thunderbirds? Or,
for that matter, in Camaros and Corvettes?
Among the derivatives of that original Fairlane
engine arc V-8s of 302 and 351—uh, 352—cubic
inches. Chevrolet has had comparable engines of 302
and 350 cubic inches.
302$—The 302s were developed in the late 1960s
to fit the 5.0-liter limit in the Sports Car Club of
.America's Trans-Am series. Both Ford and Chevrolet
used the same cylinder dimensions, a bore of 4.0"
and stroke of 3.0". Therefore, at any given rpm, they
had the same piston speed. For example, at 8000
rpm, the figures would be:
Piston Speed = (3 x 8000) ? 6
Or 4,000 feet per minute.
3501351—Bores of 4.0" arc also used in the Ford
351 and Chevy 350, but the strokes are 3.5’ and
3.48" respectively, so at any given rpm, the piston
speeds will be similar but not the same.
For example, at 8000 rpm, the figures for the Ford
351 would be:
Piston Speed = (3-5 x 8000) * 6
Which would be 4667 feet per minute. For the
Chevy 350:
Piston Speed = (3.48 x 8000) + 6
And that works out to 4640 feet per minute.
In cither case, you'd be pressing your luck unless
you used the highest quality internal parts possible.
Drag Racing—For drag racing, you'll occasionally
hear ol Chevy small-block V-8s that are run from 10-
to 12,000 rpm. However, these have been dcstroked,
 Piston Speed

A piston makes
two full strokes
during each
crankshaft
revolution.
Therefore, to
And mean
piston speed,
multiply the
stroke In
inches by two,
then multiply
that figure by
the rpm. Divide
by 12 to find
the average
piston speed in
feet per minute
(fpm). Courtesy
Larry Shepard.

That put it right at 2500 feet per minute! Flatheads
may have been revved beyond 4000 rpm, bur not for
very long, at least in stock form!
In 1962, just 30 years after the debut of the
flathead, Ford introduced another 221 cubic-inch V-
8. Called the Fairlane V-8 after the mid-size series car
where it was first used, it was the forerunner of
Ford's modern small-block V-8s and featured a
relatively big bore and short stroke, with a bore and
stroke of 3.50 by 2.87 ' respectively. And what was its
piston speed at 4000 rpm?
Piston Speed = (2.87 x 4000) + 6
That works out to only 1913 feet per minute, well
under the traditional maximum of 2500.
With modern advances in metallurgy, higher
Alto Math Handbook
ROD STRENGTH
Most hot rodders know that as they increase the power by adding
spark timing and increasing the compression ratio that the rod sees
far greater force trying to compress the rod. On the power stroke the
gases pushing down on top of the piston greatly increase the
compressive load in the rod and hence die force is transferred to the
crankshaft to make power. On the exhaust stroke the rod is being
pushed upward in tnc cylinder by the crankshaft and it forces the
piston up the bore causing the exhaust gas to leave the combustion
chamber. As rpm increases however, the weight of the piston
becomes detrimental, and as it races toward the top of the bore on
die exhaust stroke both the piston and the rod see a tremendous load
when they come up for a momentary stop at top dead center
(TOO). For this reason, if you are going to increase the power and
rpm in an engine, you should seriously consider upgrading or
replacing your connecting rods with stronger ones. Some of the
high-end engine simulation programs give a value for rod loading. II
the load in tnc rod exceeds tne strength, the rod may either break in
tension or typically bend in compression.
liston speeds have become possible, but there are still
imits. British tech author A. Graham Bell in his
xiok, Performance Timing in Theory and Practice,
suggested what some of tne limits arc. With a stock
cast-iron crankshaft and connecting rods, he
recommends a maximum of 3500 feet per minute
and, with a forged crank and heavy-duty rods and
main bearing caps, between 3800 and 4000 feet per
minute. At tnc outer limit, he believed that an all-out
drag racing engine which is equipped with super­
duty components, run on racing iuel with fast flame
front travel and revved to the max for only a few
seconds ar a time, may get away with piston speeds as
high as 5000 to 6000 feet per minute.
As this is being written, we can watch NASCAR
engines running in a 500-milc race at speeds of up to
9000 rpm for durations of up to four hours. With a
3.48" stroke, this translates into 5100 feet per
minute.
Rev Limits
What if you wanted to know how high you could
rev an engine without exceeding a specified piston
speed? The formula is:
Rpm = (piston speed in fpm x 6) + stroke in inches
Let’s see what the engine speed of the Fairlane V-8
with its stroke of 2.87 inches would've been at the
old piston speed limit of 2500 feet per minute:
Rpm - (2500 x 6) + 2.87
It could've been run all the way up to 5226 rpm.
And what of its potential against the modern piston
speed standard for stock engines of 3500 feet per
minute?
Rpm - (3500 x 6) + 2.87
That works out to 7317 rpm.
Our comparison of the flathead and Fairlanc V-8s
is instructive because it demonstrates that the same
displacement is possible with radically different
strokes. Let’s be honest, though, 221 cubic inches
was small for a V-8, even by today’s slimmed-down
standards, and the early Fairlane's 2.89" stroke was
unusually short. It shouldn't have been surprising
that the engine was capable of high rpm without
excessive piston speed.
Small-Block V-8 Piston Speeds
But what about high-performance small-block V-8s
typically found in Mustangs and Thunderbirds? Or,
for that matter, in Camaros and Corvettes?
Among the derivatives of that original Fairlane
engine arc V-8s of 302 and 351—uh, 352—cubic
inches. Chevrolet has had comparable engines of 302
and 350 cubic inches.
302$—The 302s were developed in the late 1960s
to fit the 5.0-liter limit in the Sports Car Club of
.America's Trans-Am series. Both Ford and Chevrolet
used the same cylinder dimensions, a bore of 4.0"
and stroke of 3.0". Therefore, at any given rpm, they
had the same piston speed. For example, at 8000
rpm, the figures would be:
Piston Speed = (3 x 8000) ? 6
Or 4,000 feet per minute.
3501351—Bores of 4.0" arc also used in the Ford
351 and Chevy 350, but the strokes are 3.5’ and
3.48" respectively, so at any given rpm, the piston
speeds will be similar but not the same.
For example, at 8000 rpm, the figures for the Ford
351 would be:
Piston Speed = (3-5 x 8000) * 6
Which would be 4667 feet per minute. For the
Chevy 350:
Piston Speed = (3.48 x 8000) + 6
And that works out to 4640 feet per minute.
In cither case, you'd be pressing your luck unless
you used the highest quality internal parts possible.
Drag Racing—For drag racing, you'll occasionally
hear ol Chevy small-block V-8s that are run from 10-
to 12,000 rpm. However, these have been dcstroked,
 Piston Speed

FORMULAS FOR
PISTON SPEED
Piston Speed (in fpm) = (stroke in inches x rpm) ■? 6

Rpm = (piston speed in fpm x 6) + stroke in inches

generally to 290 cubic inches, so to determine the
stroke, apply the formula for stroke discussed in
Chapter 1:
Stroke = 290 + (pi * 4) x (42 x 8)
You’ll find that a 290 cubic-inch V-8 with a 4.0'
bore would have a stroke of 2.88". Therefore, at
10,000 rpm:
Piston Speed ■ (2.88 x 10,000) + 6
The piston speed would be 4808 feet per minute.
At 12,000 rpm, the piston speed would rise to
5760 feet per minute, and that’s about as far as
anybody ought to go! This also assumes that the
valve train will function without false motion
typically referred to as valve float. Getting a pushrod
engine to reliably achieve speeds above 10,000 rpm
requires sophisticated components and careful
assembly.
Between modern short-stroke engine designs and
ongoing improvements in metallurgy, the
recommended maximums in piston speed have
become so high that some hot rodders don’t pay
much attention to them any more. But it's still wise
to be aware of them, because there is a point at
which even the best bearings and rods can fail,
particularly when a powerplant is run consistently at
highcr-than-avcragc rpm.
 Chapter 4
Brake
Horsepower
and Torque

Horsepower is defined as the measure of the ability to move a given weight a

given distance in a given period of time. There couldn't be a more direct or
dramatic example of what that really means than the performance of a Top
Fuel dragster. This one will propel its 1200 lb weight from a standing start to
the end of a quarter-mile in slightly less than 5 seconds. Photo by Larry
Shepard.

Horsepower
Horsepower is the measure of the ability to move a given
weight a given distance—that is, to apply leverage—in a given
period of time.
Concept—The concept dates back to the 17th century and
James Watt's development of the first practical steam engine.
Watt first used his engine to pump water out of mines.
Previously, such pumping had been done with draft horses, so
it was logical to relate the work the steam engine could do to
rhe number of horses it could replace. The account presented
here of how Watt did that is adapted from Horben Arthur
Kline's The Science ofMeasurement: A Historical Survey.
Watt's Draft Horse—The horse plodded a circular path,
pulling at a right angle on the end of a 12-foot lever projecting
from a capsun at the center of the circle. The capstan, in turn,
was geared to operate rhe pump.
Watt estimated that the horse pulled with a force of 180 lb.
1'he circle it followed had a circumference of 2 times pi times
a radius of 12 feet, or 75.398224 feet. The horse could make
144 trips around the circle in an hour or 2.4 trips a minute,
for a speed of 180.95573 or about 181 feet per minute.
To convert that demonstration of the horse's ability' into
measurable leverage or what is commonly referred to as torque,
Watt multiplied 180 pounds times 181 feet, obtaining 32,580
pounds-feec per minute. He rounded that figure up to 33,000
pounds-feet per minute, or 550 pounds-fcct per second,
which became the norm for 1.0 horsepower. Today the
measurement is included in the Systeme International des
Unites (S.I.), which is a group of current measurements used
internationally.
Generating Force—Watt's draft horse generated force
around the circumference of a circle and, as the animal pulled
on the lever, that force was applied to the capstan at the center
of the circle. An automobile engine can be described as doing
just the opposite. It delivers force ar the output end of the
crankshaft. Envision a 1.0-foot lever attached at a right angle
to the crankshaft at that point. As the crank rotates, the free
end of the lever will follow a circle with a radius of 1.0 foot.
Watt's definition of horsepower involved a force in pounds,
applied over a distance in feet, for a time of 1.0 minute.
Therefore, to convert the rotational force of the crankshaft
into horsepower, you must know the distance the free end of
the 1.0-foot lever will go in 1.0 minute. That, of course,
would be the circumference of a circle with a 1.0-foot radius
multiplied by the number of crankshaft revolutions per
minute, or rpm.
The circumference is pi multiplied by 2 multiplied by 1.0
foot or, more simply, 2 times pi, which is 6.2831853 feet.
Therefore, the total distance me free end of the lever will go in
1.0 minute is 6.2831853 feet times rpm.
The product of that calculation can be multiplied by the
known torque of the engine to find the total pounds-feet of
torque per minute. The result can then be divided by Watt's
pounds-fcct (lb-ft) figure per minute for 1.0 horsepower
(33,000) to find the engine's horsepower. That works out to
the following formula:
Horsepower = (6.2831853 x rpm x torque) + 33,000
Dividing the right side of the equation by two times pi, you
can eliminate 6.2831853 and reduce 33,000 to 5252.1131.
By rounding down the latter figure, you can simplify the
formula to:
Horsepower = (rpm x torque) + 5252
 Brake Horsepower and Torque

This is the formula used to determine horsepower

when an engine is tested on a dynamometer. On
modern computerized dynos, measurements and
calculations arc done electronically. On older units,
though, torque was found by measuring the
resistance of a device known as a Prony Drake against
the flywheel end of the crankshaft. Therefore, output
figures at the flywheel are still called brake torque
and brake horsepower, or bhp, after the old Prony
brake.

Gross vs. Net Ratings

There are two forms of brake torque and brake
horsepower, gross and net. The gross figures
represent what the engine can do under ideal
conditions, with laboratory’" intake and exhaust
manifolding, and without the load of any auxiliary
equipment except the fuel, oil and water pumps.
They show the absolute maximum output at die
flywheel.
The net torque and power, on the other hand,
represent what the engine can do as it's installed in a
Here is the control screen for a DTS dyno. It gives all of the pertinent
vehicle, with such auxiliary items as the air cleaner, information an operator needs to safely test an engine. The screen can be
alternator, fan and standard intake and exhaust easily reconfigured by the operator to highlight particular areas of interest
systems in place. Photo by Larry Shepard.
Musclecar Ratings—During the 1950s and 60s,
automakers tried to outdo each other in gross
horsepower claims. By die late '60s, that policy had
begun to backfire as insurance companies began
adding expensive surcharges to premiums on cars
with high-powered engines. So the factories reversed
themselves and actually underrated their hottest
powerplants.
They underrated the brake horsepower, that is, not
the brake torque. A classic example was the street
version of the Chrysler 426 cubic-inch Hcmi. Its
advertised output was 425 bhp at 5000 rpm, and the
dyno showed 446 lb-ft of torque at 5000 rpm.
Applying die formula with those figures:

Horsepower = (5000 x 446) + 5252

The result is 424.60015, which of course can be
rounded up to 425, Chrysler's bhp figure. But
Chrysler never claimed that was the maximum
output! On the dyno, the rpm continued to climb
faster than the torque dropped and, at 6000 rpm, the
reading was 412 lb-ft. Let’s try the formula again:
This engine is being readied for testing on the dyno at Impastato Racing
Horsepower = (6000 x 412) + 5252 Engines. Photo by Bill Hancock.
That works our to 470.6778 or, rounded up, 471
bhp! And that is 46 bhp, or almost 11 percent more
than Chrysler officially claimed!
The practice of unrealistic engine output claims,
whether exaggerated or underrated, began to fade in
Auto Math Handbook
This DTS dyno is capable of handling over 1000 horsepower. Photo by Bill
Hancock.
1971, when General Motors announced it was
switching from gross to net horsepower and torque
ratings in its advertised specifications. Within the
next two years, all domestic automakers and most
importers followed suit, thus ending claims based on
gross output.
For the 1971 model year, GM published both
gross and net figures, tne only time the author is
aware of any manufacturer doing so. "The differences
were revealing. To take just one example, the base
version of that year's 350 cubic-inch Chevrolet V-8
had a gross rating of 245 bhp, but a net rating of
only 165 bhp—32 percent less!
Present-day enthusiasts sometimes ask if there is a
conversion factor to determine the net equivalent of
the gross horsepower ratings used before die early
1970s. Unfortunately, there isn't, because rhe gross
ratings varied so widely—some of them way above
the true gross output and some way below—and no
single conversion factor could take all die variations
into account.
Therefore, the only way to determine the original
net output of a musclccar engine of the 1960s is to
run that engine in its original form on a dyno.
Calculating Torque
If you know the horsepower at a given rpm, you
can determine the torque at that same rpm by
transposing the formula to:
Torque = (5252 x horsepower) + rpm
Using the advertised output of the Hemi:
Torque = (5252 x 425) + 5000
The answer is with 446.42 lb-ft of torque at 5000
rpm, which is essentially the same as the reading
produced on the dyno.
Brake Specific Fuel Consumption
Another aspect of engine performance and
efficiency measured on a dynamometer is fuel
consumption. An engine on a dyno is stationary and
its fuel consumption obviously can't be measured in
miles per gallon. However, if the dyno is equipped
with a fuel flow meter, it will show the rate of fuel
flow in pounds per hour. The rate at any given rpm
divided by the brake horsepower at the same rpm
provides a figure called the brake specific fuel
consumption, brake specific: for short or bsfc
abbreviated. To restate that as a formula:
BSFC = fuel pounds per hour + brake horsepower
The lower the brake specific, the less fuel the
engine is using to develop the horsepower in
question; in other words, the more efficient the
engine and the better the fuel economy.
Example—Suppose you have an engine that shows
a fuel-flow rate of 144 pounds per hour at die rpm
where it develops 300 brake horsepower:
BSFC - 144 + 300
The brake specific would be 0.48. Generally, the
figure should be 0.50 or less. It won't be constant. It
will lie at its lowest, i.c., most efficient, at or near rhe
same rpm where peak torque is developed.
At lower rpm, the airflow dirough die intake
system is slower than it is at peak torque and, at
higher rpm, there isn't time to maintain the same
airflow as there is at peak torque. So at engine speeds
below or above peak torque, airflow will not be as
efficient and, as a result, the brake specific fuel
consumption will lie greater.
Specific Gravity
Specific gravity is defined as die weight per unit of
volume for a substance compared to the weight of a
similar volume of pure water. In other words, is the
substance heavier or lighter than a similar volume of
water? Put differently, anything with a specific
gravity of less than 1.000 will float. For example,

TESTING FOR
WATER IN GASOLINE
By using die difference in specific gravity
between water and gasoline, we can find out very
quickly if wc have any water in our gasoline.
Drain a sample of the suspected fuel into a clear
glass container and set aside for a few minutes
until the fluids have settled out. If water is present,
there will be a dividing line visible between rhe
two liquids, with the gasoline being at the top and
the water being at the bottom. This concept is the
backbone of a process called fractional distillation.
Refineries use fractional distillation to refine crude
oil into gasoline and all of its byproducts.
gasoline has a specific gravin' of around 0.76, and
therefore when gasoline and water arc mixed, the
gasoline rises to the top.
Density
Density is die weight per unit of volume. Let's see
how we could figure our weight per gallon of
gasoline by using only the density. In our previous
example, gasoline with a specific gravity of 0.763
means that it is roughly three quarters the weight of a
similar volume of water. Wc know from the tables
diat water weighs 8.334 lb/gal
0.763 x 8.334 lb/gal = 6.36 lb/gal
So now we know that a gallon of the gas wc arc­
using weighs 6.36 lb. The various types and grades of
gasoline each have different specific gravities, so be
sure to check with your fiicl supplier to ger the exact
specific gravity for your fuel.
Fuel Check
Now that we know how specific gravity is
calculated, we can use this principle to check our
fuel. Using a device known as a ITALhydromcter (see
photo) which is simply a calibrated bobber, we can
measure rhe specific gravity of a given fiicl sample
and compare it to the standard specification for that
brand of fuel and octane. If fuel has been diluted or
has aged by being improperly stored, it can lose its
potency and properties which arc so critical to the
proper operation of a performance engine. While
certainly not a definitive test of gasoline quality, a
specific gravity test is better than no test at all. If a
fuel won't pass a specific gravity test, stop right there.
If a sample docs pass a specific gravity test, it still
might not be correct. In the end, only a series of
chemical tests and an actual motoring rest will
Brake Horsepower and Torque
Here a
calibrated float
is used in a
graduate to
measure the
specific gravity
of fuel. Using
the specific
gravity of the
fuel, and the
flow rate in
gallons, the
user can
determine fuel
consumption in
pounds per
hour. Photo by
Bill Hancock.
determine the true capability and rating of a given
fuel. Unfortunately, these tests require sophisticated
equipment and are typically only carried out at the
refinery o-r research level due to the cost of the
equipment.
Dyno Chart
When an engine is tested on a dynamometer, a
chan is created showing die brake torque in pounds-
feet and the brake horsepower at specific rpm
intervals. An example is shown on the next page in
Fig. 4a. It shows the torque and horsepower for a
modified 350 cubic-inch Chevy V-8 at intervals of
200 rpm from 3000 to 7000 rpm.
Maximum torque, 350 lb-ft, occurs from 3800 to
4000 rpm and maximum horsepower, 343, at 6000
rpm. Those are all relatively high figures for a small
V-8, indicating that the engine has been reworked
for higher performance.
Note how flat die torque output is between 3000
and 4200 rpm. Over diat 1200-rpm spread, it varies
only 10 pounds-fcct. Beyond 4000 rpm, the torque
gradually declines, though it hits another flat spot of
305 pounds-fcct from 5400 to 5800 rpm.
However, as rpm continues to climb, so does
horsepower, until the engine reaches its peak output
at 6000 rpm. From that point on, torque starts to fall
sharply, while horsepower drops more slowly.
Most dyno data sheets will show much more than
the chart on the next page. They'll include not only
torque and horsepower, but fiicl flow, air flow and
brake specific fiicl and air consumption, along with
Ano Math Handbook

Fig. 4a. This

chart shows RPM LB-FT BHP
the torque and 3000 340 194
horsepower for 340
3200 207
a modified 350
cubic-inch 3400 345 223
Chevy at 3600 345 236
intervals of 200 3800 350 253
rpm from 3000 4000 350 .267
to 7000 rpm as 4200 340 272
measured on a
dyno. 4400 335 281
4600 330 289
4800 325 297
5000 315 300
5200 310 307
5400 305 314
5600 305 325
5800 305 337
6000 300 343
6200 280 331
6400 255 311
6600 240 302
6800 190 246
7000 160 213 These are dyno-testing headers, a 4-into-1 design. Note
that they have been adjusted about 6" with a straight
insert just before the transition—lower left of photo.
intake and exhaust specs, temperatures, and ignition Adjustability is a common feature of race headers. Photo
settings. But the real foundation of dyno testing is in by Larry Shepard.
the relationship of torque and horsepower as a
function of rpm. Example—Let's consider a trip to Colorado in a
car powered by a four-cylinder engine developing
Effects of Elevation 100 net blip. That nice, even output figure will
A normally aspirated or NA engine is one without simplify the calculations.
forced induction, such as turbocharging or From the East or Midwest, your first major stop in
supercharging. If you drove a car equipped with one Colorado is likely to lie the mile-high city of Denver.
of these engines up a tall mountain you would notice On the way there, you’ll begin to feel the effects of
that the higher you go above sea level, die less power elevation as you leave the plains of the Midwest and
you have. As the air thins out, less of it will be drawn stan climbing the Eastern slope of die Rockies.
into the engine. There will be a decrease in When you reach Denver, you'll be at over 5000 feet
volumetric efficiency (a topic covered further in and, at a 3.0 percent loss per 1000 feet, that means
Chapter 6) and, with it, a loss in engine output. The you'll have lost 15 percent of your power. The 100-
resulting drop in horsepower at any given rpm is bhp engine now has only 85 bhp.
approximately 3.0 percent for each 1000 feet of But that's just for openers. Heading west from
elevation. Denver on Interstate 70, you'll cross the Rockies over
If you live in flatlands at or near sea level, none of passes at elevations of 10,000 and even 11,000 feet.
this will lie of much significance to you. But, if you And, at 10,000 feet, the engine will lose 30 percent
have ever driven over California's Sierras or of its output, which will decrease to 70 bhp.
Colorado's Rockies, you know what I'm talking Or suppose you head South to Colorado Springs to
about. Because of this, Pikes Peak in Colorado try climbing Pikes Peak, one of the highest spots in
Springs, Colorado is the best example of the the United States that can be reached by automobile.
performance loss, since it is essentially one long uphill At the summit, you'll be more than 14,000 feet
grade. As you wind your way up the hill, you can feel above sea level. That will cost you 42 percent of
die effects of altitude on the engine performance. An engine power, dropping the litde 100-bhp four-
engine that was fairly responsive at the bottom of the banger's output to only 58 bhp!
hill becomes pretty sluggish at the top. Of course, if the car's engine had been equipped
 Brake Horsepower and Torque

FORMULAS FOR
BRAKE HORSEPOWER AND TORQUE
Horsepower = (rpm x torque) + 5252

Torque = (5252 x horsepower) e rpm

Brake Specific Fuel Consumption = fuel pounds per hour + brake horsepower

Bhp loss= (elevation in feet + 1000) x (0.03 x blip at sea level)

with a turbo, it would be a different matter because a
supercharged or turbocharged engine boosts rhe
manifold pressure, by forcing more air into rhe
engine than the surrounding atmosphere would.
Atmospheric Correction Factors
An engine performs differently depending on the
weather surrounding it. If in the example we just
discussed, the engine is subjected to lower
atmospheric pressure it will lose power compared to
the sea level conditions. In addition to barometric
pressure, ambient temperature, relative humidity,
and vapor pressure will all affect the output. In an
effort to be able to accurately compare performance
under differing atmospheric conditions, it is
necessary to measure the various values for pressure
and temperature and apply a formula which lets us
equate the performance back to a so-called standard
day. The SAE has used a variety of standards over the
years to accomplish this. Currently SAE standard
J1349 appears to be the method of choice for most
of die auto manufacturers. However, J607 a version
used in the 1960's has been a favorite of rhe
performance industry and hence is programmed into
many of the computerized performance
dynamometers. It also just nappens to yield the
highest corrected numbers.
When measuring or rating the output of an engine
on a dynamometer, it is vitally important to be able
to equate the performance of one set of data to
another taken under different weather conditions. In
most cases the correction factor, when applied, will
raise the raw or uncorrectcd output data values of die
engine. What this is really saving is that, if die engine
in question was run on the theoretical perfect day,'
the output would have been higher. In some cases
however, die corrected numbers" arc lower and tliis
indicates the engine was actually run on an
exceptionally favorable day. A cool crisp dry day in
October with high barometric readings will often
result in just such a case.
Some people unfamiliar with corrected readings are
prone to distrust diem and not use diem. As long as
you carefully calculate your values and consistently
apply rhe formulas, you will be much furdier ahead
using corrected numbers in your engine development
work.
Without going into great detail about the applied
theory for correction factors, let’s look at the formula
for SAE J607. This standard allows us to correct our
data back to a standard day with 60 deg. F dry air
(zero percent relative humidity) at sea level and ar
29.92 inches of mercury barometric pressure.
CF- (29.92 in.Hg + Tp -Vp) x .CAT + 460 + 520
Where Tp is test pressure in inches of mercury,
V is vapor pressure in inches of mercury (in.Hg),
CAT is carburetor air temperature or inlet air
temperature in deg. F
Tp or rest pressure is best measured by an accurate
barometer compensated for temperature and
geographic location. If that is unavailable, a call to
the local airport with a request for station pressure
will work just as well. The local weather broadcast is
probably the least accurate, but still better than
nothing.
Vp or vapor pressure for air is a pressure where
droplets of water are forming into liquid droplets as
fast as they arc evaporating. This pressure varies with
temperature, so we must use a chart to find this
pressure. Harold Bettes, the author of HPBtxiks'
Engine Airflow has provided the chart for us to use
here. It is shown on page 26.
Let's begin by defining Wet Bulb (WB) and Dry
Bulb (DB) temperatures. Dry bulb refers to the tin of
a mercury thermometer called the bulb. If the bulb is
dry; the temperature will read the temperature of the
Auto Math Handbook
air. To understand wet bulb temperature, wet your
fingertip and blow on it. Your fingertip will feel
cooler as long as it is wet and you arc blowing air
across it. We use a handheld device called a sling
psychrometer, which employs a wet sock surrounding
die bulb of the thermometer to determine the two
distinct temperatures.
Once we have the two temperatures, our next step
is to get the vapor pressure. Let's suppose that we
have a wet bull) (WB) temperature or 65° and a dry
bulb (DB) temperature of 80°. Follow the line from
80° OB straight up until it intersects the WB line for
65°. Holding your finger on that point, go directly
across to the right and read die vapor pressure of
0.45. Coincidentally, if you follow the curves for
relative humidity, it also corresponds to 45% relative
humidity.
So in this case we now have an equation that looks
like this:
CF - (29.92 + Tp - 0.45) x \ (80 + 460) + 520
In this case, if we had a barometer reading of
29.75, we would solve the equation:
(29.92 + 29.75) - 0.45 x \ L038
29.3 x 1.019
29.92 -5- 29.857
CF = 1.0021
So if we had an engine that produced an indicated
627 horsepower we would multiply it by our CF and
see die following:
627 x 1.0021 = 628.3 horsepower
 Chapter 5
Indicated
Horsepower
and Torque

Engines like this 426 Hemi A990 engine represent the pinnacle of the
horsepower race during the muscle car era. The brake torque and horsepower of
this engine can be measured on the dyno, but those numbers only represent
output at the flywheel. Those figures do not account for losses within the engine
due to inertia and friction. Therefore, the brake figures will always be less than
the horsepower and torque actually developed within the cylinders. Once you
know the flywheel and cylinder outputs, you can determine the engine's true
mechanical efficiency. A measuring device called an indicator is used to
measure cylinder pressure during each of the four strokes—intake,
compression, combustion and exhaust—and from them the indicated mean
effective pressure, or mep, can be determined. Once you know the mep,
indicated horsepower and torque can be calculated. Photo by Bill Hancock.

As demonstrated in the previous chapter, brake torque can
be measured on a dynamometer and, from it, brake
horsepower can be calculated. However, those figures represent
output at the flywheel and, because of losses within the engine
primarily from friction and also from inertia, they will always
be less than the horsepower and torque actually developed
within the cylinders. And, once the output both at the
flywheel and in rhe combustion cylinders is known, you can
determine the engine's mechanical efficiency.
Indicated Mean Effective Pressure
You can't measure the horsepower and torque developed
within the cylinders directly. However, using a device called an
indicator, you can measure cylinder pressure during each of
die four strokes—intake, compression, combustion and
exhaust—and, from them, you can find die indicated mean
effective pressure, or mep, which is a form of output that occurs
widiin the cylinders and is unaffected by friction and inertia.
When the indicated mep is known, it s possible to calculate
the indicated horsepower and torque within the cylinders.
An indicator is not something die average hot rodder is
likely to have readily available. Nonetheless, rhe serious
performance enthusiast should be aware of the
interrelationships of mep, horsepower and torque. (It should
be noted that the formulas involving these interrelationships
are equally valid for either brake or indicated figures.)
Indicated Horsepower
There’s a formula for calculating horsepower from mep
that's favored bv many engineering theorists because it
involves a simple acronym, PLAN, that's easy to remember.
Horsepower = PxLxAlN r 33,000
P stands for mep in pounds per square inch or psi; L for rhe
length of the stroke in feet; A for the top surface area of one
piston in square inches; and N for the number of power
strokes per minute. When these four factors are multiplied
together, they show the total amount of torque the engine
develops in one minute. That figure is then divided by
33,000—the number of pounds-fcct (lb-ft) per minute equal
to one horsepower—to find die total horsepower.
Part of the appeal of PLAN is that it focuses on the aspects
of engine design that ultimately determine horsepower. When
you modify an engine to improve performance, you ate really
increasing P, L, A and/or N.
Alto Math Handbook

Engines like
this one used
in NHRA pro
stock typically
have an
extremely high
specific output
Photo by Larry
Shepard.

Example—For example, when you raise the
compression ratio, P is increased. When an engine is
bored or stroked, A or L is increased. When you
replace rhe camshaft and valve train to get higher
rpm, you increase N.
The formula is awkward in practical use, though,
because it requires separate calculations to find L, A
and N. Io find L, the stroke in inches is divided by
12 or:
L = stroke +12
l'o find A, divide pi by 4 then multiply it by the
bore squared, or:
A = (pi + 4) x bore2
And, to find N for a conventional four-stroke-cycle
engine, divide the rpm by 2 and multiply the result
by the number of cylinders, or:
N = (rpm + 2) x no. of cylinders
So our "simple” acronym eventually leads to a
much more complicated formula:
Horsepower = (mep x stroke x bore2 x pi x rpm x no.
of cylinders) + (12x4x2x 33,000)
But look closely. Embedded in there arc the factors
of the formula for displacement:
Displacement = (pi + 4) x bore2 x stroke x no. of cyl.
You can remove those and use the displacement
instead, simplifying the raw formula to:
Horsepower ■ (mep x displacement x rpm) + (12 x 2 x
33,000)
And that, of course, can be reduced still further to:
Horsepower = (mep x displacement x rpm) + 792,000
Example—Let's take as an example a 302 cubic-
inch engine which has an indicated mep of 175 psi at
4200 rpm:
Horsepower = (175 x 302 x 4200) * 792,000
Working the equation through gives an answer of
280.265 indicated horsepower.
Indicated Torque
The mep will be in direct proportion to the torque,
and the peak mep will occur at the same rpm as the
peak torque. To find indicated toraue, multiply the
mep times the displacement, and divide the result by
pi times 4 times 12 or:
Torque = (mep x displacement) + (3.1415927 x 4 x 12)
Multiplied, the constants become 150.79645,
which can be rounded off to 150.8, reducing the
formula to:

Torque = (mcp x displacement) -s- 150.8
Example—Assume that the 302 cubic-inch engine
has a maximum indicated mcp of 177.5 psi at 3200
rpm—though the engine speed isn't immediately
relevant:
Torque - (177.5 x 302) + 150.8
And that would mean a maximum indicated
torque of 355-5 lb-ft.
Brake Mean Effective Pressure
Mean effective pressure occurs within an engine's
cylinders and cannot be dirccdy measured at the
flywheel, as brake torque is. However, you can find
mep from either horsepower or torque. If you start
with brake horsepower or brake torque, you will
come up with a hypothetical brake mean effective
pressure, or bmep. To find bmep from horsepower,
the formula is:
BMEP = (hp x 792,000) + (displacement x rpm)
Example—Let's sec what the bmep would be at
the 7000-rpm horsepower peak of that 426 cubic-
inch, 471-bhp Chrysler Hemi I described on page 21
in Chapter 4.
BMEP = (471 x 792,000) + (426 x 7000)
The answer is 125 psi. The formula for finding
bmep from torque is:
BMEP = (torque x 150.8) -5- displacement
Chrysler listed the 426 Hcmi's maximum brake
torque as 490 lb-ft at 4000 rpm. Therefore, die input
for bmep would be:
BMEP = (490 x 150.8) + 426
That results in a figure of 173 psi.
BMEP vs. BSFC—Note that the bmep is higher
at peak torque than at peak horsepower. Like brake
specific fuel consumption (bsfc), discussed in
Chapter 4, brake mean effective pressure is at its best
at peak toroue. Indeed, as measures of an engine's
efficiency, the bsfc and bmep tend to reflect each
other. Tnc bsfc is at its lowest or most efficient at
peak torque, and the bmep is at its highest or most
efficient at the same point. On eidier side of peak
torque, the bsfc gets worse as it increases and the
bmep gets worse as it decreases.
Indicated Horsepower and Torque
While bmep is a calculated, dieoretical form of
output, it is useful for comparing the relative
performances of different engines. It is entirely
possible, for example, diat a small 4-cylinder sports
car engine and a big stock car racing V-8 could have
similar bmep figures, despite vast differences in their
displacements and their horsepower and torque
characteristics.
Typical bmep figures are 130 to 145 psi for die
engine in a standard passenger car, 165 to 185 psi in
a high-performance or sports car, and 185 to 210 psi
in a racing vehicle.
Mechanical Efficiency
An important advantage of having both indicated
and brake output figures is that they can be used to
determine the engine's percentage of mechanical
efficiency. The basic formula is the same, whether the
figures used are horsepower, torque or even mep:
Mechanical Efficiency = (brake output -5- indicated
output) x 100
Mechanical Efficiencyfrom Horsepower—Let's
take that 302 cubic-inch engine which was found to
have 280.265 indicated horsepower at 4200 rpm and
355.5 lb-ft of torque at 3200 rpm, and assume that
its brake output ratings arc 225 horsepower and 300
lb-ft at the same respective engine speeds. To find
mechanical efficiency from the horsepower figures,
you use:
Mechanical Efficiency = (225 + 280.265) x 100
And the result would be 80.28 percent mechanical
efficiency. The difference between the two
horsepower figures—indicated output minus brake
output or, in this case, 55.265—is known as friction
horsepower, because it is the amount lost between
die cylinders and the flywheel from friction.
Mechanical Efficiencyfrom Torque—To find
mechanical efficiency from the brake and indicated
torque ratings of our 302-cubic-inch engine, the
figures would be:
Mechanical Efficiency = (300 + 355.5) x 100
This time, you have 84.39 percent mechanical
efficiency and 55.5 lb-ft of friction torque. And, once
again, here's an example of greater efficiency at peak
torque than at peak horsepower.
Auto Math Handbook

FORMULAS FOR
INDICATED HORSEPOWER AND TORQUE
Horsepower = (mep x displacement x rpm) + 792,000

Torque = (mep x displacement) + 150.8

BMEP = (hp x 792,000) * (displacement x rpm)

BMEP = (torque x 150.8) -r displacement

Mechanical Efficiency = (brake output -5- indicated output) x 100


To determine what size carburetor you'll need for your street engine, carburetion
authorities recommend you assume a volumetric efficiency of 85% and use that
in the formula for theoretical air capacity to find the proper carburetor flow in
cfm. Photo by Bill Hancock.
Aii automobile engine is a form of air pump, and knowing
its theoretical air capacity is necessary to detern line its
volumetric efficiency, i.e., the relationship between the
theoretical capacity and the actual airflow. In addition, on a
carbureted engine, the air capacity may serve as a guide to
choosing the proper carburetor size.
Air Capacity
The air capacity is a product of rpm and displacement. In a
conventional four-stroke engine, the volume displaced on
intake strokes during each crankshaft revolution will be 1/2 of
the overall cubic capacity. So, to find the air capacity in cubic
inches per minute, multiply the rpm by the displacement in
cubic inches and divide by 2, or:
Air Capacity » (rpm x displacement) -5- 2
In practice, calculating the air capacity in cubic inches per
minute would result in unwieldy figures, so the measurement
is converted to cubic feet per minute or cfm by dividing the
displacement by 1728, the number of cubic inches in a cubic
foot:
cfm » [(rpm x displacement)+ 2] x 1728
That, in turn, can be simplified to:
cfm » (rpm x displacement) -e- 3456
Chapter 6
Air Capacity
and Volumetric
Efficiency
Example—As an example, consider the theoretical air
capacity of the 350 cubic-inch Chevy V-8 used for the dyno
chart in Fig. 6a on the next page, the same chart used on page
24. You are interested in two particular engine speeds: die rpm
at peak torque because, like other measurements of engine
efficiency already discussed, volumetric efficiency is highest at
that point; and the maximum rpm, because that's where die
air capacity is its greatest.
According to the chan, maximum torque is delivered at
4000 rpm, so to find the air capacity:
cfm = 4000 x 350 + 3456
Which works out to 405 cfm. Maximum rpm on die chart
is listed as 7000 rpm, so to determine what this engine's
greatest air capacity is:
cfm = 7000 x 350 + 3456
The answer is 709 cfm.
Volumetric Efficiency
The actual airflow can be measured at each rpm and then
divided by the theoretical capacity at the same rpm to find the
engine's volumetric efficiency, or V.E. The resulting figure can
be multiplied by 100 to convert it from a decimal to percent.
Stated as an equation, that becomes:
Airro Math Handbook

Fig. 6a. This V.E. = (actual cfm + theoretical cfm) x 100

chart shows RPM LB-FT BHP Let's suppose the actual airflow of our engine was
the torque and 3000 340 194 365 cfm at 4000 rpm and 565 cfm at 7000 rpm.
horsepower for 3200 340 The volumetric efficiency at 4000 would be:
207
a modified 350
cubic-inch 3400 345 223
Chevy at 3600 345 236 V.E. = (365 + 405) x 100
intervals of 200 3800 350 253 Or just over 90 percent. And, at 7000 rpm with an
rpm from 3000 4000 350 267 actual airflow of 565 cfm:
to 7000 rpm as 340 272
4200
measured on a
dyno.
4400 335 281 V.E. = 565 * 709 x 100
4600 330 289 The volumetric efficiency at that rpm is just under
4800 325 297 80 percent. According to Mike Urich, former
5000 315 300 engineering vice president of Holley Carburetors and
5200 310 307 author of HPBooks' Holley Carburetors, Manifolds
5400 305 314 and Fuel Injection'.
5600 305 325 An ordinary low-performance engine has a V.E. of
5800 305 337 about 75 percent at maximum speed; about 80
6000 300 343 percent at maximum torque. A nigh-performance
6200 280 331 engine has a V.E. of about 80 percent at maximum
6400 255 311 speed; about 85 percent at maximum torque. An all-
6600 240 302 out racing engine has a V.E. of about 90 percent at
6800 190 246 maximum speed; about 95 percent at maximum
7000 160 213 torque. A highly tuned intake and exhaust system
with efficient cylinder-head porting and a camshaft
ground to take Rill advantage of the engine's other
equipment can provide such complete cylinder filling
that a V.E. of 100 percent—or slightly higher—is
obtained at the speed for which the system is tuned.’’
In practice, a highly tuned engine of the type Urich
mentions may have a V.E. as much as 10 or 12
percent greater than the theoretical air capacity.

An engine has to have a great air capacity to run this pair of Holley 1050 cfm
Dominator carburetors. Photo by Larry Shepard.
Carburetor Size
In an era when all OEM high-performance engines
are being equipped with fuel injection, carburetion
may seem old-fashioned. But it's not dead yet, and
it's likely to lie around for some time to come,
although not on new cars. There are still a lot of hot
rods being built with carburetors. There are older
cars being restored, such as musclecars of the 1960s
and 1970s, with carburetors. And in several forms of
racing, there arc classes that continue to require
carburetors rather than injectors. So, to a lot of
performance enthusiasts, carburetion remains
important.
An engine’s air capacity can be a guide to choosing
carburetor size, in terms of the car buretor's airflow in
cfm, for a given combination of displacement and
rpm. This time, though, we're concerned with
practical rather than theoretical capacity, i.e., the
actual airflow.
Street Carb—But how do you estimate what size
carburetor you need while you're building an engine,
before you can measure the airflow? For a street
 Air Capacity and Volumetric Efficiency

This Edelbrock Edelbrock 800 dm Performer carb is

designed for performance, delivering crisp throttle
response. Photo by Mike Mavrigian.

engine, Urich and most other authorities on

carburetion recommend assuming a volumetric According to the example in the text for calculating racing carburetor cfm, this
efficiency of 85 percent and plugging that figure into Holley Dominator carburetor would be a good choice. Photo by Larry Shepard.
the formula for theoretical air capacity to find the
proper carburetor flow in cfm:

Street Carb cfm » [(rpm x displacement) 4- 3456] x 0.85

Example—Suppose you are building a street rod

with a Chevy 350 V-8 that you don't expect to rev
beyond 5000 rpm.

Street Carb cfm = [(5000 x 350) + 3456) x 0.85

Before taking die V.E. into account, that would
work out to 506 cfm. Multiply by that 0.85 and the
figure drops to only 430 cfm.
Rating Carb—For a street engine, that formula is
fairly reliable. But on a racing engine, as Urich points
out, the volumetric efficiency can increase to 100
percent or more. Let's take the case of a highly tuned
engine which can compress the intake air somewhat
and increase the actual flow to 10 percent more than
rhe theoretical air capacity. That's die same as saying
110 percent of, or 1.1 times, the theoretical figure:

Racing carb cfm = [(rpm x displacement) + 3456] x 1.1

For this example, suppose you have a Chew 350
built for racing that you expect to be running up to
7000 rpm:
Racing carb cfm = [(7000 x 350) + 3456] x l.l
This time, the initial figure is 709 cfm which,
multiplied by 1.1, becomes 780 cfm.
However, if you go very' far beyond the dieoretical
air capacity in choosing carburetor size, you'll
quickly reach a point of diminishing returns. Mike
Urich cited an instructive illustration in a drag racing
The Dodge Challenger Drag Pak cars provide excitement wherever they go.
Photo by Larry Shepard.
test of a Chevrolet Camaro with the 350 cubic-inch
engine. Using a 650-cfin l lollcy' carburetor, die car
ran die 1/4-mile in an elapsed time of 14.35 seconds
with a terminal speed of 96.05 mph. Switching to a
bigger 800 cfm Holley, the c.t. increased to 14.61
seconds and the speed dropped to 95.44 mph. Those
may not seem like significant differences, but drag
races arc often won or lost by even narrower margins.
Auto Math Handbook

Bigger Is Not Always Better in cither 700 or 750 cfm sizes, with nothing in
Carburetors are not made in an infinite variety of between. Your temptation might be to go for the
sizes, so you're not likely to find one that 750, but you'd probably be better off with the 700.
corresponds exactly with your calculated carburetor For choosing a carburetor is one area where bigger
cfm. In most cases, you'd probably be wiser co is not always better.
choose a carburetor the first available size down from
your calculated figure rather than die first size up.
As a case in point, suppose you determine chat you
need a 720 to 730 cfm carburetor. However, the
make and model of carb you want to use is available

FORMULAS FOR
AIR CAPACITY AND VOLUMETRIC EFFICIENCY
Theoretical cfm = (rpm x displacement) + 3456

Volumetric Efficiency' = (actual elm + theoretical cfm) x 100

Street Carb cfm = [(rpm x displacement) 3456] x 0.85

Racing Carb cfm = [(rpm x displacement) + 3456] x 1.1


These lightweight portable car scales are much more accurate for weighing a
car than the larger heavy duty truck scales are. Photo by Bill Hancock.
Weight distribution is a statement of the percentages of a
vehicle's overall weight divided lengthways between the front
and rear wheels, or sideways between the left and right
wheels. It is an important factor in the handling of all types
of vehicles, from family sedans and race cars to motor homes
and heavy’ trucks.
The lengthways or front/rear weight distribution will vary
greatly, depending on the type of vehicle. However, with the
important exception of cars built for oval track racing,
there's usually little if any significant difference in the
sideways or left/right weight distribution.
Weighing the Vehicle
To find how the weight of a car or truck is distributed, you
must first find the weights at each wheel. The ideal method
is to weigh the vehicle with each wheel on a separate flat
scale. A professional race team will typically carry a set of
four flat scales to check weights on the wheels when setting
up a car for specific track conditions, but a set of such scales
would be an extravagance for anyone not needing them
regularly.
Public Scale—A public scale, such as one of those used by
professional truckers or moving companies, is a less costly
alternative, though it may also be less accurate than
individual flat scales. The public scale typically has a capacity
of up to 100 tons in order to weigh heavy trucks and their
cargos, and at the more modest weights of ordinary cars or
Chapter 7
Weight
Distribution
light trucks, the device’s readings may not be precise. For
that reason, it isn’t really worth the trouble to use such a
scale to find the weight at each wheel.
Wheel Weights in Pairs—Fortunately, it isn’t really
necessary. The formulas involving weights at the wheels that
I'll be discussing in this chapter call for those weights in
pairs—the fronts and rears and, for oval track cars, the lefts
and rights—so those are the figures you should measure on
the public scale.
Measuring Weight—Start by finding the overall weight of
the vehicle with all four wheels on the scale. Next, measure
the weight with the wheels at one end of the vehicle on the
scale and then the wheels at the other end. Finally, if you
need to know die sideways weight distribution, weigh the
wheels at one side of the vehicle and then the other side.
If the ramps at the ends or sides of the scale platform aren't
level, position the vehicle with the wheels being weighed as
far on to the platform as possible, and the wheels not being
weighed as close to the edge without touching it as possible.
If the vehicle is tilted at the slightest angle, there will be
enough weight transfer to the wheels off the scale to
invalidate die readings.
Isn't it redundant to weigh both ends? Couldn't you weigh
the front wheels and then subtract that figure from the
overall weight to find the weight at die rear wheels? Yes, you
could. But by actually weighing both sets of wheels, you'll
have an optimum check on the scale's accuracy because the
Alto Math Handbook
The best way to weigh a vehicle is with an individual flatbed scale at each
wheel. The measurements should be taken on level ground, with all four
wheels on scales at the same time. Photo by Bill Hancock.
A truck scale, while handy, is typically not as accurate as a scale designed
for a lower range. Here we are weighing the vehicle with the front wheels on
one scale and the rears on the other scale. This is handy for front to rear
weight Photo by Bill Hancock.
overall weight and the sum of the front and rear
weights should be the same. If you weigh the left
and right wheels, their sum should be the same,
too. It there arc any significant discrepancies, go to
another scale and start over.
Obviously, all this is going to be time-consuming
This electronic individual scale system gives all four
weights but also gives a variety of combinations such
as front to rear and side to side weights.
and you don't want to be shuttling a race car back
and forth on the scale platform with a line of
impatient truckers waiting to check their loads
before heading out on the highway. So it’s a good
idea to check ahead of time with the scale operator
to find when the facility isn’t likely to be busy.
Front/Rear Distribution
To find the percentage of weight on a given set of
wheels, divide the weight on those wheels by the
overall vehicle weight, and multiply the result by
100, or:
Wheel Weight Percentage = (weight on wheels +
overall weight) x 100
Example—Let's suppose you have a car that
weighs 4000 lb overall with 2240 lb on the front
wheels:
Wheel Weight Percentage = (2240 * 4000) x 100
The answer is 56 percent, which means that over
one-half of the overall vehicle weight is located over
the front wheels. If the scale were accurate, it would
have shown 1760 lb on the rear wheels:
Wheel Weight Percentage = (1760 + 4000) x 100
Or 44 percent. Of course, you could also have
arrived at that figure by subtracting 56, the
percentage on the front wheels, from 100.
Typical Front/Rear Weights—That front/rear
weignt ratio of 56/44 is typical for a full-size sedan
 Weight Distribution

with a front engine and rear drive, like a Ford

Crown Victoria. The engine is the heaviest single
component in a motor vehicle and its location—
front, rear or in between—strongly affects the
weight distribution.
On a front-engined, rear-drive sports or GT car
with only two seats, like the Mazda Miata,
Chevrolet Corvette or Mercedes-Benz SL, die
smaller passenger compartment allows the engine to
he set back somewhat for a better balanced
front/rear weight ratio of 51/49 or 52/48.
For a compact or mid-size car with a front engine
and front drive, as is the case with most of today's
popular cars, the front transaxle increases the
weight on the front wheels, and the front/rear
weight ratio is likelv to be between 60/40 and
65/35.
Conversely, on a true rear-engined car, i.e., one
with the engine behind the rear transaxle, like the
Porsche 911 and its many variants, the front/rear Here we are weighing the left side front and the left side rear, while the right
side is off the scale. Photo by Bill Hancock.
weight ratio will be on rhe order of 40/60.
On a mid-engined car, i.e., one with the engine
behind the passenger compartment but ahead of
the rear transaxle, such as the Toyota MR2 or Acura
NSX, the proponion is slightly less severe, but only
slightly, at about 42/58.
Understeer dr Oversteer—It's widely believed
that a vehicle's weight distribution affects its
handling characteristics. A front-heavy car is
supposed to understeer, i.e., its front wheels will
drib toward the outside of a turn. A rear-heavy car,
on the other hand, will reputedly oversteer, i.e., its
rear wheels will drift to the outside of a turn.
That's an oversimplification, though. A vehicle's
tendency to understeer or oversteer is the product
of the tire slip angles. Those, in turn, are affected
not only by weight distribution, but also by such
factors as suspension design and tire size. For
example, rear-heavy cars like die 911, MR2 and
NSX, often have bigger tires at the rear than at the Now we switched sides and we are weighing the right side while the left
front to help neutralize any tendency to oversteer side is off the scale. When you are done, compare the left side weight plus
and, in normal driving, they may even understeer the right side weight to the total weight The two total weights should be the
same. Photo by Bill Hancock.
somewhat.
However, when any car is pushed beyond its limit
of adhesion, centrifugal force is likely to take over accelerating and to minimize weight transfer to the
and cause the tires at the heavier end to lose front when braking, and toward rhe left to decrease
traction and skid or even spin toward the outside of weight transfer to the right as the car follows a
a turn. continuous series of turns to the left.
During the 1970s, Chrysler Corporation
Left/Right Distribution produced a kit for building a Dodge Aspen- or
On an oval track race car with rear drive, there Plymouth Volare-based stock car for oval track
should be a weight bias toward the rear and toward racing. According to rhe factor)’ parts catalog for this
the left side—toward the rear to increase weight vehicle, 53 to 55 percent of the weight should be on
transfer to the rear for better traction when the left side and 52 to 54 percent on rhe rear wheels.
Auto Math Handbook
If you are going to weigh your car very often, it will pay to get a set of
portable scales that you can take to the track or use in your garage. Photo
by Bill Hancock.
For oval track racing, where the cars turn left only, there should be a weight
bias toward the left as well as toward the rear. Photo by Tom Sturgeon.
To find the left/right weight ratio, use die same
formula you did for the front/rear ratio, only this
time start with the weight on the left wheels rather
than on the front ones.
Example—Let's consider a dirt track stock car
weighing 3000 lb overall, with 1410 lb on the front
wheels, 1590 lb on the rear, 1590 lb on the left, and
1410 lb on the right. In this instance, the weight
distribution lengthways and sideways would be the
same:
Wheel Weight Percentage = (1590 + 3000) x 100
Which works out to 53 percent at the rear and
left, within the parameters Chrysler recommended,
and front/rear and left/right weight ratios bodi of
53/47.
Adding Weight at Either End
If you add weight at either end of a vehicle, it will
obviously affect the weight distribution by
increasing the percentage on the nearer pair of
wheels and decreasing the percentage on the farther
pair.
Examples of this would be adding a winch at the
front of a four-wheel-drive truck, or a trailer hitch
at the rear of a tow vehicle, or ballast to a race car.
With the added object in place, you can take the
vehicle back to die scale. Or you can calculate the
added weight on the nearer wheels. To do that, you
must know the vehicle's wheelbase, the amount of
added weight and the horizontal distance of the
added weight from the centers of the nearer wheels.
Specifically, you need to know the distance of the
added weight's center of gravity from the centers of
the wheels.
CG ofAdd-Ons—The center of gravity or eg of
an object is die point around which the weight of
the object is evenly balanced in every direction. In
the case of a symmetrical or regularly shaped object
like a winch, you can assume the eg is at the center
of the object. However, with a complex or
irregularly-shaped object like a trailer hitch,
estimating the eg is not so easy. One suggestion:
Before the object is installed, try to balance it on a
sawhorse.
Once you have an estimate of the distance of the
added object's eg from the centers of the wheels,
you can find how much weight it's going to add to
the nearer wheels with the formula:
Wheel Weight Increase ■ [(front wheels + wheelbase)
x weight] + weight
Adding a Winch at Front—Suppose you have a
sport-utility vehicle that has a 107'' wheelbase and,
in standard form, weighs 4000 lb, with 55 percent
or 2200 lb on die front wheels and 45 percent or
1800 lb on the rear wheels.
If you install a winch at the front which weighs
110 pounds, and you estimate that the eg of the
wincli is 45" ahead of the front wheel centers, the
figures in the formula will be:
Wheel Weight Increase ■ [(45 + 107) x 110] + 110
That works out to 156 lb added at the front
wheels.
The 110-lb weight of the winch has acted as a
force on a lever, with the front wheel centers as the
fulcrum, lifting a weight of 46 lb from the rear
wheels and transferring it to the front ones. The
 Weight Distribution

For trailering, proper understanding of the weights of both the tow vehicle and trailer is important The vehicle
manufacturer will usually specify the maximum trailer weight the vehicle can handle. The tongue weight of the trailer,
i.e. the weight at the hitch, should be between 10 and 15 percent of the trailer's overall weight. Photo by Bill Hancock.

overall vehicle weight is now 4410 lb, with 2356 lb An ordinary

bathroom
on the front wheels and 1754 lb on die rear ones, scale with a
and the weight distribution has become 57/43. capacity of 300
lb can be used
Trailer Tongue Weight to check trailer
One of the most useful applications of the tongue
weights as
formula for added weight at the front or rear of a
high as 900 lb
vehicle is to find the effect of the tongue weight of a by offsetting
trailer on the weight distribution of a tow car or the scale from
truck. the point at
I’m talking here about a vehicle with a weight­ which the
weight is
carrying hitch, which suppons the entire tongue
applied. The
weight on the hitch ball, as opposed to a weight­ exact
distributing hitch, which uses springs and levers to weight rating of 2000 lb or less, the tongue weight procedure is
divide the tongue weight between the front and rear should be no more than 300 lb and can De checked described In
wheels of the tow vehicle; the weight will lower the on an ordinary bathroom scale. However, if there's the text.
vehicle's ride height slightly, but tne vehicle will any reason to believe that the tongue weight is
remain level even with a heavy trailer attached. A going to lie beyond the 300-lb capacity of the
weight-carrying hitch is satisfactory with smaller, typical bathroom scale, you'll have to use a little
lighter trailers, Dut a weight-distributing one is trickery.
recommended for heavier towing. l ake a brick or a block of wood the same height
The tongue weight of a trailer should be between as the scale and a 2x4 more than three feet long.
10 and 15 percent of the overall weight. For Place the block so that its center line is exactly one
example, a 1000-lb trailer should have a tongue foot to one side of the center line of the jack
weight between 100 and 150 lb. extension on the trailer tongue. Place rhe scale so
Using a Bathroom Scale—How can you find the that its center line is two feet to the other side of
trailer's tongue weight? If the trailer has a gross the center line of die jack extension. Now place the
Auto Math Handbook
FORMULAS FOR
WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION
Percent of Weight on Wheels = (weight on wheels + overall weight) x 100
Increased Weight on Wheels = [(distance of eg from wheels + wheelbase) x weight] + weight
2x4 so that it stretches across both the Block and
scale. Lower the jack until the trailer tongue drops
far enough that its weight is supported by the 2x4.
Read tne scale and multiply the figure it shows by
the number of feet, in this case 3, between the
centers of the block and scale. That will give you
the tongue weight.
The setup I’ve described will handle tongue
weights up to 3 times the scale's capacity, or 900 lb
with a 300-lb scale. For heavier tongue weights
than that, you can use a longer 2x4, move rhe scale
out another one or two feet, and change the
multiplication factor accordingly. The factor must
be the same as the distance in feet between the
centers of the block and scale.
Heavier Trailers—You can also take the trailer to
a truck scale. I lowcvcr, because of such a scale's
questionable accuracy with lower weights, you may
not get satisfactory results by simply dropping the
trailer tongue on the scale. In the words of Bill
Estes, former editor and associate publisher of
Trailer Life Magazine: 'You'll get a much better
figure by subtracting the difference, say, between
4,000 and 4,500 lb than by weighing a 500-lb
trailer tongue on a scale that may be calibrated for
as much as 80,000 lb.'
Estes describes the procedure for finding the
tongue weight: "Position the car and trailer so the
tongue jack and trailer wheels are on the scale but the
car wheels are off. Get a weight figure on the trailer
wheels with the tongue resting on the tow vehicle off
die scale. Then, lower rhe tongue jack to the scale,
raise the coupler off the ball, drive die vehicle away
and leave the trailer on the scale. You'll have two
readings. Subtract to determine hitch weight.”
Subtract, that is, the weight of the trailer hitched
from the weight unhitched.
If the row vehicle has a weight-distributing hitch,
the spring levers should be disconnected to
deactivate the weight-distributing feature and the
back of the tow vehicle should be blocked or jacked
so that the vehicle and trailer remain at their
normal ride height.
Okay, suppose you have a 3000-lb trailer and you
find it has a tongue weight of 450 lb. For a tow
vehicle, let's go back to that 107' wheelbase sport­
utility and assume that its 4,000-lb weight includes
a weight-carrying hitch. The center line of the hitch
ball is 52" aft of the center lines of the rear wheels.
Plugging the appropriate figures into the formula:
Wheel Weight Increase = [(52 + 107) x 450| + 450
You learn that 669 lb have been added to the rear
wheels, of which 669 minus 450, or 219 lb, have
been lifted from the front wheels. The front-wheel
weight has been decreased from 2200 to 1981 lb
and the rear-wheel weight has gone up from 1800
to 2469 lb. Overall weight is now 4450 lb. Most
importantly, what's happened to the weight
distribution? Let s check at die front wheels:
Wheel Weight Percentage = (1981 + 4450) x 100
That's 44.5 percent, which gives a front/rcar
weight ratio of 44.5/55.5, almost the reverse of the
original 55/45!
That drastic a shift in weight distribution will
cause the rear end of the tow vehicle to drop and
the front end to rise, and the vehicle will ride at a
noticeable angle instead of level. The added weight
at the rear is likely to result in greater rear end sway
around turns, making the vehicle more difficult to
control. In addition, the headlights will point
slightly upward, right into the eyes of drivers of
oncoming vehicles.
And that helps explain why, with a heavier trailer,
a weight-distributing hitch is preferable to a simple
weight-carrying one.

In a race car, it’s important to know the position of the center of
gravity—longitudinally, laterally and vertically—in order to determine
such aspects of vehicle behavior on the track as weight transfer to the
rear when accelerating or to the outside of a turn when cornering. Photo
by Tom Sturgeon.
The center of gravity or eg of an object, as noted in Chapter
7, is the point around which die weight of the object is evenly
balanced in every direction. In the previous chapter, the
concern was with die eg of add-on devices like winches and
hitches and die effects they have on weight distribution. In
this chapter, I'm going to discuss the eg of the vehicle itself.
This is especially important on a race car, where you need to
know die exact location of the eg in order to predict several
aspects of vehicle dynamics, such as how much weight transfer
occurs to die rear while accelerating or to the outside of a turn
while cornering.
Horizontal Position
The horizontal position of the eg, both lengthways and
sideways, is inversely proportional to the weight distribution.
The horizontal position is measured in relation to the
distances between the points at which the vehicle is weighed,
i.c., the wheels.
Lengthways Location—The lengthways location of the
center of gravity is measured as a part of the wheelbase. Io find
how far it is behind the front wheel centers, divide the weight
on the rear wheels by the overall vehicle weight and then
multiply rhe resulting decimal figure by the wheelbase, or:
eg location behind front wheels = (rear wheel weight + overall
weight) x wheelbase
As an example, go back to the oval track race car described in
Chapter 7. That car weighs 3000 lb overall, with 1410 lb on the
front and right wheels and 1590 lb on the rear and left wheels.
Now suppose that the wheelbase is 108" and the track 63'.
Chapter 8
Center of
Gravity
The information needed to find the lengthways position of
the eg is shown in Fig. 8a on page 42 and is applied in the
formula thusly:
eg location behind front wheels = (1590 3000) x 108
eg location behind front wheels ■ 0.53 x 108
The eg is 57.24" behind the front wheel centers, as shown in
Fig. 8b on page 42.
Sideways Location—Just as the lengthways position of the
eg can be measured as a part of the wheelbase, the sideways
location can l>c measured as a part of the vehicle ITALtrack,
which is the lateral distance between the centers of the treads
of tires on cither side. However, the sideways location of the eg
is usually described in terms of how far it is off-center toward
the heavier side. To find that, divide the weight on the lighter
side by the overall weight and multiply the resulting decimal
by the track, then subtract that figure from 1/2 the track, or:
eg location off-center on heavy = (track + 2) - [(weight on 1 ight
side -r overall weight) x track]
II there's a significant difference between the front and rear
tracks, use die average of the two. The sideways or off-cener
location on the heavy side in our oval track car would be:
eg location = (63 + 2) - [(1410 + 3000) x 63]
eg location = 31.5 - (0.47 x 63)
eg location heavy side = 1.89 inches
In diis case, the eg is located 1.89 inches off-center to the left.
Alto Math Handbook

Fig. 8a. To find

how far the eg
is behind the
front wheel
centers, you
need to know
the vehicle's
rear wheel
weight, overall
weight and
wheelbase.

Scale 1:24

Fig. 8b. With

weights of 1590
lb on the rear
wheels and
3000 lb overall
and a
wheelbase of
108", the
lengthways eg 57.24 inches
position would
be 57.24"
behind the front
wheel centers.
Scale 1:24

Vertical Position high enough and, as high as it did go, it wouldn't

On an automobile with a front-mounted, pushrod
V-8 engine and rear-wheel drive, which is die
configuration of most traditional high-performance
cars, the eg will usually be from 14 to 22 inches
above the ground. On such a car, one rule of thumb
is that the eg will be at about the same height as the
camshaft. To find what that height is, use a yardstick
to measure from the ground to the camshaft
centerline at the front of the engine.
However, to pinpoint the eg height more precisely,
or to find it at all on a vehicle with other than a front
V-8 engine/rcar-drivc layout, you'll have to do some
jacking around—literally.
Weights and Measures—Stan again by weighing
the vehicle at all four wheels. You can do it back ar
the truck scale, or you can use just two individual
scales as described in Chapter 7. But, this time, it
will be a lot easier with a set of four scales.
Record the overall weight and die front- and rear­
wheel weights. Then raise one end—up to 24" if
possible—with the wheels at die other end still on
the scales, and note how much weight is transferred
to that end. It doesn’t matter which end of the
vehicle is raised and which is left on the scales. Use a
heavy-duty hydraulic jack or an overhead chain hoist
to lift the vehicle. Don't even think about using a
bumper jack. It wouldn't lie likely to lift the vehicle
hold the vehicle safely while you take measurements
underneath.
At a truck scale, you would have to measure the
overall weight, then drive the vehicle partway off' the
scale platform, jack up die end that’s now clear and
record the weight at the wheels still on the scale.
That's a time-consuming activity not likely to endcar
one to the scale operator—or to any truckers waiting
in line. You may, however, be able to go use the scales
of a moving company, although they may charge you
a small fee.
With only two individual scales, you would have to
weigh each end of the vehicle separately. At the
opposite end, you would need two blocks the same
height as the scales to place under the wheels to
assure that the vehicle is level while being weighed.
Thar would mean additional jacking as you swap the
scales and blocks, stretching out what is already a
tedious procedure. So, if at all possible, a set of four
scales should be used.
Suspension and Tire Deflection—At the end of
die vehicle that remains on the scales, die added
weight when the other end is raised could deflect the
suspension and tires enough to throw’ off the
readings. In addition, the suspension and tires at the
raised end could drop slightly and prevent an
accurate measurement of just how far diat end has
 Center of Gravity

Fig. 8c. To find the eg

height, it's necessary to
raise one end of the car at
least two feet, or 24" as
shown here, and to
measure how much weight
Is added to the scales at
the other end. The ground­
level wheelbase must also
be determined, either by
measurement or geometric
calculation. Applying the
formula described in the
text to the measurements
in the drawing provides a
eg height of approximately
17".

Fig. 8d. Now it's possible to

graph the lengthways or
longitudinal position,
57.24" behind the front
wheels, and the vertical
position, 17". The sideways
or lateral position can also
be calculated easily, using
the weight on the left or
right wheels, the weight
overall and the vehicle
track.

been lifted, a figure you'll need for calculating eg
height.
To deactivate the suspension at cither end, the
shock absorbers can be replaced with solid metal rods
of the same length, while the tires on the scales can
simply be overinflated to minimize deflection.
Full or Empty Fuel Tank—There arc differences
of opinion as to how much fuel should be aboard tine
vehicle while it is being weighed to find eg height.
Some say that the tank should be full and others that
it should be empty. Still others compromise by
saying it should be half full—or half empty,
depending on your point of view. One of the best
suggestions I've heard is to go through the whole
procedure with the tank empty, then repeat it with
the tank full. That will provide the two extremes in
eg height that can occur in normal vehicle operation.
Generally, on most conventional vehicles, the eg
height is slightly lower with a hill tank than it is with
an empty one.
Necessary Dimensions—Once you know die
weight of the vehicle and the amount of weight
transferred when one end is raised, there are three
dimensions in inches you need. The first is the
wheelbase with the vehicle level, which you would
most likely already know; the second is die wheelbase
at ground level with one end raised; the third, as
indicated earlier, is the distance that one end has
been raised.
The figures needed for the eg height on our oval
track car arc all shown in Fig. 8c. To find eg height,
multiply the wheelbase with the vehicle level by the
wheelbase with one end of die vehicle raised at least
24" by the added weight shown on the scales with
rhe one end raised. Then divide die product of that
calculation by the distance the one end has been
raised multiplied by the overall vehicle weight. Or,
stated as an equation:
eg Height = (level wheelbase x raised wheelbase x
added weight on scales) t (distance raised x overall
weight)
As noted earlier, you would probably already know
the level wheelbase of the vehicle and, of course, you
could use a yardstick to check how high the one end
has been raised.
Measuring Ground Level Wheelbase—To find
the wheelbase at ground level with one end of the
vehicle raised, you can either measure or calculate it.
To measure it, drop a plumb bob from the bottom of
Auto Math Handbook

FORMULAS FOR
CENTER OF GRAVITY
CG Location Behind Front Wheels = (rear wheel weight + overall weight) x wheelbase

CG Location Off-Center to Heavy Side = [(track + 2) - (weight on light side + overall weight)] x track

CG Height = (level wheelbase x raised wheelbase x added weight on scales) + (distance raised x overall weight)

one of the raised tires. iVlakc a chalk mark where the
plumb bob strikes die ground and, with a tape measure,
find how far it is from the center of the ground level
wheel on the same side of the vehicle.
Calculating Ground Level Wheelbase—To calculate
the wheelbase at ground level, note in Fig. 8c that the
two wheelbase measurements and the distance that one
end of die vehicle has been raised form a right triangle.
You would already know the measurements of two sides
of that triangle—the 108 " wheelbase with the vehicle­
level and die 24" distance that one end has been raised.
You can find the third side by applying rhe Theorem of
Pythagoras, which states that, in a right triangle, die
square of the side opposite the right angle equals the
sum of the squares of the odicr two sides.
The 108 " wheelbase is the side opposite the right
angle, and 108 squared is 11664. The odier known side
is the 24” lift, and 24 squared is 576. The square of die
diird side is 11664 minus 576, or 11088. The
measurement of the third side would be the square root
of 11088, or 105.3.
Added Weight—Finally, to find how much weight
has been added on the scales, simply find the difference
between the reading when the vehicle was level and the
reading after the oilier end was raised. In our example,
the first reading was 1410 lb and die second 1518 lb, a
difference of 108 lb.(It's simply coincidence in this case
that die level wheelbase in inches and the added weight
in lb both happen to be 108.)
CG Height
Let's plug our figures into the formula and find die eg
height of our oval track car:
eg Height = (108 x 105.3 x 108) + (24 x 3000) =
1,228,219.2 + 72,000
The answer is 17.0586", which, of course, can Ik
rounded down to an even 17", a fairly typical figure for
the type of car in question. In Fig. 8d, the eg position
both lengthways and vertically has been plotted.
As you can sec, the position of the eg isn't difficult to
calculate. But getting the data needed to find the
position, especially vertically, can be difficult and time-
consuming.

When a high performance car leaves the starting line under hard throttle in first
gear, the amount of force applied at the drive wheels can be phenomenal. Drag
racers need to set up the car carefully for proper launching, otherwise they
could smoke the tires and lose the race. Photo by Larry Shepard.
weight transfer during acceleration or cornering. Weight
transfer, in turn, is critical because it can influence how a
vehicle's chassis should be set up.
g Force
In order to find weight transfer during a particular
maneuver, there arc factors needed other than the position of
the eg. One of the most important is the g (for gravity) force
acting on the vehicle during the maneuver.
Here on earth, a free-falling object will gain speed every
second by 32.174 feet per second (fps) or, as a physicist would
say, it accelerates at 32.174 feet per second per second. That
can also be written 32.174 feet per second squared. Thar
figure is 1.0 g and is the scientific norm for measuring the
acceleration of any moving object, not just one in free fall.
When you're in a rapidly accelerating vehicle and you feel as if
you're being thrust back into your seat, you're experiencing g
force.
To find the g force acting on a car while it's accelerating, you
need to know the thrust in pounds being applied by the drive
wheels to the road surface. And to find the thrust at the drive
wheels, you need to know the torque at the wheels and the
rolling radius of the wheels and tires. Here, things begin to get
a little complicated.
Drive Wheel Torque—In discussing indicated versus brake
engine output in Chapter 5, we pointed our that friction and
inertia within the engine cause losses in horsepower and
Chapter 9
g Force and
Weight
Transfer
torque between the combustion chambers and the flywheel.
Well, friction and inertia make some further claims between
the flywheel and the drive wheels, with the transmission and
final-drive assembly taking a particular toll on horsepower and
torque.
If you have engine dynamometer numbers, you can find the
results of those losses by testing the vehicle on a chassis
dynamometer, which measures output at the drive wheels. Or
you can simply estimate die losses at about 15 percent, which
is what they re likely to be on most modern cars. In other
words, the drivetrain should be about 85 percent efficient. A
car which has 100 brake horsepower at the flywheel should
have about 85 horsepower at tile drive wheels.
To find the maximum torque in lb-ft at the drive wheels,
you have to multiply the torque at the flywheel by both the
first-gear ratio and die final-drive ratio, and by our 0.85
efficiency factor, or:
Drive Wheel Torque = (flywheel torque x first gear x final drive)
x 0.85
Let’s demonstrate that by using a late-model Chevrolet
Corvette with a 350 cubic-inch engine which has a maximum
torque of 330 lb-ft. The vehicle also has a five-speed manual
transmission with a 2.88:1 first gear and a 3.07:1 final-drive
ratio. Applying those figures in die formula, you have:
Drive Wheel Torque = (330 x 2.88 x 3.07) x 0.85
That provides a figure of 2480.0688 or, rounded down,
2480 lb-ft at the wheels. That's right—2480! No wonder it's
Auto Math Handbook
A Mustang leaves the starting line. The parachute and rear spoiler give a
subtle clue to the real performance of this package. Photo by Bill Hancock.
easy to smoke a 'Vette's rear tires in first gear!
Wheel Thrust—As noted in Chapter 4, torque can
be described as a force in pounds applying leverage
over a distance in feet; hence our definition of it in
lb-ft.
Ar the drive wheels, that distance is determined by the
tire size or, to be more precise, by the tire's rolling
radius. That's the vertical measurement from the center
of die wheel to the tire’s point of contact on the ground.
Because the weight of the vehicle flattens the tires
slightly, the rolling radius is usually slightly less than die
horizontal radius, lhc resulting radius is referred to as
the static loaded radius or SLR for short
To find the thrust in pounds the drive wheels apply
to the pavement, divide die torque at the wheels in
Ib-ft by the rolling radius in feet:
Wheel Thrust = drive wheel torque + rolling radius
Using a yardstick or tape measure, it's easier to get
an accurate reading of the rolling radius in inches
and convert it to feet, rather dian trying to measure
it directly in feet. On the 'Vette, suppose the rolling
radius is 12.6 inches. Io convert that to feet, divide
by 12, giving you a figure of 1.05 to divide into the
drive wheel torque:
Wheel Thrust = 2480 + 1.05
The thrust at die drive wheels is 2361.9048 or,
rounded up, 2362 lb.
Calculatingg Force—To find the g force during
acceleration, you simply divide die dirust in pounds
by the vehicle weight, or:
g Force ■ wheel thrust + weight
Given a weight of 3292 lb for the Corvette, you
would divide that into die thrust figure of 2362 lb :
g Force - 2362 + 3292
The Vette's potential rate of acceleration would be
0.717497 or, rounded down, 0.72 g.
We already know that 1.0 g equals 32.174 feet per
second per second. Multiplying that by 0.72, the
'Vette's potential acceleration could also be expressed
as 23.16528 or rounded off, 23 feet per second per
second.
Those arc strictly theoretical figures, though, that
don't rake into account such variables as rolling
resistance or aerodynamic drag. Nonetheless, if you
know rhe maximum g forces for a variety of vehicles,
they do have comparative value.
Weight Transfer
Weight transfer is especially important in drag
racing. As a car leaves the starting line on a quarter­
mile run, the weight that shifts momentarily to the
rear will apply force to the drive wheels that should
improve traction; die greater the weight transferred,
rhe better the bite.
To find a vehicle's maximum weight transfer
during acceleration, multiply the overall weight by
the height of the eg, divide that by the wheelbase,
and then multiply the result by the g force, or:
Weight Transfer = (weight x eg height) + (wheelbase x
g)
You already have a weight of 3292 lb and a g force
of 0.72 for the Corvette. Its eg height would be
approximately 18 inches and its wheelbase 96.2
inches. So, to apply the formula:
Weight Transfer « (3292 x 18) + (96.2 x 0.72)
The maximum potential weight transferred to die
rear wheels during acceleration would be 443.49605
or, rounded down, 443 lb.
To show the effect of eg height on weight transfer,
suppose you wanted to rebuild the Corvette for drag
racing. You were able to iack it up enough that the eg
was raised 6.0" to a heiglit of 24 while, for the sake
of simplicity, the other critical specs were kept the
same:
Weight Transfer ■ 3292 x 24 + 96.2 x 0.72
That would increase weight transfer to 590.10124
or, rounded down, 590 lb, a gain of over 33 percent
or one-third!
 G Force and Weight Transfer

In actual practice, if the car were being prepared

for drag racing, rhe engine would have been
modified for higher output and a numerically higher
final-drive ratio installed. With greater torque and
stronger gearing, the potential g force would have
been raised and added still funner to the amount of
potential weight transfer.
That explains why some drag cars, in classes which
permit it, arc built as high off the ground as they are.

Lateral Acceleration
In most forms of motorsports other than drag
racing, weight transfer is kept as low as possible for
steady, consistent handling. In both road and oval
track racing, for example, a low center of gravity and,
with it, minimum weight transfer are desirable for
cornering stability.
During straightaway acceleration on a drag strip, as Unlike drag racing, weight transfer is kept as low as possible in most other
forms of motorsports for steady, consistent handling. A low center of gravity,
you've seen, the key to the force being applied to the and, with It, minimum weight transfer are desirable for maximum cornering
vehicle is the thrust in lb at the drive wheels. During ability. Photo by Tom Sturgeon.
cornering on an oval track or road course, rhe key is
the g force acting on the vehicle and attempting to
push it sideways as it goes around the turn. (2.0 x pi)2 + 32.174 - 6.28318532 + 32.174 -
This sideways g force is called lateral acceleration, a 39.478418 «■ 32.174
factor you'll need in order to calculate lateral weight which works out to 1.2270286 or, rounded down,
transfer. 1.227. Now the formula for lateral acceleration in g's
Calculating—To calculate lateral acceleration, can be simplified io:
you'll need two factors that can only be determined
by testing the vehicle on a skid pad. As Fred Puhn Lateral Acceleration = (1.227 x radius) -e- time2
explains in HPBooks' How to Make Your Car Handle-.
A skid pad is a flat piece of pavement with a circle Example—Let's suppose you test the Corvette on
painted on it. The car is driven around the circle, a skid pad with a radius of 150 feet and it turns a lap
keeping the center of the car right on the line. By in 14.5 seconds:
measuring the time it takes to make one lap of the
circle, the lateral acceleration can be computed. To
do this, you need to know the radius of tne circle and
the rime for one lap at maximum speed."
The radius of the circle should be in feet and the
time for one lap in seconds. The raw formula for the
lateral acceleration in feet per second per second is
the square of 2.0 times pi, multiplied t>y the radius
divided by the square or the time, or:

Lateral Acceleration = [(2.0 x pip x radius] + time2

To find lateral acceleration directly in g force, the
value of 1.0 g in feet per second per second—which,
of course, is 32.174—-can be plugged into the
formula:

Lateral Acceleration = [(2.0 x pi)2 -r 32.174) x radius]

+ time2
The figures involving pi and g can be reduced to a During fast cornering, lateral acceleration tends to force a vehicle sideways,
out of the turn. To find lateral acceleration in g force, the car must be timed in
single constant: seconds at the limits of its adhesion around a skid pad of known radius. Photo
by Bill Hancock.
Alto Math Handbook
In skid pad testing, a car should be kept centered on the circumference of the skid pad circle. This diagram is adapted
from HPBooks' How to Make Your Car Handled Fred Puhn, an excellent reference on chassis engineering for high-
performance cars.
Lateral Acceleration = (1.227 x 150) -s- 14.52
Lateral Acceleration = (1.227 x 150) + 210.25
The result would be a lateral acceleration figure of
0.8753864 or, rounded down, 0.875 g.
Lateral Weight Transfer
To find the weight transfer during cornering, the
formula is essentially the same as the one for weight
transfer during acceleration, except that the vehicle's
wheel track is used instead of its wheelbase:
lateral Weight Transfer = (weight x eg height) *
(wheel track x g)
You already know the weight of the Corvette in
our ongoing example is 3292 lb and its eg height is
18". The Corvette has a front track of 59.6" and a
rear track of 60.4 ' for an average of an even 60”. So
to find its sideways weight transfer:
Lateral Weight Transfer = (3292 x 18) + (60 x 0.875)
The answer is 864.15 lb.
You can reduce the amount of weight transferred
in a turn by decreasing the weight and/or the eg
height and/or by increasing die track—none or
which is particularly easy to do.
Centrifugal Force
Civen the vehicle's weight and die g force
determined in a skid pad rest, you can also find the
centrifugal force in pounds acting on the vehicle
while cornering with a simple formula:
Centrifugal Force = weight x g
For the Corvette, multiply 3292 x 0.875, which
works out to a centrifugal force of 2880.5 lb. That,
however, is mainly a point of academic interest, and
not of the same practical significance as the g force or
weight transfer values.
 G Force and Weight Transfer

FORMULAS FOR
G FORCE AND WEIGHT TRANSFER
Drive Wheel Torque = (flywheel torque x first gear x final drive) x 0.85

Wheel Thrust = drive wheel torque •? rolling radius

g = wheel thrust 4- weight

Weight Transfer = (weight x eg height) + (wheelbase x g)

Lateral Acceleration = (1.227 x radius) 4- time2

Lateral Weight Transfer = [(weight x eg height) + wheel track] x g

Centrifugal Force = weight x g

 Chapter 10
Moment of
Inertia

With extremely light weight, these dragsters have an extremely low

vehicle inertia. Photo by Larry Shepard.

Inertia is defined as the resistance to change in an object’s Table A

velocity. In other words, an object with high inertia would Weight Gear Ratio Tire Dia. MPH
resist the force trying to change its velocity with a great deal of Car A 3800 lb 4.11 32" 70
force. If rhe object were at rest, the velocity would l>c zero but CarB 3200 lb 3.23 32" 70
die resistance would still be diere. Mass obviously plays a big
part in inertia calculations as we will see, but also the shape of
the mass or more correctly where the mass is centered relative
to the axis of rotation, when looking at rotating objects. cover one mile. We all know that there arc 5280 feet per mile.
A vehicle itself has an equivalent moment of inertia, which The circumference is the distance around the tire. We find it
in general terms, depends largely on die following factors. with the following formula:
• vehicle weight
• driveshaft rpm pi x diameter ■ circumference
• mph 3.1416x32 = 100.53”
To get a better understanding of vehicular inertia consider Next wc convert inches into feet by dividing die previous
two perfeedy identical cars with different final drive ratios answer by 12.
being the only difference. Obviously the one with the
numerically higher final drive ratio will theoretically accelerate 100.53 + 12 « 8.3775 feet
easier. Be careful here. Notice I said easier, not necessarily Io ger the number of revoluuons per mile, simply divide the
better. To choose the best ratio selection one will have to number of feet in a mile (5280) by the tire diameter measured
consider the traction limits and engine speed and torque curve in feet. In the case:
characteristics in order to optimize the final drive ratio. Let's
look at two vehicles in the chart above: 5280 + 8.3775 = 630.26 revoluuons
Which car will accelerate easier? Well let's apply die formula Now to get the driveshaft revolutions, or the number of
for equivalent vehicle inertia and sec what the results yield. times the driveshaft has to rotate per mile, wc multiply the tire
The formula for equivalent vehicle inertia (1) is: revoluuons umes die rear axle ratio.

I = (6.098 x vehicle weight) * (driveshaft rpm + mph)I2 630.26 x 4.11 - 2590.37 rev/mile
We begin by finding out die driveshaft rpm for car A. To do Since wc arc going 70 mph, die driveshaft revolves 70 times
that, wc start w'ith the tire diameter. Using the formula below; our value for 1 mile, or:
wc will calculate the number of revoluuons it takes the tire to

70 x 2590.33 - 181,323.1 rev/hour
Our driveshaft is rotating 181,323 times in an
hour at 70 miles per hour. If we want to convert this
into revolutions per minute, or rpm, we simply
divide the hourly rate by the number of minutes in
an hour (60) to get rpm. Remember, our formula for
equivalent inertia was:
181,323.1 + 60 = 3022 rpm
Now wc have all of the values we need to find our
inertia:
I ■ (6.098 x weight) + (driveshaft rpm + mph)2
I - (6.098 x 3800) + (3022 + 70)2
I = 23,172.4 + (43.17)2
I = 23,172.4 + 1864
I = 12.43 slug-fit for Car A
Now let's quickly do Car B the same way we did
car A. Wc will leave out all of the steps, since the
steps are identical, with only the rear axle value
1 = 20.12 slug-ft for Car B
If we recalculated the values for car B using yet a
different rear axle ratio ( 3.91), let's sec what
difference it would make:
1= 13.72 slug-ft
What a dramatic improvement! Ar this point, we
should be able to understand that a car with a higher
numerical ratio can accelerate easier, but suppose we
now had to compare two similar cars but with
different axle ratios, different tires and different
weights. How can we use this? Which car would have
the higher moment of inertia? Let's apply our
formula and see using the specs in Table B above.
Using our formula, wc find that Car C has an
equivalent inertia of 16.93 slug-ft and that Car D has
an equivalent inertia of 16.32 slug-ft.
So in this case wc sec that two seemingly different
cars have a verv close inertia. In this case Car C will
be at a slight disadvantage. Using a few formulas is
certainly easier titan changing a rear axle ratio!
Flywheel Comparison
Not only vehicles, but all masses, have moment of
inertia. Let's discuss just what this means in
automotive terms and how wc can calculate these
values. Let's look at a flywheel. For classification
terms, a typical flywheel is best categorized as a flat
disc, however, as we will show, two flywheels having
the same overall weight and the same diameter can
have two distinctly different moments of inertia. The
cross sections of two flywheels arc shown in Fig. 10a
Moment of Inertia
Table B
Weight Axle Ratio Tire Dia. Speed
CarC 3800 lb 4.11 32" 70
CarD 3200 lb 3.23 29" 65
Finding Tire Diameter
Using the Roll-Out Method
If you need to find your tire diameter while the tire is on the
vehicle, try this method. Find a section of flat level pavement and
make a chalk mark on die tire and the pavement at die 6 o'clock
position. Proceed to carefully roll the car forward until the mark on
the tire lines up in the 6 o'clock position again. Make another mark
on the pavement where the original mark on the tire meets the
pavement. Measure between the two marks on the pavement and
you will have the circumference of the tire. Once you have the
circumference in inches, divide that number by pi (3.1416) to get
the tire diameter in inches.
and Fig. 1 Ob on the next page.
The flywheel in Fig. 10a has its weight spread
evenly across the entire flywheel, while the second one
in Fig. 10b might concentrate its mass in a thick band
or ring of metal near die outer edge just inboard of
the ring gear. While both flywheels weigh die same,
die second flywheel with the concentration of mass
near the outer diameter will have greater inertia. In
the vehicle, if the power is the same, it will take more
time to accelerate than die first flywheel with its mass
located evenly across the diameter. In any form of
racing, acceleration plays a big part of the
performance equation, since the ability to get up to
speed after a comer or in the case of drag racing, after
leaving the starting line and after each shift, is critical.
Sometimes there arc cases where wc may want
Auto Math Handbook
Cross Sections of Steel Flywheels
Figure A
7.00"
Figure B
more inertia. In drag racing, a heavy car with a small
displacement engine without much torque will bog
or slow down dramatically when the clutch is
engaged at die starting line. When this occurs, the
rpm falls well below the torque curve and once diat
happens, it takes seemingly forever to regain the
original rpm. Here a heavy flywheel will store the
kinetic energy of the engine revving at the starting
line and when the car leaves die line, the flywheel
releases its stored energy and prevents the rpm from
falling too far. On the same token however, the
engine accelerates die heavy flywheel through each
gear more slowly than a similarly equipped car with a
fight flywheel due to the increased flywheel inertia.
In tiring to find the best answer for your car. you can
quickly get lost if you use flywheel weight instead of
using the flywheel's inertia value. Let's see how we
can calculate these values and how we could measure
them. Put more simply, inertia defines not only
weight, but where the weight is concentrated.
The formula for die moment of inertia in a plain
flat disc is:
J0=l/2MR2
where Jq = Moment of Inertia
M= Mass
R = Radius
Let's calculate the moment of inertia for a flat steel
disc 10" in diameter and 0.75 thick. First, we go to
the appendix and look up die weight for steel. Steel
weighs 0.28383 lbs. per cubic inch. So knowing that,
let's calculate the volume of steel involved. Using the
formula for the area of a circle:
a- riR2
where A = area; I~1 (pi) = 3.1416; R = radius
Wc plug in our values for pi if fl = 3.1416
R = 10" diameter ■? 2
R = 5 inches
So the area of our flywheel is:
3.1416 x 25 sq. inches = 78.54 sq. inches
To get the volume wc multiply the area by the
thickness T of the disc:
T = 0.75
78.54 x 0.75 = 58.905 cubic inches
Now that wc have the volume, we can get its
weight by multiplying by 0.28383 lb/cubic inch,
which is the weight per cubic inch of steel.
58.905x0.28383- 16.72 lb
Now we can calculate the mass:
M = W+g
where M = Mass; W = weight; g = acceleration due
to gravity = 32.2 ft/scc.2; M = 16.72 + 32 = M =
0.519.
Using this number, we apply the formula for
inertia Jo and we get:
Jo- 1/2 (0.519) x52
Jq = 6.49 slug-ft
Now what if wc have a 10" diameter flywheel that
has a thick outer rin^ but has a thin center and also
weighs 16.72 lb? Let s look at rhe difference in the
moment of inertia for this flywheel and compare it to
the flat disc flywheel above.
As wc see from the drawing, our new 10" flywheel
has an outer ring that has an inner diameter of 7"
and is 1.00" thick. The inner flange area of the
flywheel is 7.00" in diameter and 0.490" thick.
To find the total flywheel inertia, we divide the
flywheel into sections to get the individual inertias,
then add the individual inertias to obtain the total
inertia. First, wc calculate the inertia of the flat disc
that makes up the inner flange area. We begin by
finding the area:
riR2-A
3.1416 x (3.5)2 - 38.4845 sq. inches
Then wc multiply by the thickness to get the
volume:
38.4845 x 0.490" = 18.8574 cubic inches
We multiply the volume times the unit weight of
steel to get rhe weight of the center flange:
18.8574 cubic inches x 0.28383 lb/cubic inch = 5.35 lb
Next we calculate the inertia of die flange area,
using rhe formula from above.
 Moment oe Inertia

Jo = 1/2 MR2 MOMENT OF INERTIA FORMULAS

Wc begin by finding the mass of die flange area: Theseformulas will help with calculationsfor Moment ofInertia
MPH
5.35 lb -5-32.2 ft/sec2 = 0.1661 lb mass mph = (D x rpm) + 336 x Gr
Jo = 1/2 (0.1661) (3.5)2 where: D = diameter of tire in inches; rpm = revolutions per
Jo = 1.0174 slug-ft minute; Gr = drive axle ratio
Next wc calculate the inertia of the outer ring of
our flywheel. When do this by taking the total inertia l ire Diameter
of a 10" diameter flat disc that is 1.00" thick and D = (336 Gr x mph) + rpm
subtract the inertia of a 7" disc of the same thickness. where: D = diameter of tire in inches; rpm = revolutions per
We already know our area from above: minute; Gr = drive axle ratio

R2 = area = 78.5398 sq. inches

Our thickness is 1.00", which makes our volume:
The rotational
inertia of this
Volume = area x height traditional steel
78.5398 x 1.00 ■ 78.5398 cubic inches flywheel can be
Now wc multiply by the unit weight of steel to get calculated and
our part weight: compared to
other alternatives
by using some
78.5398 x 0.28383 = 22.29 lbs simple formulas.
We get the mass by dividing by 32.2 ft/ sec2: Whenever
considering the
22.29 + 32.2 = 0.692 lb mass inertia of a part,
never rely on the
Again, we use the formula for inertia:
weight of the part
Jo =1/2 MR2
alone to
Jo - 1/2 (0.692) (5)2 determine the
1/2x0.692x25-8.65 slug-ft inertia because sometimes parts which weigh less can have higher inertia and
Now wc do the same inertia calculation for a 7.00" vise versa. Photo by Bill Hancock.
diameter disc that represents the middle. Then we
find the inertia of the outer ring by subtracting the
inertia of the center disc from the total flywheel have the inertia of just the thick outer ring.
inertia. So the area of the center is:
8.65 - 2.077 - 6.573 slug-ft
3.1416 x 3.52 = 38.48 sq. inches To this, we add the value of the thin center flange
78.54 - 38.48 = 40.06 square inches that wc found earlier:
Now we multiply that by the thickness of 1.00" to
get the cubic inches of the ring: 6.573 + 1.0174 = 7.5904 slug-ft
Now we compare this to our original flywheel that
38.48x1.00 = 38.48 cubic inches was 0.750" thicK and weighed die same.
Then multiply by 0.28383 to get the weight:
Inertia Weight
38.48x0.28383 = 10.92 lb Flywheel A: 6.49 slug-ft 16.72 lb
Wc convert the weight to mass: Flywheel B: 7.59 slug-ft 16.72 lb

10.92 4 32.2 = 0.3391 lb mass What a difference! 1.1 slug-feet may not seem like
Next wc calculate the inertia of the center disc, a lot, but try a back-to-back comparison in die car by
using the formula from above: switching flywheels and y'ou will feel the difference,
but more imporranrly, so will the car.
Jo= 1/2 (0.3391 )(3.5)2
Jq = 2.077 slug-ft
Now if we subtract the inertia of the inner disc
from the inertia of the total thick flywheel, we should
 Chapter 11
Aerodynamics
The Outlaw dirt track cars use massslve wings about as large as the
entire chassis to create huge amounts of downforce. The downforce is
required to allow the tires to gain traction or grip. Photo by Bob Bolles.
Vehicle aerodynamics has become increasingly important in
studying the effects of air resistance and lift on vehicles. As a
vehicle moves in a given direction, it is essentially creating a
hole in the air by moving the air aside. When the vehicle
passes by any given point, the hole that was initially created by
the vehicle closes back up. This passage creates drag or
resistance on die vehicle. Put very simply, there arc two major
components of this resistance. Shape, referred to as Cd (a
dimensionless number called the coefficient ofdrag) and Size Af
{frontalarea measured in square feet) when multiplied
together create CdA. CdA is a composite number which gives
a value for overall resistance.
Land speed cars at the Bonneville Salt Flats come in all
shapes and sizes. The small frontal area of a streamliner,
coupled with its smooth shape, create a vehicle that requires
far less horsepower than it's full-bodied cousins to go very fast.
Obviously a Class A motor Coach represents the opposite end
of the scale, a large frontal area with the aerodynamic
attributes or Cd of a cinder block. No matter how swoopy you
make the body, the fact drat you are trying to punch a huge
hole in die air requires a tremendous amount of horsepower.
As the speed increases, the resistance increases as rhe square of
die velocity.
R« Af 0.0025 V2 where:
R = Resistance in Ibf
Af= Frontal area
V = Velocity in mph
Horsepower Required
Obviously, as a vehicle increases in speed, more and more
horsepower is required. Until the late '60s, the method for
making a car go fast was to create more horsepower in the
engine. Then aerodynamic cars like the Dodge Daytona and
Plymouth Superbird were created as ways to achieve the faster
speeds without having to create more engine horsepower.
The racers soon realized that the way to reduce the required
horsepower or aerodynamic horsepower is to reduce cither the
coefficient of drag or reduce the frontal area or both.
HP = (V3 x Cd x Af) + 146,600 where:
HP = horsepower
V = velocity in mph
Cd = coefficient of drag
Af - frontal area
To illustrate, consider a race car with a frontal area of 21 sq.
fit. running at Daytona while testing two engines. The two
engines are separated by 1.5 mph lap speeds. The first engine
averages 187.6 mph while the second averages 189.1 mph. So
for the first engine:
HP = (6,602,349.4 x 21) + 150,000
HP = 924 hp
And for the second engine:
HP = (6,761,991.0 x 21) + 150,000
HP = 946.68 hp
A difference of 22.36 hp. So to go from 187.6 mph to 189.1
mph requires 22.36 hp for that particular car. Now let's do it
 Aerodynamics

The Dodge and Plymouth winged cars of the early 70s were perhaps the most effective use of aerodynamics for stock
cars. They were soon legislated out of existence. Here we see that the frontal area while already small is also aided by
the fact that the car is low to the ground. The size of the hole that this car makes decreases as the car gets lower. It
becomes apparent why cars are checked for height after the race as well as before. Photo by Tom Sturgeon.

again with the same cars but at 100 mph and 101.5
mph:
Carl
HP - (1,000,000 x 21) + 150,000
HP = 140.0 hp
Car 2
HP = (1,045678.4 x 21) + 150,000
HP-146.4 hp
A difference of 6.4 hp. This illustrates how much
horsepower is required just to run 187 mph, and
how much less is required to run 100 mpn. It also
should illustrate just how much more horsepower it
rakes to incrementally raise the speed from 187.6
mph to 189.1 mph.
Frontal Area
To get the true frontal area of a vehicle, the
blueprints must be carefully measured and the
incremental areas all addeef up. For a person just
trying to do some rough calculations multiply the
vehicle height by the width times 0.8 shown in the
following formula:
WxHxO.8 = Af
W = width in feet
H = height in feet
Af- frontal area in sq. ft.
How Does Frontal Area Affect Horsepower
Required?—Let s take die previous example where
weliad two engines and use the more powerfill
engine at 946.68 hp and die car widi a frontal area of
21 sq. ft. We know that it ran 189.1 mph. Let’s
suppose that the crew' chief lowered die car 1.5" for
qualifying. How' fast w’ould it go? The car originally
was 74.11 inches wide and 51 inches high:
74.11 x 51 = 3779.6 square inches.
To convert back to square feet, divide by 144 or
26.24 square feet. Then we multiply by 0.8 to get
our adjusted frontal area of 21 square feet.
Now let's do this again but this time we will use
49.5 inches for die height and see what happens:
49.5x74.11 = 3915.95 sq. in.
Auro Math Handbook
Yaw is difficult to accurately
measure since it is a dynamic
phenomenon. Today most teams use
a yaw meter in their onboard data
instrumentation package to capture
the yaw angle as the car goes
around the track. Photo by Tom
Sturgeon.
We divide this by 144 to get 25.47 sq.ft. Now wc
multiply by 0.8 to get our adjusted frontal area of
20.38 sq. ft. Now let's rerun the original horsepower
calculation to see the difference in speed.
hp = (mph3 x Af) -r 150,000
If we rewrite the formula and solve for mph, it
becomes:
mph3 = (150,000 x hp) * Ap
mph3 = (150,000 x 946.68) ♦ 30.36
mph3 = 6,974,558
If we use our calculator and take the cube root of
6,974,558, we end up with 191.0.
So we just learned that by dropping the car 1.5 ’ wc
were able to pick up the speed by almost 2 mph.
Knowing this, it should come as no surprise that
NASCAR inspectors insist that all cars meet all the
templates and vehicle heights exacdy. It also explains
why vehicles are measured for height AFTER die
race to make sure they didn't accidently drop an inch
or two during the race.
Roll, Pitch and Yaw
In addition to creating resistance on a car going
down the road, aerodynamics play a big pan in tnc
handling as well. Wc have all seen spoilers and wings
on cars over the years, now let's examine what they
really do and how they affect the vehicle handling.
Before we can begin our discussion, let’s define
these three basics ot vehicular motion. Originally
associated with aircraft and boats, the automotive
engineers have adopted them to better describe and
quantify the motions as applied to road vehicles.
Think of cars as airplanes that taxi really fast but
never (hopefully) get off the ground.
Roll—Roll is defined as rotational movement
around the longitudinal axis which enters the grille
and exits through the trunk while passing through
the center of gravity and staying parallel to the
ground. Typically we see roll when a car enters a
corner and rolls to one side.
Pitch—Imagine an axis that enters the driver's side
and exits from the passenger side of the car while
passing through the center of gravity. This axis is
perpendicular to the roll axis. The resultant positive
and negative rotation could be compared to die
motion a rocking horse would produce.
Yaw—The axis enters the roof and exits from die
bottom of the vehicle while passing through the
center of gravity and while staying perpendicular to
both die roll and pitch axis. A vehicle diat spins out
could best illustrate extreme yaw. Interestingly, most
oval track cars are in a constant state of yaw as they
proceed around the track
Vehicular aerodynamics usually do not play a big

HANDLING BASICS
Forget aerodynamics for the moment. As a
vehicle increases speed, the cornering forces increase
due to centrifugal force. Tires provide resistance to
prevent the car from spinning out. The force that
the tire can generate to counteract these centrifugal
forces depends on not only the size and compound
of the tire, hut more importantly on the amount of
normal or downward force applied to the tire. This
can best be demonstrated by taking a partially
deflated basketball and dragging it across a glass
table top. If you simply drag the ball across the
table, it has some resistance, but not much. If you
then have a friend push down on the ball while you
try to drag it across die table, it becomes clear that
normal force or downforce is critical. As with
anything, there can be too much and when rhat
happens, rhe tires become overloaded and actually
lose tractive effort as the weight increases.
We typically see overloading when a car suddenly
spins out in a corner. Usually after careful analysis,
you will find that the car suspension has bottomed
out causing the load on a particular tire to increase
dramatically. Ar this point, die tire loses its ability
part in roll, but they have an incredible effect on
pitch and yaw. Cornering forces typically induce roll.
Pitch is the most obvious place to begin. Viewed
from the side, when air moves over and under a car,
it creates forces which act on the vehicle. These forces
translate to the suspension and either remove or add
force or weight to the tires. At speed, some cars tend
to lift the front end while others tend to lift the rear
end. Lift can have a positive or negative value.
Negative lift is often referred to as downforce. By
using spoilers on die front end, called chin spoilers
and spoilers or wings on the deck lid, the engineers
and vehicle aerodynamicists do what is called balance
die car. The goal is to create a vehicle which has a
steady and predict able ratio of front and rear down
force, while maintaining a low drag profile. The ratio
of front to rear down force is called the pitch couple.
Saying it like that makes it sound simple. Making a
car that is well balanced aerodynamically while still
maintaining low drag resistance can take months of
wind tunnel and track testing. As the vehicle
increases in speed the front and rear lift forces tend
to increase. Sometimes, the change front to rear is
disproportionate and the handling becomes
compromised at a given speed range. When weight is
Aerodynamics
to maintain a high tractive load and the reduction
in cornering resistance causes the car to lose
traction and either oversteer or understeer.
Our goal with aerodynamics is to provide
additional downforce in proportional amounts as
the speed increases, hopefully without adversely
affecting the drag. At this point, you should
understand that aerodynamics can become a game
of compromises. When you finally get the pitch
couple in. a workable range, the drag becomes high
and the car slows down. When you get the drag
reduced so the car can go fast, it may not want to
handle. In the end, when you get the car so it is fast
and so it handles well, then the driver complains
that it is fine until he gets around other cars in
traffic or until he goes past the grandstands and
catches a side wind.
Aerodynamics is a science and as such is best left
to the truly qualified aerodynamicists. Casually
adding a spoiler or wing can have huge unintended
and deadly consequences. Be especially careful, or
as die fine print says, 'Don't try this yourself.'
removed from the front tires for example, the tractive
effort of those tires is decreased, so in this case, the
car would understeer or "push.' In the same way,
added downforce on the rear might also cause the car
to understeer because the car would lift the front end
due to the added weight on the rear. The goal of
aerodynamic tuning is to maintain the same pitch
couple or the correct balance of front to rear forces.
Finding the comfortable balance of front to rear
forces comes from wind tunnel data followed by on-
track testing. As the cars become more competitive
the qualifying aero setup differs from the race setup.
During a race, the car must be stable when other cars
arc surrounding it and affecting its aero balance.
Yaw plays a part of the aerodynamic equation
when tne vehicle tries to move from side to side or
during cornering. An unstable car will spin out very
quickly, whereas a car like the old Plymouth
Superbirds and Dodge Daytonas with their twin
upright tail fins will go through a corner like it is on
rails. Yaw also creates an additional problem of
increasing the frontal area. To understand this take a
model car on a table top and twist it slightly sideways
then move it down the table in its sideways position.
The true exposed frontal area increases as the yaw
Auto Math Handbook
This Dodge
Charger has a
number of
aerodynamic
features to aid
In handling and
drag reduction.
Photo by Tom
Sturgeon.
angle increases. Years ago, some of the sharper
NASCAR teams realized this and mounted the
bodies slightly twisted on the car with what could
best be termed reverse yaw. As a result, when the car
chassis proceeded around the track mostly in vaw,
the body was perfectly aligned aerodynamically with
the direction of travel anc hence used less power.
Going back to pitch: what the engineers strive for
is the correct pitch couple. Pitch couple is the sum of
die forces applied to the front and rear of the car
which while acting together try to rotate the car
around the pitch axis. The goal becomes to measure
these forces and then adjust the spoilers and other
aerodynamic aids to ensure that both the front and
rear tires have the proper loading so rhe car exhibits
neutral handling where it is neither oversteering nor
understeering.
Roll, pitch and yaw do not really have a great effect
on vehicle handling ar speeds below 60 mph.
However, drag has an increasing effect on anything
going over 20 mph. Widi fuel economy being so
critical, all of rhe major vehicle manufacturers have
spent millions working on improving their drag
coefficients. As we have seen, frontal area is the key.
Once you get the car as low and as narrow as
possible, then you must focus on the drag coefficient.
While shape does matter some things do not.
One of the most frustrating things about
aerodynamics is that we cannot sec the air. Often in
pictures you see the cars being tested in the wind
tunnel and smoke being used for flow visualization.
The trained acrodvnamicists can make subtle
changes that the uninitiated would never think of by
merely looking at their wind tunnel results. After a
few trips to the wind tunnel, the novice
aerodynamicists soon learn that "if it looks good, it
probably isn't." The trained aerodynamicists make
seemingly simple changes and subtle shape
modifications which make all the difference in the
world. The gifted vehicle aerodynamicists can simply
visualize air and manage it. When working with an
aerodynamicist, make sure they have wheeled vehicle
experience. While all of the basic principles hold
true, wheeled vehicles have a different set of
aerodynamic parameters and goals, since hopefully
they never fly but merely taxi quickly and efficiently.
Ram Air Pressure
With many vehicles using hood scoops, the
question becomes how much pressure is generated in
the hood scoop when the vehicle is at speed.
Obviously as tnc inlet air pressure increases, the
engine tuning will change, since more air is being
forced into the engine by the higher pressure. A
handy formula can be found in the HPBooks'
Engine Airflow by Harold Bettes.
Rjur - mph2 + 56,725
where Rajr = ram air presssure in psi
mph = vehicle velocity in mph

Drag cars like this Hemi Challenger driven by JC Beatty have reduced their
rolling resistance by making sure the alignment is perfect, the brakes don’t drag
and the drivetrain friction is minimal. Photo by John DiBartolomeo.
A vehicle has resistance to rolling that comes from a variety
of places. For our needs, these can be best quantified by
looking at the tires, gearing, brake drag, wheel alignment and
bearing loading. These forces typically rise with increasing
vehicular weight. For comparison, lets look at a child's roller
skate. It has hard wheels, oversize ball bearings, no gear train
and non-stccrable axles. In addition it has only the weight of a
small child supported by four hard wheels. It stands to reason
that the rolling resistance of a roller skate is very low. An 18-
wheclcr loaded to 120,000 lb with a few undcrinflated tires
could have huge rolling resistance.
In order to put a measured number on this resistance, we
could tow the vehicle with very sophisticated instruments and
measure what is called die force to maintain velocity. In its
basic form, this involves towing the subject vehicle and
measuring the forces required to maintain various speeds.
Once you look deeper, you realize that in order to eliminate
die aerodynamic factors, a really long tow rope is required.
This becomes very impractical as well as downright dangerous.
Do not tty this! A much simpler method is to measure coast
down.
Coast Down
The principle here is to measure the combined effect of the
various forces creating resistance on die vehicle. Aerodynamic
resistance and rolling resistance will be the major contributors.
This is by far the safest and most practical method. Almost
everybody employs this method in one form or another to
evaluate the overall drag due to rolling resistance as well as
aerodynamic drag.
Find a deserted stretch of straight level road with a low
Chapter 12
Rolling
Resistance
traffic count, and at least two miles long. Decide on an upper
and lower speed value. Enter the stretch at a safe speed, take
your foot off the gas, carefully shift into neutral and start a
stopwatch when the car passes down through your upper limit
speed value. Stop die watch when you pass through the lower
limit speed value. Turn around and repeat going in the
opposite direction on the same stretch of highway. By running
both ways, you will cancel the wind and grade effects if any.
Average the two numbers and you have a beginning data
point. You should practice this several times until your results
are very close. Fry making your change and then repeat the
test. Factors such as wheel alignment, tire pressure, vehicle
attitude or rake angle, vehicle height, brake drag and other
losses can be easily identified. ’Fhe only ironclad rule is to
make only one change at a time.
The beauty of a coast down test is that it combines all of the
factors into one very simple but repeatable test. In order to
make the test more reliable, be sure to repeat the test exactly
for a minimum of three times, or until the data is repeatable
within two percent.
If possible, use a GPS device for speed indication, since
they typically arc very accurate and will measure in
increments of one mph.
Tire Pressure
Obviously tire pressure affects rolling resistance as well as
vehicle height. Try varying the tire pressure while staying
within the vehicle manufacturer’s recommended pressures.
The recommended pressures are derived from extensive testing
to ensure the best and safest handling within all vehicle
applications.
Au ro Math Handbook
RAKE ANGLE
This magnetic inclinometer is attached to a flat spot on
the rocker panel to measure the rake. If your rocker
doesn’t have a flat spot, use a straight 2x4 to average out
the bumps and measure from it Photo by Bill Hancock.
Rake angle is die angle dtat typically the underside
of the rocker panel makes with rhe ground plane.
This angle is measured in degrees and is usually
anywhere from 2 to 4 degrees negative, meaning
that die front of the vehicle is pointed slighdy
downward when viewed from the side. There arc
two measurements for rake. Static rake is the angle
measure when die vehicle is at rest on a flat level
surface. Dynamic rake is the attitude that the
vehicle assumes when the vehicle is at speed. Static
and dynamic rake angles are rarely if ever the same.
Dynamic rake is influenced by the positive and
negative lift at both ends of die vehicle as well as
the drivetrain torque effects. When testing a vehicle
in the wind tunnel, you must carefully rake rhe
attitude into consideration in order to tune for the
true attitude as opposed to the static attitude.
Vehicle handling and tractive effort depend greatly
Wheel Alignment
Proper wheel alignment is obviously a great
contributor to rolling resistance. If the tires arc not
properly aligned, the scrubbing can result in added
rolling resistance. Be sure to check bodi the front and
rear alignment, especially for toe-in or toe-out. Cars
with independent rear suspensions are more
vulnerable to misalignment than those having
traditional one-piece, rear-axle housings. If your
vehicle has ever Been in a collision, be sure to have
the alignment checked by a competent shop.
Sometimes just pulling a car out of a ditch after it
has become stuck will affect the wheel alignment. As
suspension pares wear, alignment also changes.
on unit tire loading at speed. If for example a car
has too much front end lift it may result in an
understeering condition due to the fact that the
tires don’t have sufficient weight or downforce on
them to produce a meaningful lateral tractive force.
Standing still on a set of scales in the pits, a car may
show adequate wheel weight, but out on the track,
once aerodynamic lift occurs, it may not want to
turn at all. Always keep a close eye on rake angle
and carcfiilly record the value for each step of your
testing.
Measuring Rake Angle—Rake angle is measured
by finding an absolutely flat and level area larger
than your vehicle and placing a straight edge on the
bottom side of rhe rocker panel. Either place a
protractor on the bottom side of the straight edge,
and read the degrees of rake directly or simply find
a flat spot on the floor that is relatively level and
make two marks on the straight edge that arc 57.3
inches apart. Have your helper hold die straight
edge on the bottom of die rocker panel while you
make two measurements to the ground, one from
each of the previous marks. Subtract die front
measurement from the rear measurement and the
number of inches will equal the degrees of rake.
This is a simple use of the Sine function. If you
diink of the rocker panel as being the hypotenuse and
the ground being the base of a right triangle, then the
height of the triangle divided by the hypotenuse is the
Sine of die angle, while it is not perfect, it will suffice
for what you are doing in the pits.
Weight
When doing coast down testing, always try to have
the same fuel load and overall weight, since weight
affects rolling resistance as well as vehicle rake and
height.
Brakes
Check the brakes to make sure that they7 are
properly adjusted and do not have any undue drag,
since this will greatly affect rolling resistance. Disc
brakes often will not retract all the way after every
stop causing parasitic friction.

Even the most humble doorslammer can be driven to quicker ETs and faster terminal speeds if the
driver knows when to shift for optimum performance. But that takes homework! Photo by Larry
Shepard.
To ger rhe best acceleration out of a high-performance
vehicle during shifts, hot rodders say you should stay "on the
cam." What they mean is that you should keep the engine
within an rpm range where it is delivering optimum torque
before and after each shift. As the vehicle speed increases,
shifting to a higher gear will allow the engine to operate in
this high torque part of the performance curve.
The first step toward finding what that range might be is
to use a dyno chart. So, once more, let's turn to the dyno
chart in Fig. 13a, which is the same one used in Chapter 4. In
order to calculate shift points, though, you'll be primarily
concerned with rpm and torque, not horsepower, because it's
torque that accelerates an automobile.
Next, you need to know the loss or gain in rpm when you
shift from one gear to another.
Example—Suppose you have a Chevrolet powered by the
modified 350 cubic-inch engine with output specifications
shown in Fig. 13a, with a Warner 1-10 four-speed gearbox
which has ratios of 2.20 in 1st, 1.66 in 2nd, 1.31 in 3rd and
direct 1.00 drive in 4th. When you drag race, you shift at
6000 rpm. How much rpm do you lose during the shift
from, say, 1st to 2nd?
You can find out by dividing the ratio in 1st gear into the
ratio in 2nd. The result will be a percentage which, when
multiplied by the rpm in 1st, will provide the equivalent rpm
in 2nd. Or, expressed as an equation:
RPM After Shift = (ratio shift into ratio shift from) x rpm
before shift
Chapter 13
Shift
Points
With the Warner T-10, divide the 2.20 lst-gcar ratio into
the 1.66 2nd-gear ratio and multiply by 6000:
RPM After Shift = (1.66 + 2.20) x 6000 = 0.7545455 x 6000
The engine speed in 2nd will be 4527 rpm. Subtracting
that figure from 6000, you'll find you have a drop of 1473
rpm or about 25 percent. Obviously, you can also apply the
formula to shifts from 2nd to 3rd and from 3rd to 4th. From
2nd to 3rd, the engine speed will drop from 6000 to 4735
rpm, a loss of 1265 rpm or 21 percent; from 3rd to 4th, it
will fall from 6000 to 4580 rpm, losing 1420 rpm or 27
percent.
Driveshaft Torque
But, given the torque characteristics shown on the dyno
chart, is 6000 rpm the best point at which to upshift? To
answer that question, you need to know the driveshaft
torque being delivered to the rear wheels before and after
each shift. That's simply a matter of multiplying the brake
torque at the flywheel by the transmission ratio, or:
Driveshaft Torque = flywheel torque x transmission ratio
According to Fig. 13a, you have 300 lb-ft of torque at the
flywheel at 6000 rpm. With a 1st gear ratio of 2.20, that
becomes 660 lb-ft being delivered from the transmission via
the driveshaft to rhe drive wheels.
What about the friction mentioned in Chapter 12? Won't
the output from the transmission to the driveshaft be slightly
Auto Math Handbook

RPM LB-FT BHP

3000 340 194
3200 340 207
3400 345 223
3600 345 236
3800 350 253
4000 350 267
4200 340 272
4400 335 281
4600 330 289
4800 325 297
5000 315 300
5200 310 307
5400 305 314
5600 305 325
Reducing the time that the engine is not delivering power to the driveline is 5800 305 337
the key to quicker ETs. Photo by Bill Hancock. 6000 300 343
6200 280 331
6400 255 311
less than rhe inpur ro rhe transmission from the 6600 240 302
flywheel? Yes, it will be. But it doesn't really affect 6800 190 246
the comparative validity of our driveshaft torque 7000 160 213
figures so, to simplify your calculations, you
needn't take it into account here.
All right, you have 660 lb-ft of driveshaft torque Fig. 13a. This chart shows the torque and horsepower
at 6000 rpm in 1st gear. When you shift into 2nd, for a modified 350 cubic-inch Chevy at Intervals of 200
the rpm drops to 4527. According ro Fig. 13a, the rpm from 3000 to 7000 rpm as measured on a dyno.
engine has 330 lb-ft of torque at 4600 rpm.
Multiply that by a 2nd gear ratio of 1.66 and the there's no difference between the flywheel and
result would be 548 lb-ft of driveshaft torque. driveshaft torque figures.)
During the shift from 1st to 2nd, you've lost 112 In the 7th column is the change, minus or plus,
lb-ft of driveshaft torque or about 17 percent. A 17- in driveshaft torque after the shirt. After each of the
pcrccnt drop in torque during an upshift doesn't three shifts, the least change in the 7th column
sound like a good way to win a drag race. occurs at 6600 rpm. During the shift from 1st to
2nd, there is a loss of only 5.0 lb-ft at that engine
Ideal Shift Points speed; from 2nd to 3rd, a gain of 8.0 lb-ft; and
To find the ideal shift points for this particular from 3rd to 4th, a gain of 1.0 lb-ft.
combination of Chevy' engine and Warner gearbox, Below 6600 rpm, there are much greater drops in
the two formulas discussed in this chapter were torque after the shift. Above 6600, there are gains in
used to construct the charts shown in Fig. 13b on torque after the shift but at die price of losing torque
page 63. There's a separate chart for each shift, and, with it, momentum before the shift. So 6600
from 1st to 2nd, 2nd to 3rd, and 3rd to 4th. The rpm seems to be the best shift point across the board.
shift points arc shown at 200-rpm intervals from There’s a drag racer's rule of thumb that the best
6000 to 7000 rpm. shift point is at an engine speed 10 percent beyond
The rpm immediately before the shift is in the 1st the horsepower peak. The dyno chan shows the
column. In the 2nd is the brake flywheel torque at horsepower peak at 6000 rpm and, of course, 6600
that rpm, as shown on the engine dyno chart, and rpm is exactly 10 percent beyond that. However,
in the 3rd is the driveshaft torque ar that rpm. that should be regarded as an interesting coincidence
The 4th column displays the rpm immediately and not conclusive proof of the rule of thumb.
after the shift. The 5tn shows the flywheel torque at Downshifts—The formulas can also be used to
the rpm on the dyno chart closest to the rpm after calculate changes in rpm and torque during
the shift, and die 6th the driveshaft torque after the downshifts. Let's say you're running a T-I0
shift. (Note that in 4th gear, which is direct drive, equipped sports car in a road race. You're heading
 Shift Points

toward a turn at 4000 rpm in 3rd gear. How high
should the engine be revved for a downshift to 2nd?
Divide 1.31 into 1.66 and multiply by 4000. The
engine should be turning a theoretical 5069 rpm as
you go from 4th into 3rd; "theoretical" because not
even a pro Indycar or NASCAR driver can
coordinate a tach reading and throttle pressure
closely enough to achieve that precise an engine
speed! You would gain a theoretical 1069 rpm, an
increase of approximately 27 percent. During that
shift—using the torque figures from Fig. 13a at
4000 and 5000 rpm—thcre'd be a gain of 64 lb-ft
in driveshaft torque. Here, too, it would be
instructive to develop charts showing the changes at
different shift points.
These formulas aren't complicated but, obviously,
you could spend a lot of time with them,
calculating different combinations of torque, rpm
and gearing. And those calculations might just win
a race or two.

Fig. 13b. By
Shift from 2.20 1st to 1.66 2nd using engine
RPM brake lb-ft shaft lb-ft RPM brake lb-ft shaft lb-ft loss/gain dyno figures
6000 300 660 4527 330 548 -112 and gear
ratios to plot
6200 280 616 4678 330 548 -68 driveshaft
6400 255 561 4829 325 540 -21 torque before
6600 240 528 4980 315 523 -5 and after
6800 190 418 5131 310 515 +97 upshifts at
7000 160 352 5282 310 515 + 165 different rpm,
it's possible to
determine the
Shift from 1.66 2nd to 1.31 3rd shift point at
RPM brake lb-ft shaft lb-ft RPM brake lb-ft shaft lb-ft loss/gain which the loss
6000 300 498 4735 325 426 -72 or gain in
6200 280 465 4893 325 426 -39 torque is
lowest
6400 255 423 5051 315 413 -10
6600 240 398 5200 310 406 +8
6800 190 315 5366 305 400 +85
7000 160 266 5524 305 400 + 134

Shift from 1.31 3rd to 1.00 4th

RPM brake lb-ft shaft lb-ft RPM brake lb-ft shaft lb-ft loss/gain
6000 300 393 4580 330 330 -63
6200 280 367 4753 325 325 -42
6400 255 334 4885 325 325 -9
6600 240 314 5038 315 315 +1
6800 190 249 5191 310 310 +61
7000 160 210 5344 305 305 +95
Auto Math Handbook

FORMULAS FOR
SHIFT POINTS
Rpm After Shift ■ (ratio shift into ratio shift from) x rpm before shift

Driveshaft Torque = flywheel torque x transmission ratio

 Chapter 14
Quarter-
Mile E.T.
and MPH

The best way to find a car's quarter-mile elapsed time and terminal speed is to run it at
the drag strip. However, Patrick Hale's Quarter and Quarter jr. computer programs can
predict quarter-mile performance with surprising accuracy. Even his simplified formulas
for e.t and mph can provide useful comparative data for different combinations of
power and weight Photo by Bob Johnson.

Computer Programming precisely as Quarter or Quarter Jr. But they do provide

In 1985, Patrick Hale, a drag racer, engineer and computer
programmer, combined his interests and developed
computer software daat predicts how a car should perform in
the quarter mile. Called Quarter the program predicts
elapsed rimes and speeds accurately, because it takes into
account practically every mathematical variable that can
affect acceleration, from gearing and shift points to drag
coefficient and polar moment of inertia. It also shows what
modifications will help a car's performance and what will
hurt it—before the owner spends cold, hard cash for actual
parts. All you need is an IBM compatible PC. The current
version is now called Quarter Pro.
For some racers, the program was too good. It required
data that those running on limited budgets simply didn't
have and couldn't get. So, a year later, Hale introduced a
simpler, lower-priced program called QuarterJr.; it focuses
on readily available specs and provides its own built-in
estimates of rhe more advanced details. Both editions arc
available at quarterjr.com.
At either programming level, the two variables that arc the
most important are horsepower and weight. The higher the
power and/or the lower the weight, the faster and quicker
rhe car will go.
In the course of developing his computer programs, Hale
came up with formulas for computing quarter-mile elapsed
time or e.t. and terminal speed in mph from just power and
weight. Because they don't consider any other variables,
these formulas can’t and don't predict performance as
useful—and comparative—estimatcs.
Elapsed Time
The formula for elapsed time (e.t.) involves the cube root
of the weight-to-power ratio multiplied by a constant of
5.825, while the formula for terminal mph calls for the cube
root of the powcr-to weight ratio multiplied by a constant of
234. Note an important distinction here: For e.t., you want
weight-to-power, i.c., lb per horsepower. For mph, you want
f>ower-to-weight, he., horsepower per pound. Here's the e.t.
ormula in proper mathematical form:
c.t.= ^'(weight + hp) x 5.825
Suppose you have a Corvette that weighs 3440 lb,
complete with fuel and the driver aboard, with a 245-hn
engine. According to the formula, its quarter-mile e.t. should
be 14.05 seconds. Road & Track once tested just such a
combination and posted an elapsed time of 14.6 seconds.
Without considering any other variables, Hale's formula has
come within 4.0 percent of an actual test run.
Power or Weightfrom E. T.—From the formula for e.t.,
formulas can be derived to find either power or weight,
when the other is known. To find how much hp would be
needed to propel a car of a given weight to a given e.t.,
divide the weight by the cube of the e.t. divided by 5.825:
HP = weight -r (e.t. ■? 5.825P
For the 3440-lb 'Vctte to post an e.t. of 14.05 seconds, it
Auto Math Handbook
The advantage of using computer performance predictions is that tracks are
not always open or available for testing. The computer program will allow
you to eliminate most of the poor combinations. Photo by Bill Hancock.
This Mustang Is hooked up and has virtually all of the weight on the rear
wheels as it leaves the starting line. Consistent traction conditions are
important when testing. Photo by Bill Hancock.
would need—surprise!—245 lip. If the unknown
were the weight, you could find it with the cube of
the e.t. divided by 5.825, multiplied by the hp:
Weight = (c.t. + 5.825)3 x hp
And how much should the 245-hp, 14.05-second
Vette weigh? The answer is 3438 lb. (The calculator
lost a couple of pounds in rounding errors.)
Miles Per Hour
Patrick Hale's formula for mph at the end of a
quarter-mile acceleration run is:
mph = 3\ (hp + weight) x 234
For the Corvette, the speed would be 97 mph.
Road & Track's test figure was 95.5 mph. So, this
time, the formula's error is less than 1.6 percent!
Power or Weightfrom MPH—Again, formulas
can be derived to find either power or weight. To
find the hp, the cube of the mph divided by 234
should be multiplied by the weight:
HP » (mph + 234)3 x weight
To propel the 3440-lb 'Vette to 97 mph in the
quarter-milc, you’d need—yes—245 hp.
To find the weight, the cube of 234 divided by
the mph should be multiplied by the hp:
Weight ■ (234/mphp x hp
Here, die weight works out to 3439.5 lb, only
1/2-lb off.
Realistic Input = Realistic Output
As I said earlier, these formulas aren't as precise as
Hale's computer programs, and they won’t show
the effects of any modifications in areas other than
power and weight. But, considering their simplicity
and how easy they arc to work, they come
remarkably close to real-life figures.
How close depends on rhe accuracy of the input,
and that can be a problem. Drino Miller, a race car
builder and driver once remarked that he’d tell
anyone whatever they wanted to know about any of
his cars except two things, their power and their
weight, because, in his words, "Everybody lies
about those.
He had a point. Exaggerated claims about power
and weight are among the most common tactics
racers use in their constant efforts to psych out one
another.
It was in the interest of accuracy that I used Road
& Track test figures to demonstrate Hale’s quarter-
milc formulas. Road & Track actually weighs its test
vehicles, while many other magazines simply print
curb weights provided by the auto makers, and
those arc often highly optimistic.
But, as I've tried to show, with realistic input, the
formulas can provide surprisingly realistic output.
Gearing for Quarter-Mile Speed
One of the tacit assumptions of Patrick Hale's
formulas is that the vehicle is properly geared and
that, of course, may or may not be true. It's possible
that the gearing might be too low—or too high—to
enable the car to reach the quarter-mile speed
indicated by die formula.
However, once the potential speed has been
calculated, there’s a formula from another source
for determining the optimum overall gearing. It's
from Larry Shepard, formerly of Mopar Performance
 QUARlER-MlLE E.T. AND MPH

and, for a car with a manual gearbox, it is:

Overall Gear Ratio = (tire dia. -5- 340) x (rpm + mph)

The Corvette discussed earlier has 275/40ZR17
tires, which would have a diameter of 25.66 inches.
(How we found the diameter is explained in
Chapter 18.) The engine could be revved easily to
5500 rpm, and Hale s formula predicted a speed at
the end of the quarter mile of 97 mph. Plugging the
necessary figures into Shepard's formula:

Overall Gear Ratio = (25.66 + 340) x (5500 + 97)

Overall Gear Ratio » 0.0754706 x 56.7
The recommended overall gear ratio would be
4.279183, or about 4.28.
How does diac compare with the Corvette’s
actual gearing? Well, it has a 3.07 final drive but, as
A consistent launch will provide good repeatable data for comparison. Try to
it cleared the end of the quarter, it was still in rhe launch the car the same each time when doing your testing. Photo by Bill
3rd of its 4 gears, with a ratio of 1.34. Multiplying Hancock.
3.07 by 1.34, the overall ratio is 4.11. That's just
slightly more than 4.0 percent off the formula's
recommendation! With an automatic transmission,
the constant 335 replaces 340:

Overall Gear Ratio = tire dia. 335 x rpm + mph

Had the Vette been equipped with a Turbo
Hydra-Matic, the recommended overall gear ratio
to reach a quarter-mile terminal speed of 97 mph
would've been 4.3431297 or, rounded off, 4.34.

Constant Source
Where do formulas like these come from? In
particular, where did Patrick Hale get his constants
5.825 and 234 and Larry Shepard his 340 and 335?
The answer is that the constants were derived
empirically. That's a fancy way of saying by trial
and error—a lor of trial and error! In Larry
Shepard's case, vehicles were run using only engines
Performance for cars like this altered which have a high power to weight
where accurate dyno data was available and a true ratio can be easily predicted using one of the many PC based programs.
weight was measured before each run. Additionally Photo by Bill Hancock.
the runs were corrected for atmospheric and wind
conditions. Additionally segmented times were
monitored to ensure consistent traction.
Alto Math Handbook

FORMULAS FOR
QUARTER-MILE E.T. AND MPH
E.T.= (weight * hp) x 5-825

IIP = weight -r (e.t. v 5.825)3

Weight = (e.t. + 5.825P x hp

MPH = 3\ (hp + weight) x 234

HP = (mph -r 234)3 x weight

Weight = (234 + mph)3 x hp

Overall Gear Ratio (manual transmission) = (tire diameter + 340 mph) x (rpm v mph)

Overall Gear Ratio (automatic transmission) = (tire diameter -r 335 mph) x (rpm + mph)

With a personal computer, you can design and run a virtual engine using software like
Dynomation, that is readily available and reasonably priced. Photo by Bill Hancock.
Today there are many computer programs that nor only
predict vehicle performance but also simulate engine
operation while capable of running on a laptop computer
with amazing results. Other programs aid in engineering
calculations and chassis design. Prior to the personal
computer, there were some sophisticated vehicle
performance programs which took massive and expensive
computers such as the CRAY in order to run. Then in rhe
mid-’70s, programmers like Curtis Leaverton with
Dynomation, and Alan Lockheed with Engine Expert (latest
Windows version available through audictcch.com), hit the
market with sophisticated but easily run programs that did
an amazing job of predicting performance engine output.
There are many inexpensive programs diat will also run on
a laptop and solve complex problems with relative case.
There are a few like the two previously mentioned that arc
highly detailed and will produce incredibly accurate results.
The ProRacing Sim division of Comp Cams
(info@proracingsim.com) offers many different programs
ranging from the introductory engine performance software
to sophisticated software which is extremely accurate and
able to manage a wide array of inputs. To run most of the
more sophisticated programs, you will need to supply input
data such as compression ratio, bore and stroke, cylinder
head flow figures, component weights, and engine specific
information such as valve type lobe profile and camshaft
centerline.
However, the entry-level programs arc wonderful in that
they do not require a lot of user input. The user is able to
Chapter 15
Computer
Programs
choose from a menu of camshafts and exhaust systems as
well as compression ratios. The prices start at under $100
and go up from there. In each case, the cost of the gaskets
alone to build one engine is more than the price of the
program to sec if the engine combination you have designed
will work. It takes literally minutes to sec how a particular
combination works. Once you find a combination that suits
your needs, you can cont inue to refine and rerun the system
with very minor changes until you maximize the output.
Find one of these programs that fits your needs ana learn
how to use it. The results will amaze you, and in the end save
an incredible amount of time and money If you arc just
starting out and don't know where to go, many of the
manufacturers offer help on their web sites and some still
offer a telephone help line. All of die OEM's and now many
of the professional engine builders use this type of program
to give them a quick way to design and qualify engine
concepts before committing any time or money to the
project.
Mitchell Software
Wm. C. Mitchell (MitchcllSoftware.com) offers a whole
range of programs to design and develop vehicle suspension
and handling. Teams ranging from entry-level autocross
racers up to and including Formula 1 and NASCAR Sprint
Cup teams have used his offerings with great success. Until
you have actually tried to design a suspension system, you
will not appreciate the work that is saved, much less the
speed and accuracy of the final results. Gone are the days of
Auto Math Handbook

Laptop
computers have Handheld Computers
become very Computech Systems, Inc. has a whole system
powerful and with specific applications for racing and tuning that
extremely
fits on a personal digital assistant (PDA) and
versatile. With
the influx of new utilizes tne Palm Operating System. You can walk
software, the around with an incredible amount of computing
users can power held literally in your hand. Many of the
explore applications discussed in this book are available
solutions never already preloaded into the system. Many racers and
before
attainable. You tuners use the popular weather correction system to
do not adjust their jetting or fuel map at the track as the
necessarily have weather changes.
to know the The system docs require inputs such as
actual
barometric pressure, and wet and dry bulb
engineering
behind the temperatures. In order to provide accurate readings,
software; user- you have to be careful where you take the data. Try
driven menus will help you find the solution. Photo by Bill Hancock. to take all of the data such as ambient temperature
and barometric pressure at die track and within 30
minutes of your test. Do not rely on television
trying to design steering geometries using paper and weather reports for accurate barometric readings,
string. This software puts an incredible amount of since the data may be from a different area and up
design and development expertise in your hands. to several hours old. All of the good programs
Until recently, the only way to have this amount of include a detailed user manual which covers the
expertise was to hire a chassis designer. application of the programs. Take some time and
There are user groups available online where you learn how to use the program before you go to the
can rradc ideas and concepts if you so choose. track. Practice using the program at home and in
While the formulas for much of the afore­ the garage so when you get to the track you are
mentioned are available, they involve a fair degree familiar with the operation and don't become
of higher math, but more importantly, unless you confused and make a costly mistake. If you test on a
use tne formulas everyday, the chances of making a dyno, use your tuning programs and since you have
mistake either in application or execution arc great. an instantaneous result you will be able to confirm
Look around at the pros; they all use computer your predictions. This exercise will provide the
simulation in one form or another. The exercise practice you need to feel comfortable with the
today is in finding a suitable version for your needs. program.

Port Area
Many engine simulation programs require data
Today cell on intake and exhaust port areas. The area they arc
phones and looking for is the minimum cross sectional area in
PDAs have the port itself. This area may also be referred to as
numerous
inexpensive
the choke area of the port. The smallest cross-
applications or sectional area of the port typically occurs
"apps" that can somewhere near the valve guide boss inside die
be downloaded port. The valve guide and its support bosses require
and provide a fair bit of area, and hence reduce the overall area
instant and
convenient
of the port in that location. How do you measure
answers to many this, much less even find it?
common Begin by removing a cylinder head from the
problems the engine, or if you arc just in the design phase of your
automotive project, take a flow model and remove the valves.
enthusiast
encounters.
Clean up a pair of ports and valves using
Photo by Bill Hancock. ScotchBrite or some comparable product to remove
the carbon from the interior of the port. Next,

One of the inputs that you will need for most serious
engine performance programs is the choke diameter of
the intake port. Here is a rubber mold being cut at the
smallest area and perpendicular to the centerline of the
port Photo by Bill Hancock.
install die valve and either spray or rub some release
agent over everything in the port and backside of
the valve head and stem surface.
You will need to acquire some rubber molding
product used in metrology. A product called Blu-Sil
CMC (cold molding compound), made by the
Perma-Flex Mold Company, Inc. has served well in
this application for years. These products arc often
referred to as metrology casting materials. They arc
usually designated as a two part silicone based
molding compound. Carefully weigh the
components using a postal scale and using a tongue
depressor stick, thoroughly mix the material
together in an old plastic butter container according
ro the directions. Prior to mixing the material, have
the head with the valve installed and the entire
interior surface coated with release agent, supported
on a bench with the appropriate port flange facing
up. Pour the material into the port slowly to
eliminate air bubbles. Do not fill the port fully.
Leave at least four inches to be filled. 1 lave a
relatively large diameter dowel about eight inches
long, coated with release agent ready. Hang the
dowel so that it is suspended deep into the center of
the port, then continue to fill the port all the way
up. Leave the filled port to set for at least 30 hours
at room temperature. Once the mold has hardened,
remove the dowel and then carefully remove the
mold. The reason for the dowel becomes apparent.
Once it is removed, the resultant hole allows the
mold to collapse and greatly eases removal from the
port. It will still require some careful work to
Computer Programs
Here is the area we are interested in. Once you have this area, simply take
the rubber mold and trace around the perimeter of the section, then use a
planimeter or the squares method to get the area. Photo by Bill Hancock.
remove the mold without breaking it, but if you
were careful to coat all of the surfaces with release
agent in the beginning it should be able to be done.
Once tlie port mold is removed and cleaned, look
at it from the side and visualize a line running
down the center of the port. Get a long razor knife
or an electric kitchen knife and carefully cut
sections of the port which arc perpendicular to the
centerline of the port. Next, use a piece of paper
and a pencil to trace around the sections of port
and then measure them with a planimeter until you
find the one with the smallest area. The smallest
one determines the choke area or smallest area of
the port.
For some programs, you will need to know the
volume of the port/s. This can be done much like
the previous example, except once the port is
cleaned, apply a small amount of light grease on the
valve scat and assemble the valve with a retainer and
light spring to keep it firmly closed. Support the
head again so the flange is facing up and somewhat
level. Using a burette and a plate to seal the top of
the port, fill the port through a hole in the plate
with fluid until the port is full. The plate is not
required, it just makes the process easier and more
accurate, since the flange docs not have to be
perfectly level. You will have to repeat this for the
exhaust port as well.
Other Programs Available
Computer programs arc available for
sophisticated camshaft analysis as well as vehicle
performance predictions. The important thing to
remember when using any computer program is to
Auto Math Handbook
SEMINARS
Today there arc many opportunities to learn from respected
experts in the field of racing and performance through seminars
and user groups. Annual seminars like the AETC—Advanced
Engine Technology Conference, offer a three-day format where
300-500 participants typically have ten to twelve formal technical
presentations conducted^by leaders in the field as well as the
opportunity to mingle and converse with the speakers during
meals and in between presentations. These seminars are open to
the general public and do not require any al filiation or
requirement beyond the attendance fee.
The AETC offers a rare opportunity to ask questions of the
experts who at any other point in time arc typically too engaged in
their own projects to spend time on general questions.
make sure you understand the inputs so yo u are
able to enter or load the correct data. If you make
an error here, the answer will be wrong and you
may never know ir.
The advantage of the programs is their wealth of
complex computing power, using some fairly long
and involved equations. Some very intelligent
programmers spent a great deal or time refining the
programs so they would produce worthwhile results
very quickly. You are able to profit from their efforts
without having to go through all of the math or
engineering involved in finding and applying the
proper formula to fit the application.
There are new applications being added every
day. Begin by going online and looking at a
particular area of interest. For example, there arc
programs available which let you predict your initial
carburetor jetting very precisely. Once you have the
engine running, you can refine your jetting
selections either on the dyno or at the track. There
are programs which let you keep track of the
optimum fuel air ratio as well as the resulting
vehicle performance by tracking the weather
correction factor.
With the rising popularity of smart phones,
numerous free or relatively inexpensive applications
or programs have become available which let the user
merely download the application to their phone.
These applications are growing by leaps and bounds.
The popularity and wide availability of onboard
data acquisition coupled with the rise in
performance analysis programs has forced all of the
serious competitors to invest in the technolog}’ if
they expect to become or remain competitive. With
the sheer number of engine and chassis component
choices available in the market, there is no way to
carefully evaluate them all. Computerized analysis
lers us sort through a number of camshafts for
example without ever having to leave our computer.
Seminars and on-line user groups serve to educate
the interested participants about rhe finer points of
the various programs and lead to an even greater
knowledge base. The users who take advantage of
this vast knowledge bank can ultimately become
quite successful.
The Internet has broadened the knowledge base as
well. Many of racing's technical secrets are now
openly discussed and debated at length. With this
transparency comes the caveat that just because
somebody has posted something as factual docs not
mean that it is. With digital photography and image
manipulation, you can see almost any phenomenon
on YouTube today. The potential user should ensure
that the proposed solutions or the results are valid
before trying it themselves. The laws of physics and
thermodynamics still govern many segments of life.
Do not try to circumvent them!

The tachometer can be tested for accuracy on an electronic diagnostic
machine at the neighborhood garage, while the speedometer and odometer
can be checked against measured miles on the highway or against a GPS unit
Photo by Bill Hancock.
When a car's performance is measured at a drag strip, oval
track or road course, it's normally done with the racing
facility's timing equipment, using instruments that arc finely
calibrated for accuracy. After all, races are often won or lost
by hundredths and sometimes even thousandths of a second.
Bur when a car's performance is measured on the street or
highway, the driver usually has to rely on the vehicle's own
instruments—specifically its tachometer, speedometer and
odometer—ana they're not likely to be all that finely
calibrated!
Testing Instruments
The tachometer is the easiest to check for accuracy. At your
neighborhood garage, there's likely to be an electronic
diagnostic machine that can be hooked up to show engine
rpm, and you can simply ask the technician to compare your
tachometer's reading to that of the machine.
1 he speedometer and odometer arc more problematic and,
to check them, you may have to take the car to a shop
specializing in automotive instruments. Or, if you belong to
a car club, they may have a set of in-car instruments to
gather vehicle performance data that die members can
borrow.
Today, by far the most readily available and accurate speed
check is a hand-held GPS (Global Positioning System). By
utilizing one of these units while running your tests you can
be assured of extremely accurate readings. Not only will they
give speed but also some of them are equipped to read
elevation changes.
Chapter 16
Instrument
Error and
Calibration
Speedometer
It's also possible to check rhe speedometer with a
stopwatch. For the test, you'll need a stopwatch, a level
stretch of highway with a marked measured mile, and cither
a cruise control or a well-disciplined right foot.
In some states, there arc posted speedometer checks along
major highways, with 5 or 10 marked miles. But even where
there aren't such posted checks, there arc often less
conspicuous mile markers along the roadside.
With the stopwatch, time the vehicle over the marked mile
at a steady indicated speed. To find your actual speed in
mph, divide the number of seconds it takes you to drive the
mile into 3600, the number of seconds in an hour:
Actual mph = 3600 -e- seconds per mile
If the indicated speed is more than the actual speed, the
speedometer reads fast. If the indicated speed is less than the
actual speed, the speedometer reads slow.
Example—If you drive a measured mile at an indicated 50
mph and it takes 72 seconds:
Actual mph » 3600 -e- 72
The actual speed would be the same as the indicated, 50
mph. At that speed, at least, the speedometer would be
correct. In other words, there is no error.
Now, let's suppose the measured mile at an indicated 50
mph takes 75 seconds:
Actual mph = 3600 + 75
Auto Math Handbook
On highways where there are no posted speedometer checks, there are often
less conspicuous mile markers along the roadside, such as surveyors1
marks, but It may take some cruising to find them. Try to use newer
highways, since the mile markers are still fresh and have not been replaced
after something mowed them down and their original location was lost
Photo by Bill Hancock.
The actual speed would be 48 mph. That 's 2 mph
less than the indicated speed, so the speedometer
reads Fast. Okay, suppose the time was only 70.5
seconds:
Actual mph = 3600 * 70.5
According to the calculator, that would be
51.06383 mph, which should be rounded down to
51.06. That’s 1.06 mph more than the indicated
50, so the speedometer reads slow.
Speedometer Error Percentage—If the
speedometer error is substantial, you should have
tne speedometer gear replaced with one that will
provide more accurate readings. To choose the new
gear, the speedometer shop will need to know the
percentage of error with the present gear.
To determine the percentage, start with the
difference between tnc indicated and actual mph by
subtracting the smaller figure from the larger. Then
divide that figure by the actual mph, and multiply
the resulting decimal by 100 to convert it to
percent:
Percent Error = (actual speed - indicated speed) +
(actual speed x 100)
When you went an actual 48 mph at an indicated
50 mph, the difference was 2:
Percent Error = (2 + 48) x 100
At an indicated 50 mph, the speedometer was
4.17 percent fast.
In the example where you went an actual 51.06
mph at an indicated 50 mph, the difference was
1.06:
Percent Error = (1.06 + 51.06) x 100
At an indicated 50 mph, the speedometer was
2.08 percent slow.
Odometer Error
To find the odometer error, it’s desirable to use
more than 1 measured mile—5 miles at least, 10 if
possible. The greater the distance, the more
accurate the check will be. This time, though, you
don't have to drive the vehicle at a steady speed or
to time it with the stopwatch.
Note the odometer reading at the beginning of
the measured distance and again at the end. To find
the indicated distance, subtract the first figure from
the second, or:
Indicated Distance - Reading at finish - Reading at
start
On an analog (as opposed to digital) odometer,
pay particular attention to the reel at die right end,
indicating tenths of a mile. If the number isn’t
centered right in line with the odometer’s other
numbers, interpolate the reading out to
hundredths. For example, if at the start or finish of
a run, the reel’s display is midway between 2 and 3,
it’s showing 0.25 mile. If it’s 2/3 of the way
between those two numbers, it s showing
approximately 0.27 mile.
If the indicated distance shown on the odometer
is more than the measured distance, the odometer is
fast. If the indicated distance is less, the odometer is
slow.
Odometer Error Percentage—To find the
percentage of odometer error, use the same formula
you did tor speedometer error, but with actual and
indicated distances rather than speeds, or:
Percent Error = (difference between actual and
indicated distances) + (actual distance x 100)
Suppose that over a measured five-milc stretch,
the odometer actually records 5.15 miles. To find
the percentage of error, divide the 0.15 difference
between the actual and indicated figures by the
actual figure and, of course, multiply by 100:
Percent Error ■ (0.15 + 5) x 100
The odometer is 3.0 percent fast.
 Instrument Error and Calibration

Inconsistencies
In the examples of how to find speedometer error, Speedometer
die figures used were for an indicated speed of 50 Indicated Speed Actual Speed Error DifFcrcncc/Pcrcent
mph. I'he percentage of error won't necessarily be the 25 20 5/25
same at other speeds and a professional speedometer 30 25 5/20
check will cover a broad range of speeds. 35 28 7/25
Similarly, the percentage of odometer error won't 40 33 7/21.2
necessarily correspond with the speedometer error. 45 38 7/18.4
If one reads fast, the other probaoly reads fast, too, 50 42 8/19
but not always to the same degree. 55 46 9/19.6
A real world example of such discrepancies is 60 50 10/20
shown in a chart in Fig. 16a. When the final drive 65 54 11/20.3
gears in my own car were replaced by gears with a 70 58 12/20.6
numerically higher ratio, the speedometer and 75 62 13/20.9
odometer were thrown way off. The figures in the 80 66 14/21.2
first two columns of the chart are the actual and
indicated readings recorded at an auto club facility. Odometer
The figures in die other column show the Indicated Actual Error Difference/Percent
differences between the actual and indicated Distance Distance
readings and the percentages of error ar the various 100 88 12/13.6
speeds checked.
At the bottom of the chart are the figures for the
odometer. Note that its percentage of error is Fig. 16a
considerably less than any of the percentages for the
speedometer.
Finally, to answer an obvious question: yes, the
speedometer drive gear has since been replaced with
one that's brought die readings back down closer to
Here is a
reality! speedometer
If you have a cable driven speedometer or odometer transmission.
and there are no gears available for the correction you This fits inline in
need, you may want to consider a compact the speedometer
cable on older
transmission which fits in line with die transmission
cars. It can be
and speedo cable. This transmission allows you to helpful when
change die ratio by using the supplied gears. there is not an
appropriate
speedometer
gear available to
make the
correction. These
transmissions
are available at
speedometer
shops or online.
Photo by Bill
Hancock.
Al io Math Handbook

FORMULAS FOR
INSTRUMENT ERROR
Actual MPH = 3600 + seconds per mile

Speedometer Error Percent = (difference between actual and indicated speeds) + (actual speed x 100)

Indicated Distance = (odometer reading at finish) + odometer reading at start

Odometer Error Percent = (difference between actual and indicated distances) + (actual distance x 100)

The formulas for engine speed In rpm, vehicle speed in mph, overall gear ratio
and tire diameter can be useful for analyzing the behavior on the road, track or
strip of high-performance cars like this Barracuda T/A. Photo by Bill Hancock.
There are four significant, interrelated specifications—
speed in miles per hour or mph, engine revolutions per
minute or rpm, overall gear ratio and tire diameter in inches.
Given any three of these, it's possible to determine what the
fourth is—or should be.
Determining the values for these four areas can be useful
for analyzing the behavior of high-performance cars on the
road, track or strip.
Miles per Hour
The raw formula for finding vehicle mph involves
multiplying engine rpm by 60 (the number of minutes in an
hour) by pi (the constant 3.1415927) times the tire diameter
(which provides the circumference of the tire in inches) and
then dividing by die overall gear ratio times 63,360 (the
number of inches in a mile), or:
mph = (rpm x 60) x (pi x tire diameter) -e- (gear ratio x
63,360)
The constants in the numerator, 60 and pi or 3.1415927,
can be multiplied together to become 188.49556. That
figure, in turn, can be divided into both die numerator and
denominator, eliminating it from the numerator and
reducing the constant in the denominator to 336.13524.
That can be rounded down to 336, and the formula becomes
a much more manageable:
mph « (rpm x tire diameter) 4 (gear ratio x 336)
Chapter 17
MPH, RPM,
Gears and
Tires
Example—Io demonstrate that formula, let's suppose you
have a Ford Mustang with a 5.0-liter V-8 and a five-speed
transmission with ratios of 3.35 in 1st, 1.93 in 2nd, 1.29 in
3rd, direct 1.00 in 4th and overdrive 0.68 in 5th. The final­
drive ratio is 3.08 and the tires have a diameter of 26 inches.
In the quarter-mile, you run through 1st, 2nd and 3rd,
shifting at 5500 and you want to know what speed you reach
in each gear. For 1st gear, multiply 5500 by 26 and then
divide by the 1st gear ratio of 3.35 times the final drive ratio
of 3.08 times the constant 336:
mph - 1(5500 x 26) * (3.35 x 3.08 x 336)]
mph = 143,000 + 3466.848
By completing the division, you'll find that at 5500 rpm in
1 st gear, the Mustang will be going 41.247842 mph or,
rounded up, 41.25 mph. Similarly, the formula will show
that at 5500 rpm in 2nd, the little Ford will be doing 71.60
mph, and in 3rd, 107.12 mph.
Revolutions per Minute (rpm)
Now let's suppose you want to know the rpm at a given
mph. For that, the formula would be:
rpm = [(mph x gear ratio) x 336] + tire diameter
What would the Mustang's rpm be out on a rural highway,
running in 5th gear at the legal max of 65 mph?
rpm = [(65 x 0.68) x (3.08 x 336)1 + 26
rpm = 45741.696 * 26
Auto Math Handbook
How do
changes in
gearing or tire
size affect the
engine or
vehicle speed
of a vehicle
like this street
rod? You can
find out by
applying the
formulas in the
text. Photo by
Bill Hancock.
The answer is 1759 rpm. The engine is loafing
when cruising in overdrive, and that means good
fuel economy.
Overall Gear Ratio
But suppose you'd rather gear rhe car for
maximum response at highway speed. At 65 mph,
you want to he able to downshift from 5th to 4th
and be at the Mustang V-8's torque peak, which
happens to be 3000 rpm, in order to have optimum
passing ability. The overall gear ratio, which in
direct drive 4th gear would simply be the final drive
ratio, is now the unknown and the formula is:
Gear Ratio = (ipm x tire diameter) * (mph x 336)
The figures for the Mustang would be:
Gear Ratio = (3000 x 26) + (65 x 336)
Gear Ratio - 78,000 + 21,840
You should have a 3.57 final drive ratio in order
to reach 3000 rpm at 65 mph in 4th gear. Final
drive gears don t come in an infinite variety of
ratios, though, and the closest you're likely to come
to the ideal figure would be 3.54. To sec what the
rpm would be with that ratio, let's go back to the
formula for rpm:
rpm » (65 x 3.54) x (336 + 26)
rpm = 77,313.6 -e- 26
That gives you 2973.6 rpm, which is certainly
close enough for all practical purposes.
Tire Diameter
Finally, there's the formula for tire diameter:
Tire Diameter ■ [(mph x gear ratio) x 336] + rpm
Going back to modifying the Mustang to turn
3000 rpm at 65 mph in 4tn gear, you could achieve
a similar effect by changing the tire size instead of
the final drive ratio:
Tire Diameter a [(65 x 3.08) x 336] + 3000
Tire Diameter = 67.267.2 + 3000
The Lowdown—According to the formula, you’d
need tires with a diameter of 22.4 inches to do the
job. That would convert the Mustang into
something of a low rider, which might have ground
clearance problems on steep driveways. But, as a
quick and dirty way of achieving the wanted
relationship between mph and rpm, it would work.
There is another problem, though. With the
change in tire size, die speedometer will no longer
read accurately. You can find what the error is with
the techniques described in Chapter 16, or you can
figure out what it should read with a formula
presented in Chapter 18.
Meanwhile, you'll find the formulas that have
been discussed here—especially those for mph, rpm
and gear ratio—among the most useful you can
know, and I bet you'll be turning to them often.
When you get used to working with them regularly,
you'll probably wonder how you ever got along
without them.
 MPH, RPM, Gfars and Tires

FORMULAS FOR
MPH, RPM, GEARS AND TIRES
MPH = (rpm x tire diameter) -r (gear ratio x 336)

RPM = [(mph x gear ratio) x 336] + tire diameter

Gear Ratio = (rpm x tire diameter) * (mph x 336)

Tire Diameter = [(mph x gear ratio) x 336] * rpm

 Chapter 18
Tire Sizes and
Their Effects
This lifted SUV has a raised eg and tons of ground clearance. By using
much taller tires, the speedometer will have to be carefully calibrated to
ensure accuracy. Photo by Bill Hancock.
Suppose you're planning to replace the tires on your car or
truck with larger diameter ones. Say, for example, you have a
high-performance car and need bigger rubber at the rear for
better traction at the drag strip. Or you have a four-wheel-
drive vehicle and want to increase its ground clearance for oil­
road driving. Whatever your reason for wanting bigger tires,
there arc a couple of important questions to consider.
First, what effect will the new tires have on the overall
gearing? The vehicle may not respond the way you're used to,
and you may find it necessary to downshift more frequently.
You may even have to change the final-drive ratio in order to
retain—or regain—the original level of performance.
Second, the speedometer will read too slow. On the
highway, you may be deceived into thinking you're cruising at
the legal maximum, when actually you're well over it and ripe
for a speeding ticket.
Tire Diameter
Fortunately, if you know the diameters of both the new and
old tires and the vehicle's existing final-drive ratio, you can
calculate the effects the bigger tires will have ahead of time.
Your local tire dealer or the tire manufacturer's web site should
have charts showing the diameters of the various tires they
carry. Or you can simply apply a tape measure to one of the
tires currently on your car or truck, and to one of those you're
considering as replacements. Make sure that the tires arc
properly inflated when you make these measurements.
Section Height and Width—You may also be able to figure
out the diameters of the tires from their respective sizes. In the
old days when 6.00 x 16 was the standard size on many
popular cars, it was easy. The tire's section height—the
distance between the edge of die rim and the face of die
tread—and the section width—the distance between the
sidewalls on cither side—were about the same.
In the case of a 6.00 x 16, the section height and width were
both alxjut 6.0' and the tire was mounted on a 16 wheel. To
find rhe diameter, you simply multiplied the section height,
6.0", by 2, giving you 12", and added that to the wheel rim
diameter, 16", for an overall figure of 28".
For modern heavy-duty truck tires, the sizing system is even
more straightforward. For example, a 31x11.50x15 tire will
have a nominal diameter of 31" and width of 11.5 , and will
fit a 15' wheel. Frankly, though, we are hedging widi that
word "nominal,'’ because tire industry standards allow up to a
7.0 percent variation from specified dimensions.
Aspect Ratio—Modern passenger car tires and light-duty
truck tires aren’t sized quite so simply. In most cases, their
section height and width arc no longer alike. The height is
usually much less than the width, and the relationship
between the two—the aspect ratio—is an important part of
their specs. The aspect ratio is the percentage the section
height is of the section width.
Generally speaking, passenger car and light truck tires arc
now produced in metric sizes that indicate the section width
in millimeters, the aspect ratio in percent and the wheel rim
diameter in inches.
Example—As a case in point, let’s take an LT235/75R15
tire. The LT means it's a light truck tire; if it were a passenger
car unit, it would have the initial P instead. Similarly, the R
means it's a radial, while a B would indicate bias-belted
construction. The 235 is the section width in millimeters and
the 75 is the aspect ratio, indicating that the section height is

75 percent of the section width. Finally, the 15 is the
rim diameter in inches.
Metric Tire Diameter
To find the diameter in inches of a metric size tire,
you must first find the section height in inches. To
do that, you convert the section width, 235
millimeters in our example, to inches by dividing it
by 25.4, the number of millimeters in an inch. Then
you convert the aspect ratio, 75, to a decimal figure
by dividing it by 100.
Multiply the quotients of these two calculations
together to find the section height in inches. Double
that figure and add the wheel rim diameter, which is
already given in inches, and rhe result will lie the
diameter of rhe tire in inches.
Expressed as a formula, that would be:
Tire Diameter ■ [2 x (section width + 25.4) x (aspect
ratio + 100) + rim dia.]
That can be simplified somewhat to:
Tire Diameter = 2 x [(section width x aspect ratio) +
2540] + rim dia.
Plug in the appropriate specs for a LT235/75R15
tire:
Tire Diameter = 2 x 1(235 x 75) + 2540] + 15
Tire Diameter ■ (2 x 6.9) + 15
That would work out to a section height of 6.9
and an overall diameter of 28.88”, which, of course,
could be rounded up to 28.9”.
Checking the specs for three different BFGoodrich
radial light truck tires available in the LT235/75R15
size—the Sport Truck T/A, All Terrain T/A and
Mud-’lerrain T/A—you would find dieir diameters
are listed as 28.9, 28.98 and 29.09", respectively, all
of them within less than 1.0 percent of our
calculated figure for that size.
I have assumed the wheel rim meets a tire industry
standard requiring a rim width that is 70 percent of
the tire section width. For every 0.5' increase or
decrease in rim width, there would be a
corresponding 0.2 increase or decrease in the section
width of the mounted tire.
Effective Drive Ratio
16 find what the effective overall drive ratio would be
with a given increase in tire diameter, the formula is:
Effective Ratio = (old tire diameter + new tire
diameter) x original ratio
Tire Sizes and Their Effects
The Chevy Suburban has larger diameter tires that provide obvious benefits in
ground clearance for rough, off-highway terrain. But the taller tires also
require different axle gearing and recallbration of the speedometer and
odometer. Photo by Bill Hancock.
Example—Suppose you have a set of 28.9”
LT235/75R15s on a four-wheel-drive truck with a
3.08 final-drive ratio and, to increase the ground
clearance, you want to replace them with 33'
33x12.50x15s. To find the effective drive ratio with
the bigger tires, the figures would be:
Effective Ratio ■ 28.9 + 33 x 3.08
Effective Ratio = 0.8757576 x 3.08
With die bigger tires, the effective ratio is only 2.70!
That’s enough of a change to cause a noticeable loss
in responsiveness. In order to keep the same overall
ratio, you would need to change the rear axle ratio.
Equivialent Drive Ratio
To find the final-drive ratio needed with the new
tires to provide die equivalent of the vehicle's
performance with the original tires, the formula is:
Equivalent Ratio = (new tire diameter + old tire
diameter) x original ratio
Note that the positions of the tire diameters in this
formula are reversed from their positions in rhe
formula for effective ratio. In the case of die switch
from 28.9 to 33" tires on a vehicle with a 3.08 final
drive, the figures would be:
Equivalent Ratio = (33 + 28.9) x 3.08
Equivalent Ratio » 1.1418685 x 3.08
That works out to 3.51, so a set of final-drive gears
in the 3.50-plus range would be needed to restore
the lost responsiveness.
Auro Math Handbook

Tires come in a
meantime, though, it would be helpful to know what
variety of sizes
and more the indicated speed would be at an actual 65 mph,
importantly using die formula:
tread patterns
and diameters. Indicated mph » (old tire diameter + new tire
Even changing
tire diameter to
diameter) x actual mph
a smaller size Or, using the figures in the ongoing example:
can have a
dramatic effect Indicated mph » (29.8 + 33) x 65
on final drive Indicated mph » 0.8757576 x 65
ratio and your
speedometer
At an actual 65 mph, the indicated speed would be
accuracy. Photo 56.9 mph. If you keep die speedometer reading
by Bill under that figure, you won't get stopped for breaking
Hancock. the 65 mph limit.

Downsize Tires
Although most auto enthusiasts would be more
This handy
speedometer likely to want an increase in tire size than a decrease,
transmission the formulas for effective and equivalent drive ratios
shown in and for actual and indicated mph would be equally
Chapter 16 valid for a change to smaller tires.
attaches In­ As an example, consider that improbable Mustang
line with the
speedometer low rider described in Chapter 17. To recall its
cable and pertinent specs, its old tires were 26" in diameter and
allows you to its new ones 22.4", while its final drive ratio was
compensate 3.08. 'Io find its effective drive ratio with the smaller
for different tires, die equation would be:
gear ratios
and tire sizes.
Photo by Bill Effective Ratio = (26 + 22.4) x 3.08
Hancock. Effective Rado ■ 1.1607143 x 3.08
And the effective ratio would be 3.575. To find the
equivalent ratio:

Equivalent Ratio ■ (26 + 22.4) x 3.08

Speedometer Correction
Assuming the speedometer was accurate with the
original tires, the formula for determining what the
actual speed is at any indicated speed with die bigger
tires is:
Equivalent Ratio = 0.8615385 x 3.08
The theoretical ratio would be 2.6535385 or,
rounded down 2.65, and the closest gearset to that in
the Mustang parts catalog is a 2.73.
With an uncorrected speedometer, what would the
actual speed be at an indicated 65 mph?

Actual mph = (new tire diameter + old tire diameter) x Actual mph= (26 + 22.4) x 26
indicated mph Actual mph = 0.8615385 x 65
Following the swap from 28.9" to 33" tires, what The answer is an even 56 mph. Finally, what
would the actual speed be at an indicated 65 mph? would the indicated speed be at an actual 65 mph?

Actual mph = (33 + 28.9) x 65 Indicated mph « (26 * 22.4) x 65

Actual mph ■ 1.1418685 x 65
The actual speed, rounded down, would be 74.2
mph. In many parts of the country, that's more than
enough to attract the attention of the state highway
patrol. Of course, you can get a new speedometer
drive gear, as suggested in Chapter 18. In the
Indicated mph = 1.1067143 x 65
And the answer this time is 75.446429 or, rounded
up, 75-45 mph.
Note that earlier, with taller tires, the speedometer was
slow. Now, with smaller or shorter ones, the instrument
is fast, meaning that the speedometer indicates a faster
 Tire Sizes and Their Effects

speed than the vehicle is actually traveling.
WJry the Diameter?—Mathematically, the
relationship Between final-drive ratio or speedometer
reading with different tires is in direct proportion to
the differences in the sizes of the tires. The formulas
would work equally well with the respective rolling
radii or circumferences. You could also use the
respective revolutions per mile of the tires; in that
case, though, the results would be in inverse rather
than direct proportion.
But, generally, the tires’ diameters are among the
easiest specs to find, even with the mumbo jumbo
needed to calculate the diameter with a metric size,
and that’s why they've been used here.

FORMULAS FOR
TIRE SIZES AND THEIR EFFECTS
Tire Diameter « 2 x [(section width x aspect ratio) f 2540] + rim diameter

Effective Ratio = (old tire diameter f new tire diameter) x original ratio

Equivalent Ratio = (new tire diameter f old tire diameter) x original ratio

Actual mph = (new tire diameter + old tire diameter) x indicated mph

Indicated mph = (old tire diameter f new tire diameter) x actual mph
 Chapter 19
Average MPH
and MPG
Most drivers are already familiar with the formulas for miles
per gallon and miles per hour. Knowing how to manipulate
them properly can add to both the efficiency and enjoyment of
highway travel. Photo by Bill Hancock.
The formulas for average fuel mileage and average highway
speed arc familiar to most drivers. In fact, the expressions used
to describe these two quantities—miles per gallon and miles
per hour—are statements of their respective equations.
Miles per gallon means the distance driven in miles divided
by the amount of fuel used in gallons, or:
Miles per Gallon = miles traveled + gallons consumed
Miles per hour means the distance driven in miles divided
by the time of rhe trip in hours, or:
Miles per Hour - miles traveled 4 hours
Now lets take a closer look at average fuel mileage.
Miles per Gallon (mpg)
Suppose you drive from Boston to Washington, D.C. Your
first stop is in New York City, which is 208 miles from
Boston, and your car uses 10.4 gallons of Riel. What would
the average Riel mileage be?
Miles per Gallon = 208 + 10.4
You got an even 20 miles per gallon.
Fuel Range—Suppose your car has an 18-gallon tank. If
you hadn't refilled in the Big Apple, how far could you have
gone before you had to stop for Riel? In other words, what
would your fuel range be in miles?
Miles = miles per gallon x number of gallons
Which, in this case, would be:
Miles = 20 x 18
Or 360 miles. You’ve already driven 208 miles, so you
could’ve gone up to 152 miles farther before running out of
fuel. You would've probably had to start looking for a filling
station that would accept one of your credit cards when you
passed through Philadelphia, which is 106 miles from New
York. You wouldn’t have made it as far as Baltimore, which is
another 96 miles, or 202 miles Rom New York, 'khat’s 50
miles beyond your range.
Predicting Fuel Consumption—Washington is 239 miles
from New York. At 20 miles per gallon, how much fuel will
the car use for the trip? To find out, divide die miles by die
miles per gallon:
Gallons = miles + miles per gallon
Or, in this case:
Gallons = 239 + 20
Which would be 11.95 gallons. You’ve already used 10.4
gallons getting from Boston, so your overall Riel consumption
would be 22.35 gallons for the total distance of 447 miles
from Boston to Washington.
Miles per Hour (mph)
On the stretch from Boston to New York, you took 4-1/4
hours to cover rhe 208 miles. To find your average speed, you
convert that 4-1/4 to 4.25 and plug it into the formula for
average miles per hour:

Miles per Hour = 208 + 4.25
On an 8-digit calculator, that would be
48.941176, which can be rounded up to 49 mph.
What if your time was 4 hours and 35 minutes, or
4:35? Can you run that as:
Miles per Hour = 208 + 4.35
No you can’t, lliat 4:35 is 4 and 35/60, not 4 and
35/100. However, with a calculator, you can figure it
this way:
Miles per Hour ■ 208 + [4 + (35 + 60)]
That would be the equivalent of:
Miles per Hour ■ 208 + 4.5833333
Which would work out to 45.381818 or, rounded
down, 45.38 mph.
Distance and Time—Suppose you want to know
how far you've gone if you drive at a given speed for a
given number of hours. Multiply die miles per hour
by the hours:
Miles = miles per hour x hours
If you drive at an average of 45 mph for 2-1/2
hours, how far would you go?
Miles = 45 x 2.5
You would cover 112.5 miles. If you drive at a
given speed for a given number of miles, how many
hours will it take? To find out, divide the miles by
the miles per hour:
Hours = miles * miles per hour
As an example, suppose you continue the 106
miles from New York to Philadelphia at an average of
45 miles per hour:
Miles = 106 + 45
That works out to 2.3555556, which can be
rounded up to 2.36 hours.
Hundredths to Minutes—That 2.36 hours is 2
and 36/100 hours, not 2 hours and 36 minutes. To
convert hundredths of an hour to minutes, or
sixtieths of an hour, i.e., to convert from a
centestimal to a sexagesimal fraction, you can set up
a simple algebraic equation, using the letter Y as die
unknown, to find how many sixtieths the
hundrcddis would equal:
(36 + 100) = (Y + 60)
That would be:
(100 x Y) = (36 x 60) or (100 x Y) = 2160 or:
Y = 2160 + 100
Average MPH and MPG
And Y works out ro lie 21.6 minutes. That 0.6 of a
minute is, of course, 6/10 of a minute, not 6.0
seconds. But by now, you know how to convert that
6/10 of a minute to seconds. Don’t you? In case you
forgot, here is what you need to do:
0.6 x 60 seconds = 36 seconds
Moving Time vs. fravel Time
Many people fail to take stops into account when
computing travel time. They assume that if they
average 60 mph for a trip oi 480 miles that it should
take exactly 8 hours. They fail to factor in the time
for rest stops, meal stops and fuel stops. In the end,
the 480-mile trip may take nine hours and fifteen
minutes resulting in an average speed of:
480 miles + 9.25 hours = 51.9 mph
Most people look at two numbers: Moving time
and travel time. Ba- looking at both numbers you can
get a good idea of where you are spending your time.
By looking at the average moving speed you might
see that you arc averaging 61.2 mph while you are
moving, but the travel time average is 49.8 mph.
What this means in our trip of480 miles is that:
Your moving time was 480 miles + 61.2 mph = 7.84
hours
Our travel time is 480 miles + 49.8 = 9.64 hours
Subtracting moving time from travel time: 9.64 - 7.84
- 1.8 hours not moving.
Obviously you must stop occasionally, so in order
to help your moving average try to make one stop for
multiple reasons.
Stopping for fuel and using die rest room, then
picking up a sandwich for lunch could take three
separate stops or be combined into one stop.
Obviously tne number of stops you make is a purely
personal matter, but each stop means more idling
time and stop and go driving, so die fuel economy
numbers will suffer accordingly.
Over the road trucks have large fuel tanks for a
number of reasons. First, the truck docs not have to
waste time stopping for fuel as often. Second, fuel
costs can be optimized by stopping at points where
fuel is cheaper. Stops can be planned to match driver
rest periods and terminals where adequate parking is
available. With rising fuel costs, savvy truck drivers
even watch the weather and adjust their route to take
advantage of tail winds and avoid head winds.
Raceway Lap Times and Average Speeds
A similar set of formulas can be used to calculate
performance on an oval track or road course. Average
Auto Math Handbook

You can
calculate lap
speed in mph
around a track
by multiplying
the lap
distance—at
Indy that is 2.5
miles—by
3600 and
dividing by the
lap time in
seconds. Photo
by Michael
Lutfy.

lap speed in miles per hour can be found by lap time would you have to clock in order to average
multiplying the lap distance in miles by 3600—the 230 mph? To find that, again multiply the lap
number ofseconds in an hour—and dividing the distance by 3600, but this time, divide by the speed
result by the lap time in seconds: you want to reach:

Miles per Hour = (miles x 3600) -s- seconds
Example—Suppose you’re running Indianapolis
and averaging 40 seconds a lap around the 2.5 mile
track. What's your average speed?
Mph = (2.5 x 3600) + 40
Mph = 9000 40
You're haulin' at an even 225 mph. What kind of
Seconds = (miles x 3600) mph
To find the lap time needed for 230 mph at Indy:
Seconds = (2.5 x 3600) + 230
Seconds - 9000 + 230
You must get around the track in 39.130435
seconds.
 Average MPH and MPG

FORMULAS FOR
AVERAGE MPH AND MPG
Miles per gallon = miles + gallons

Miles = miles per gallon x gallons

Gallons = miles +• miles per gallon

Miles per hour = miles -e- hours

Miles = miles per hour x hours

Hours = miles +■ miles per hour

Raceway miles per hour = (miles x 3600) -r seconds

Seconds = (miles x 3600) + mile per hour

 Chapter 20
Fuel Economy
and Cost of
Ownership
While today's hybrids offer some interesting technological solutions,
the true cost of owning and operating a car should include not only the
acquisition costs but also the operating costs.
In Chapter 19 we discussed the measurement of fuel
economy. Today, with rising fuel costs, fuel economy plays a
big part in many car buying decisions. In the 70s, when
most of the maximum speed limits were mandated at 55
mph, manufacturers tuned their vehicles ro deliver optimum
fuel economy at 55 mph. Today, with higher maximum
highway speeds and rising fuel prices all of the manufacturers
strive to deliver their best fuel economy on the federally
mandated EPA drive cycles, which arc comprised of both
city and highway driving conditions. The published EPA
fuel economy ratings for City and Highway driving form the
popular basis for comparisons spanning different makes and
models. Because these ratings arc supposed to represent a
composite of the average person's daily driving experience,
the ratings give the consumer a chance to compare one
vehicle to another based on fuel economy alone. In the fine
print, both the manufacturers and the government warn that
your mileage may vary.'' The composite driving cycle will
probably not match your exact driving route, but since all of
the cars are tested on the same cycle the EPA number forms
an equal basis for comparison.
If you are serious about measuring your own fuel economy,
you might want to run a scries of controlled experiments to
more closely replicate your personal driving cycle and
conditions. Try to start with a round trip consisting of at
least two hours going to and from a destination along the
same highway. By choosing a round trip of at least two hours
duration hopefully you will be able to cancel out any traffic
effects such as signals or slow downs. Choose a trip, like one
to a relative’s house, that you make frequently so each time
you make the trip you can make a change and evaluate it. By
1
■■■■ ■■mil
taking the same route in both directions, hopefully you will
cancel out anv grade or wind effects. Before leaving on your
drive, carefully rill the tank at a convenient station and take
note of which pump vou use. Let the automatic fill feature
stop the pump. Carefully make note of your mileage and
reset your trip odometer to zero if your vehicle is so
equipped. Make your trip and return along the same route at
the same speed, to the original station and use the same
pump to refill the tank, again using the automatic fill
feature. Record the mileage and divide the total miles run by
the gallons used since the previous fill up.
Establish a Baseline
You should stan your test by establishing a baseline. I
recommend that you start with the vehicle as you arc
currently driving it with no changes. Once you have made
the trip several times and established a good baseline, you
may want to make some improvements to your vehicle.
For your first experiment, you might want to consider
running the air pressure in the tires at the high end of the
vehicle manufacturer’s recommended range and have your
front end alignment checked and corrected if necessary to
ensure lower rolling resistance. If there is an opportunity to
run at different speeds, such as on an Interstate highway, try
making the trip at several different average speeds to
determine at which speed your vehicle operates most
efficiently. Once you have found a fuel efficient speed range,
practice staying within it and not making any sudden speed
changes. Using the vehicle speed control can be helpful as
long as you arc traveling on flat level roads. When you
encounter grades however, the speed control will force the

engine to wide open throttle in order to maintain
the precise preset speed. This sudden application of
throttle often coupled with a downshift results in
increased fuel consumption compared to a driver
who accepts a slight decrease in speed when
climbing a grade and is willing to lose some speed
momentarily to save fuel. Some drivers utilize a
vacuum gauge to measure intake manifold vacuum
and try to maintain the highest vacuum at all times.
Whenever the throttle opening increases under
load, the vacuum drops until there is no vacuum
under full load at WOT (Wide open throttle).
To get a clearer picture of fuel consumption ar
different speeds, calculate the fuel consumption in
miles per gallon. Since you are traveling the same
distance, make the trip several times at different
average speeds and compare the fuel consumption
rates at tnc various average speeds.
We all know that if you were to run the two-hour
trip to grandmother's house at 35 mph, it would
take far less fuel than it would if you were to
average 90 mph for the same trip. As it turns out,
neither of these speeds are practical, unless you
want to ger rear-ended by someone doing the legal
speed limit or spend some time cooling off in the
local jail for speeding.
Suppose that you could save one gallon of gas
over the course of your trip by going three mph
faster? Now before you get all excited, this may not
happen in all cases, but there are points in an
engine's fuel efficiency curve where the engine
produces the same power but uses less fuel. In
Fuel Economy and Cost of Ownership
This Toyota
Prius hybrid
offers high fuel
mileage by
using an
electric motor
with an
onboard
battery and a
gasoline
engine.
engine testing, this measurement of pounds of fuel
per horsepower hour is called brake specificJuel
consumption or BSFC and is a measure of engine
efficiency. By running some careful experiments,
you can determine the best target speed in order to
realize maximum fuel efficiency within a speed
range. Once you find this point, then you can work
to maximize its value. By keeping your car well
tuned and making sure you have a clean air filter,
you can ensure that the engine is delivering its
maximum economy.
Using the proper oil also reduces engine friction
while still protecting the engine from wear. Perhaps
the most important thing to remember with newer
cars is to make sure that the oxygen sensor is
working properly. This sensor (or in many cases,
more than one) is located in the exhaust system. It
samples the oxygen content of the exhaust and
constantly compares it to the required content by
using the engine computer. If die mixture is too
rich or too lean, the engine management system
makes the subtle changes in the spark or fuel
delivery to correct the oxygen content. If the
oxygen sensor is not functioning, the engine
management system will typically force the system
to operate in a rich condition in order to protect
rhe engine. The "check engine” light will be turned
on, which should be your clue to get your vehicle
serviced. If you continue to operate with a rich
mixture, you will suffer from decreased
performance as well as decreased fuel economy and
excess emissions. With the higher price of fuel and
Auto Math Handbook
Honda offers
the hybrid
Civic which
boasts 47 mpg.
the potential for damaging other components in
your system, it pays to repair and maintain your
vehicle's engine management system as soon as it
needs attention. The on-board diagnostic systems
do an amazing job of monitoring the day to day
engine performance.
Proper tire inflation and correct front end
alignment are perhaps the largest contributors to
parasitic losses. However, if your vehicle has
independent rear suspension, is older or may have
ever suffered a collision, it pays to have die rear axle
alignment checked also. Sometimes just having
your vehicle towed out of a ditch from the rear can
cause rear wheel misalignment leading to increased
rolling resistance and tire wear. Here, is where a
coast down test comes in handy. By performing one
of these simple checks every 6 months, it will allow
you to quickly monitor your car's rolling resistance.
If you arc in doubt, find a friend with a similar
vehicle with the same drive train and help them run
a coast down test, then compare results.
Factors Affecting Fuel Economy
Many people think of fuel economy as strictly an
engine function. In fact, die following factors all
play a significant part in determining the overall
fuel economy:
Weight—1 he vehicle weight is important because
it plays a significant part in the energy required to
get the vehicle up to speed after every stop, as well as
changing from one speed to another. Also, the more
a vehicle weighs, the higher the rolling resistance.
When doing fuel economy testing, be sure to
maintain a constant weight to ensure accuracy.
Inertia—The vehicle equivalent inertia includes
the vehicle weight but also factors in the axle ratio
and tire diameter. If you spent most of your time
driving in the city doing a lot of stop and go
driving with very little constant high speed driving,
you might consider a numerically higher final drive
rado. This would help the vehicle accelerate from
each stop. On the other hand, if you drove long
distances at highway speeds with very little stop and
go driving, a numerically lower final drive ratio
would significantly reduce the revolutions per mile,
and hence the fuel consumption. Remember
though, if the final drive ratio is numerically too
low, the engine will lug and be forced to operate at
an inefficient point on the torque curve. Most
vehicles today are delivered with final drive ratios
designed to optimize the combined city/highway
fuel economy rating. If the majority oi your driving
is predominantly either highway or city, chances arc
that you could improve your mileage with some
careful option selections or modifications. By
changing the final drive ratio it may be possible to
improve the fuel economy. To avoid a less
economical solution, you must weigh the cost of
the change against the expected fuel economy gains
over the expected lifetime of the vehicle. It would
make little sense to spend $850 to change final
drive ratios that would result in a $200 fuel savings
over the life of die vehicle.
Rolling Resistance—The rolling resistance or

FIGURE 1
Vehicle A
Purchase price: $40,000
Average mpg: 48 mpg
Annual mileage: 12,000 miles per year x 5 years
= 60,000 miles
Fuel usage: 60,000 miles + 48 mpg = 1250 gal
1,250 gal x $3 gal: = $3,750
Total cost of ownership = $40,000 + $3,750
= $43,750
coast down performance is a simple test that you
can perform which combines the effects of vehicle
inertia, rolling resistance and drive train friction, as
well as aerodynamic drag.
Aerodynamics—Aerodynamic factors affecting
fuel economy in a passenger car include the drag
coefficient (Cd) and the frontal area (Af) neither of
which change with vehicle speed, however, the
aerodynamic horsepower requirement increases as
the cube of vehicle speed. It is also important to
remember that a fuel efficient engine does not
necessarily guarantee good fuel economy. The proof
of that is to see how the same engine is rated for
fuel economy when installed in different vehicles,
each having differing options affecting gross vehicle
weight and final drive ratio.
Cost of Ownership
In most cases, fuel economy alone is not the
determining factor in a vehicle purchase. People
choose their vehicles based on a variety of criteria.
Some want a utilitarian form of transportation,
while others want some performance and precise
handling, or just want to make a social or
environmental statement. Most people however,
just want something economical, safe and reliable
that will get them back and forth to work
comfortably. Some drivers look at their vehicle with
the same enthusiasm as they view their toaster. As
long as it starts and runs they are happy. On the
other end of the scale, some drivers define their
lives by which car they own or drive. Be honest
with yourself and really look at the overall vehicle
and try to match your needs and desires with the
available vehicles before purchasing.
If it is important for your vehicle choice to make a
social and environmental statement, at least choose a
vehicle whose price and performance can be
supported by numbers. Don't fall for the best fuel
Fuel Economy and Cost of Ownership
Vehicle B
Purchase price: $25,000
Average mpg: 32 mpg
AnnuS mileage 12,000 for 5 years:
= 60,000 miles
60,000 miles + 32 mpg: = 1,875 gal
1,875 gal x $3 per gallon = $5,625
Total cost of ownership: $25,000 + $5,625
= $30,625
economy number and base your decision on that
alone. Set some criteria for what you want the
vehicle to do. If you need to carry two adults and
two children, then a 4-door sedan will probably
work best for you. If, on the other end, you need to
be able to haul a few sheets of plywood or tow a
trailer, a light pickup truck or SUV may work boner.
Once we have narrowed down the choice to a
single type of vehicle, we often find ourselves trying
to accidc between a vehicle (A) that costs $40,000
and gets 48 mpg or a vehicle (B) that costs $25,000
and gets 32 mpg. With the advent of hybrids and
some of their impressive mileage claims, let's
compare the cost of vehicle ownership. Using the
two cars A and B above, let's look at rhe cost of
ownership for five years with 12,000 miles driven
per year. We will do this for several fuel prices and
see how the numbers vary. Differing fuel prices
greatly affect what we call the break-even point.
To simplify this comparison we will assume that
both vehicles arc under frill warranty and all
operating costs except fuel are equal. In order to
simplify the numbers, we will leave out other costs
such as maintenance, tires and oil. In order to be
totally accurate, a true comparison would have to
include all of the following: finance costs (if the car
were being financed), repair and maintenance costs
(oil, tires, filters, brakes, battery, exhaust, etc.). If
the vehicle was a hybrid, the cost of recharging the
car would also have to be included, as well as
batten' replacement and the disposal fee for the old
battery, if that was required during the service life
of the car. We have also left out the residual value
(what you would get for the vehicle if you sold it at
the end of the five-year period) and the cost of
insurance for the period.
We see that in Figure 1 the car with the pcxircr
fuel mileage is actually cheaper to operate over a
five-year period.
Auto Math Handbook

FIGURE 2

Vehicle A Vehicle B
Purchase price: $40,000 Purchase price: $25,000
Average mpg: 48 mpg Average mpg: 32 mpg
Annual mileage: 60,000 miles Annual mileage: 60,000 miles
Fuel usage: 1250 gal Fuel usage: 1,875 gal
Fuel cost: 1,250 gal x $6 gal: = $7,500 Fuel cost: 1,875 gal x $6 per gallon = $11,250
Total cost of ownership = $40,000 + $7500 Total cost of ownership: $25,000 + $11,250
= $47,500 = $36,250

While this Audi

may not get
the top fuel
economy, it
might be more
fun to drive
than a hybrid.
Looking at
more features
than just the
fuel mileage
number Is
something
everybody
should do
when
considering a
vehicle
purchase.

Now in Figure 2, we've compared these two cars
again except with the cost of gasoline at $6.00 per
gallon. You can sec that even at $6 per gallon, the
cost of ownership based on fuel mileage and
acquisition cost for the less expensive car with
poorer fuel economy is still a more economical
purchase over a five-year period.
Now let's use some auto math and look at this
question another way. Let's write an equation and
see just how high the price of gas would have to go
before the costs were equal. Our equation looks like
this:
$40,000 + 60,000 miles 4- 48mpg (X price per gal) =
$25,000 + 60,000 miles + 32 mpg (X price per gal)
I^t's simplify the equation:
$40,000 + 1250x = 25,000 + 1875x
$40,000 - $25,000 = 1875x - 1250x
$15,000 = 625x
X-S24
So what this says is that in this case, until gasoline
gets to $24/gallon the cheaper car with poorer fuel
economy costs less to own and operate for the five-
year period, with all other factors being equal.
Now using some auto math let's loot at the same
data a different way. Let's see how far we would
have to drive the cars before they were equal in
purchase and fuel costs, keeping fuel cost constant
at S3 per gallon.
Initial cost + (miles 4- 48 mpg) x $3/gal
= 25,000 + (miles + 32 mpg) x $3/gal
We write our equation using X as the unknown to
denote the miles at the break-even point:
$40,000 + (X + 48) x 3 = 25,000 + (X + 32) x 3
40,000 + (3X + 48) = 25,000 + (3X + 32)
15,000 = (3X + 32) - (3X + 48)
15,000 = 0.09375X - 0.0625X
15,000 = 0.03125X
 Fuel Economy and Cost of Ownership

FIGURE 3

Vehicle A Vehicle B
Fuel economy: 20 mpg 48 mpg
Fuel tank volume: 25 gal 10 gal
Fuel tank range: 500 miles 480 miles

X= 480,000 miles
By looking at the answers above, it should
become very obvious that better fuel economy
numbers alone arc only a small part of the true
ownership cost.
Fuel Range vs. Fuel Economy
In order to sell cars with poorer fuel economy, the
manufacturers often advertise and promote fuel
range instead of fuel economy. The less
sophisticated consumer often gets range and fuel
mileage confused. Range is defined as the distance a
vehicle can travel on a single tank of fuel, or in the
case of a hybrid, on a single battery charge and a
tank of fuel. How do we make this comparison?
Again let's look at two vehicles with different fuel
economy and different size fuel tanks. We only
want to determine which vehicle is more fuel
efficient.
For this example in Figure 3, our choice has been
narrowed down to a pair of vehicles:
Vehicle A is advertised as being able to go 500
miles on a tank of gas.
Vehicle B is advertised as getting 48 miles to a
gallon. As the old saying goes, this is like comparing
apples to oranges. We must investigate and get
more data before we can make a true comparison.
In this case, we will look up the published
combined fuel economy rating on vehicle A and the
find the tank capacity tor vehicle B in the
specifications section of the owners manual. Now
we compare the numbers.
Clearly, if both. cars will fill your needs for
passenger space and performance, vehicle B is a
letter choice. It will cost far less to operate over the
ife of the vehicle. If vehicle B is a hybrid however,
the cost of charging each evening and the cost of
bancry replacement and disposal, might tilt the
economic scales in favor of the seemingly less
efficient vehicle.

FORMULAS FOR
AVERAGE MPG
Miles per Gallon = miles -r gallons

Range in Miles = miles per gallon x gallons

Gallons = miles ? miles per gallon

Gallons per Hour = gallons used + hours

Range = miles -r tank full

 Chapter 21
Crankshaft
Balancing

This is what you need to weigh before starting a balance job. The rod,
piston, pin, rings, and bearings will all have to be weighed and
corrected if necessary before calculating the bobweight Photo by Bill
Hancock.

Math plays a big part in correctly balancing an engine. If
yon get the calculations wrong, the whole job will be a
disaster and unfortunately, you will never realize the mistake
until the engine is assembled and vibrates when it is run. At
that point it is too late, the engine is assembled and the
damage may have been done. It pays to understand the math
that goes into a balance job and to know how to double
check it. It is impossible to look at a crankshaft and tell if it
has been balanced correctly. The only way to know for sure is
to either assemble the engine and run it or have someone
check the balance on a balancing machine.
Crankshaft balancing is probably one of the least
understood operations in engine building. All but the most
professional engine builders rely on the local balancing shop
to balance their rotating assembly, simply because it doesn’t
make sense to own the expensive balancing equipment that
you will nor use very often. As an engine enthusiast however,
you should at least understand the principles and necessity
for balancing.
Friction is the enemy of performance and durability in an
engine. If a crankshaft is straight and true, it will spin freely
once it is correctly assembled in an engine with proper main
bore alignment and the correct bearing clearances. In order
to maintain that straightness throughout the entire rpm
range, the crankshaft must be properly balanced. If the
crankshaft is poorly balanced or tne components have been
changed and the crank has not been rebalanced, a standing
wave in the crankshaft while running could result. This
bending would only occur while the crankshaft was in
motion at higher rpm. Once the engine returns to idle, the
crankshaft straightens out because the offsetting loads caused
by centrifugal force have gone. The bent crankshaft creates
friction, robs power, creates undue stress and ultimately
wears out the bearings. We will outline the procedure to
balance a 90-degree V-8 engine.
A Typical V-8 Balance Job
Let’s begin by looking ar the components that need to be
included in a typical balance job for a V-8 engine. They arc:
Rods (bolts, bearings, bushings)
Pistons (pin, rings, clips)
Damper
Flywheel or flcxplate
Crankshaft
Lets take these components and separate them into two
groups based on their motion within the engine, rotating
and reciprocating, and then carefully weigh them.
Parts in Motion
The piston assembly (piston, pin, clips, and rings) goes up
and down in the bore, therefore this would be classified as
reciprocating motion. The connecting rod has both rotating
and reciprocating motion. The small end of the rod is
connected to the piston, which is reciprocating, while the
large end of the rod is bolted to the crankshaft pin, which
rotates. To address this, we weigh both ends of the rod
separately and get a rotating and reciprocating component of
the total rod weight. As a check, the rotating weight plus the
reciprocating weight of the rod should equal the total weight
of the rod. The crankshaft, flywheel and damper or
harmonic balancer, have purely rotating morion.
 Crankshaft Balancing

Each
CRANKSHAFT TERMINOLOGY connecting rod
Let’s review basic crankshaft terminology is weighed for
small end
before we go too far and lose somebody.
weight
The rodjournal, is offset from the main (shown), big
bearing journal, or main as it is called. The main end weight and
bearing journal is located at the axial center of total weight. A
the crankshaft. The rod journal is also referred to special
hanging fixture
by some as the crank pin or crank throw. This
is used to
journal is located at an offset distance from the weigh small
crankshaft axial centerline. This offset distance is and big ends.
known as the radius of the crankshaft, which is When weighing
half of the crankshaft stroke. Obviously if you either end of
the rod, the
rotate the crank around the central axis the rod
centerline of
pin rotates in a circle with a radius of R. If wc each end
hooked a rod to the crank pin and constrained (small and big)
the rod’s free end in one plane, it would go back should be kept
and forth or reciprocate. 1'his is how a level. Pistons,
pins, rings are
crankshaft converts reciprocal motion into
also weighed
rotary motion. If we double the radius, we get separately.
whar is referred to as the stroke of the crankshaft, Photo by Mike
or the distance that the piston travels up and Mavrigian.
down in the cylinder as the crankshaft rotates.
Adjacent to the crank pins is a disc or pair of
discs that in addition to structurally connecting
the pins to the mains, serve as a counterweight
to balance the crank pin and all of the
components (rod piston, pin, rings etc.) weights.
The forward end of the crank sometimes
called the nose or snout is typically a smaller Calculations—Once the weighing is done, we
diameter than either the main or rod journal and perform rhe calculations, which is one of the most
serves to drive the camshaft and accessories important parts of the balancing procedure. If you
through a gear, hub, pulley or a harmonic make a math error here, you will never know it
damper if rhe engine has one. The rear end of until you run down rhe track and feel a horrible
the crankshaft has a disc called z flange with a vibration trying to tear your engine apart. For that
series of holes spaced radially from the center. reason, it pays to double-check your figures, or have
The flywheel mounts to the flange using a series a friend do the math independently, then compare
of fasteners. answers.
Be sure to use a balance worksheet similar to Fig.
21a or like in the photo on page 96. Fill in the
Weighing the Parts—Io begin a competition blanks, as you go, with your finished numbers.
balance job, all components are laid out in an orderly Once you have filled in the individual weights, add
fashion and marked with a felt tip marker to indicate up the reciprocating numbers for each pair of
their final assembled position and starting weight. cylinders then divide the result by two. This gives
Typically each rod and piston is reduced in you half or 50% of the reciprocating weight for
weight to match the weight of the lightest part in each pair of cylinders. Next, we calculate a weight
the series. For example, if the pistons range in for all of die rotating components for that pair of
weight from 394 gm to 398 gm, the seven heaviest cylinders (large end of born rods with fasteners,
pistons will have to be carefully machined to four rod bearing shells, and about eight grams for
remove weight necessary to make them all equal to oil that resides in the crank and between the
394 gm. This process is repeated for both ends of bearings and rod journal of the crankshaft). If you
each rod. The piston rings, piston pins, rod bolts add half of the reciprocating weight and all of the
and bearings arc typically very close in value and rotating weight for each pair of cylinders together,
need no correction. you get a total number for the pair of cylinders,
Auto Math Handbook

Fig. 21a
V-8 Balance Sheet

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8

Piston

Retainers

Ring Set

Rod small end

Reciprocating weight

Rod big end

Bearing shells (2)

Rotating weight

Bobweight
1/2 reciprocating +
rotating

called the bobweight. A typical V-8 crankshaft has

Once all four crank pins spaced 90 degrees apart when
components
viewed from the end of the crankshaft. These
(rod bearings,
rods, pistons, crankpins each have a pair of rods attached, which
pins, rings and allow a pair of cylinders to deliver power to the
pin locks) are crankshaft.
weighed, the When we balance a crankshaft, we cannot spin
bobweight -W._
card Is filled
the crank with the rods and pistons attached, so we
out, allowing use a small weight that clamps to each rod pin or
the balance °JLa'-*OWaNce journal. This weight, also called a bobtveight,
operator to PtsK>N simulates the weight of the rotating and
determine the PIN reciprocating components. The key to a good
required
bobweights
balance job starts with calculating the bobweight.
needed to *«NOS Next, you assemble this weight that attaches to
check the corresponding throw of the crankshaft and
r, *AJLS/AKDB
—
^rroNs_21_S'
crankshaft simulates the load for balancing. Complete and
balance. Photo
z ’'ODPECjpk,
RQBU FIGHTTTL attach all four bobweights to the crankshaft.
by Mike
Mavrigian.
 Crankshaft Baiancing

Here is a rod journal, crank pin or crank throw

depending on what you want to call it Photo by Bill
Hancock.
The crankshaft is checked for main and rod journal cleanliness, and mounted
on the crankshaft balancing machine's clean (and oiled) nylon V-blocks. The
Crank Balancer—The damper and flywheel arc bobweights are then attached to the rod journals. The bobweights will
bolted to the crank and the whole assembly is simulate the weight of the components that were previously weighed. Photo
placed in a crank balancing machine. A balancing by Mike IMavrigian.
machine or crank balancer is a device that measures
the amount of imbalance at each end of the
crankshaft and then locates each imbalance
angularly, so corrections can be made to the
counterweights to bring the crankshaft within
specifications. Typically the imbalance is measured
in inch-ounces. A suitable imbalance limit is 0.25
inch-ounces for a high-speed crankshaft.
To understand balance and the terminology; let’s
think about two weights placed on a kid’s
playground see-saw. We will begin when we verify
that die sec-saw is perfectly balanced with no
weight on it. Now if we add 10 lb to each end of
the see-saw at exactly five feet from the pivot or
fulcrum point, the see-saw will remain balanced.
Suppose we wanted to remain balanced but we only
had a 20-lb weight? If we moved the 20-lb weight
toward the fulcrum point or center of the sec-saw
until it was 2.5 feet away from the fulcrum, the see­
saw would again be balanced. So rhe lesson here is We utilize a set of four adjustable weights that clamp onto each throw or rod
that the length of the lever arm, multiplied by the journal of the crankshaft. These weights are called the bobweight and
weight at the end of each lever arm should be equal simulate the weight of the rods and pistons. Photo by Bill Hancock.
if the see-saw is to remain balanced. So in this case,
each side has 50 ft-lb. crankshaft, wc have weights located ar various
distances away from the center of rotation. When
Lever Arm we use lighter components like connecting rods, we
The see-saw is the classic example of a force take away weight at the crank pin, therefore we
applied through a lever arm. In the first example, must remove weight at the counterweight which is
we multiplied the length of the lever aim times the exactly 1B0 degrees away from the crank pin. The
weight, wc would get 5 ft x 10 lb or 50 ft-lb. In a farther away from the center wc remove the weight,
Auto Math Handbook
Here we see the fully bobwelghted crank in the balancer waiting to be spun.
Note that the last counterweight on the right has tape holding in a slug of
heavy metal to make sure that it Is enough before welding it in place. Photo
by Bill Hancock.
the less we have to remove. In most performance
balance jobs, the new parts are lighter than the
production pans they arc replacing, so weight must
be subtracted from the crankshaft counterweights
to maintain the factory balance. If the crankshaft is
new and has never been balanced, it may require a
significant amount of weight to be removed .
Wc begin by spinning the crank on slow speed to
see where the imbalance is located and to measure
how much imbalance is present. If a crankshaft
shows up as being heavy in the counterweight area,
you will have to remove weight from that area. For
example, if the balancer showed that the imbalance
was 6.8 inch-ounces out of balance, we would begin
by measuring the radius of the counterweight. Let’s
say that the radius measured 3.4 inches from tire
centerline of the crankshaft.
First, we know that we cannot remove all of the
weight from the outer edge of the counterweight, so
we use a 3.00-inch radius for a starting point. If we
have 6.8 inch-ounces of imbalance wc use the
following formula:
6.8 inch-ounces = 3.00 inches x ounces
6.8 + 3.00 = 2.27 ounces
If a crankshaft has been stroked or if the new
parts weigh more than the old parts, weight may
need to be added to the counterweight to offset the
additional weight of the new parts, or their
increased distance from the center. This is where
the math gets a bit tricky. Since we can’t just add
weight indiscriminately wherever wc want and we
can’t remove any weight from the pin area or heavy
side for fear of weakening the crankshaft or
components, there may be only one avenue left.
First we should try to fill any holes that have been
previously drilled to balance the crankshaft. This is
done by drilling new holes parallel to die axis of the
crankshaft. People often make the mistake of trying
to fill the existing holes with steel plugs which arc
welded in radially or at 90 degrees to the crankshaft
centerline. As long as the weld holds, everydiing is
fine but if the weld ever breaks and the metal flics
out, the slug of metal can rip a huge hole in the
engine block or oil pan and cause serious damage
and devastating results. Do not take this chance!
Take the extra care and drill and ream the more
difficult holes and then press the weight in parallel
to the crankshaft centerline, then weld it in place.
Heavy Metal
High density or heavy metal has a weight roughly
90 percent greater than a piece of steel measuring
rhe same dimensions. Heavy metal has become tne
solution for balance jobs that require additional
weight. Typically, heavy metal is an alloy of
tungsten and copper that is easily machined and
can De welded without problems. To use heavy
metal, holes must be drilled parallel to the
crankshaft centerline, and then reamed to size. The
heavy' metal must then be cut to length and pressed
into the reamed hole, then welded to ensure that it
does not move. Now lets look at the math involved
in this job.
Calculating How Much Weight to Add—Let’s
begin with a balance job where the crankshaft is
light and out of balance by 38 grams positioned
3.25 inches from the centerline of the crankshaft on
the outside diameter of the counterweight. This
would result in an imbalance of:
38 gm x 3.25 inches or 123.5 inch-grams
We will start by making a sketch and doing some-
rough calculations to ensure that one slug of heavy
metal will be sufficient. Wc need to end up with the
counterweight being slightly heavier than it needs
to be, so once we add the slug of heavy metal, wc
can still remove a small amount of weight and fine
tunc the location of the imbalance. In order to do
this we will begin by drilling out a 1.25-inch hole
through the counterweight located 2.5 inches from
the center. We chose 2.5 inches, because this
dimension will let us drill and ream a 1.25 hole
through the counterweight without breaking
through to die outer edge of the counterweight.
Since wc arc going to be making our correction
centered at 2.5 inches from the center, we will need
 Crankshaft Balancing

co add more weight, since the weight is closer to the Sometimes the
center and hence not as effective. If we divide our operator gets
total imbalance of 123.5 inch-grams by 2.5 inches, lucky and nails it
on the first try,
we come up with 49.4 grams that we will have to while in some
add. We begin by finding the area of a circle 1.25 cases, weight
inches in diameter: correction must
be "chased"
riR2 = a several times. If
adding heavy
R ■ 1.25 + 2 ■ 0.625 inches metal Is needed,
Pi (3.1416) x (0.625)2 = 1.227 sq. inches the options are
Next, multiply the area times the height to to drill a hole
calculate the volume of the cylindrical slug of heavy and install the
metal. In this case, the height is the thickness of the tungsten slug on
either the outer
counterweight or 1.25 inches. edge of the
counterweight or
A x H = Volume 90 degrees
1.227 x 1.25 ■ 1.534 cubic inches (through a
We look up the weight of steel in the appendix counterweight).
Whenever
and find that it is 0.28383 Ib/cubic inch (in3).
feasible, the
Therefore, if we multiply this value times our drill-through
volume, we get the following: method is
preferred, since
0.28383 lb/in3 x 1.534 in3 = 0.435395 lb this eliminates the remote possibility of the weight ever being slung out
during engine operation. Either way, if a tungsten slug is added, balancing
Next we look up the conversion for pounds to shops generally secure the slug with a small tig weld. Photo by Mike
grams in the appendix and find that 1 lb = 453.6 Mavrigian.
gm. So wc multiply that value times our cylinder
weight:
we needed, but it will allow us some margin to drill
453.6 gm/lb x 0.435395 lb » 197.495 grams out the counterweight and do the final correction
Now we know that we are going to remove 197.5 and still be safe. It is far easier to add slightly more
grams of steel from the counterweight and we are weight initially while the crankshaft is out of the
going to replace it with heavy metal that weighs balancer, than having to go back and add another
approximately 190%, or almost twice the weight of piece later on.
steel. At this point, the balance job becomes fairly
simple in that all you have to do is drill holes to
197.495x 1.9 = 375.2 gm remove the weight of metal where the balancer
Therefore our piece of heavy metal will weight indicates. You complete this procedure for each end
approximately 375 grams. of the crankshaft. When you complete the second
If we subtract the original weight of steel, we will end of the crankshaft, you must go back and check
have the additional weight added. the first end again to ensure that it has remained
unchanged as a result of the corrections you made
375.2 - 197.495 - 177.705 grams to the second end. Once both ends arc within spec,
This is more than the weight our calculations said die job is done.

FORMULAS FOR
CRANKSHAFT BALANCING
Imbalance = lever arm x weight

Bobweight = 50% reciprocating + 100% rotating

Auto Math Handbook
BALANCING TIPS
Adapted from Building the Chevy LS2 by Mike Mavrigian
• Perform all machining to the crankshaft, flywheel,
pistons and rods before balancing. Alterations to these parts
after balancing will negate your balancing work, and you'll
have to start over. For instance, if connecting rod beams arc
to be smoothed and polished, do this before the balancing
work begins.
• If you find a gross difference in crankshaft spin-up
weight from front to rear of the shaft, chances arc good that
the crank is bent. To avoid wasting time, always check the
crankshaft for runout before taking the time to spin balance
the crank. With the crank laying on rhe balancer’s twin V-
blocks, set up a dial indicator and check runout on the
main journals.
• By the same token, when a crank is ground, it s
imperative that rhe stroke doesn't change from rod dirow
to rod throw. The centerline of the rod journals should be
identical (centerline of main to centerline of each rod
journal). Also, and this is especially critical if the ignition
system is crank-fired, the index of each rod journal must be
correct. Although the stroke may be OK, if the index is out
of whack, the engine's timing will be grossly out of
sition. Just remember that crank grinding can affect
S lance, il the stroke or index is altered.
• If the crankshaft was stored improperly, or if the crank
was chucked off center in the crank grinder, or if it was
chucked under tension, rhe axis of the crank mains could
be untrue. Also, the effects of heat can create small
deflections in the crank, so make sure the crank reaches
room temperature before performing a spin-balance
reading.
• Replacement oversize pistons arc not necessarily
lightened to match the weight of the OE piston, so never
assume that the balance won't be affected even though
you're changing a complete set of pistons from old to new.
This is why the balancer was invented...to verify what
you're dealing with and allow you to correct any mass
problems!
Replacement pistons are usually boxed by the maker as a
matched set (weighing within X-grams of each other).
However, you should never assume that all pistons of the
same part number will weigh within diat acceptable match
range (although today's performance aftermarket forged
ana CNC-finishcd pistons are typically extremely well
weight-matched). Forged and hypcreutectic pistons will
likely be more closely matched in weight from the start.
• Weigh the pistons and pins separately. You can then
match pistons to pins to "even out” the piston/pin set
weights, thereby reducing the time needed to machine
weight from pistons (match the lightest piston with the
heaviest pin, etc.).
• Try to maintain piston/pin weights to within one gram,
from cylinder location to cylinder location. There’s really
no need to make yourself crazy by trying to create a tighter
tolerance range. A 1 -gram tolerance is perfectly acceptable
(we say this not to make it easier, but because it's
impractical to try to achieve tight-number tolerances.
When you consider the changing forces that act upon the
engine during operation, with oil slinging around, clinging
to areas in a sometimes random pattern, you'll simply drive
yourself nuts for no additional benefit if you try to create
ultra-tight gram matching).
• Some crankshafts—like those from the Chevy LS family
of engines—arc internally balanced. That means that
weight corrections are made on the crankshaft itself,
without regard to damper or flywheel. The damper and
flywheel for an internally balanced crankshaft should be
zero balanced independently. If rhe engine is externally
balanced (where the flywheel is an integral part of the
crank's balance), consider future flywheel replacements.
This is especially important with race motors that will
routinely be rebuilt or repaired. Once the assembly is
balanced, remove the flywheel and spin this up separately,
and document the state of balance of that flywheel. In this
way, future replacement flywheels can be balanced to those
exact specs (duplicating the first flywheel), without die
need to rebalance rhe crank!
• When removing weight from a piston, don’t blindly
remove stock from the underside of the dome. Measure the
dome thickness first.
As far as balancing is concerned, here's what you need to
know: if rhe engine is an internally balanced design (where
all of the crankshaft balancing occurs at the counterweights
and the damper and flywheel arc zero-balanced on their
own), the viscous damper itself is already balanced, so
there’s no need to perform any balancing work on the
damper at any time. If the engine is an externally balanced
design (where die front damper and the flywheel are
integral components of crank balance), the viscous damper
will consists of two parts...an outer damper ring and a
center hub. Disassemble the damper to separate the ring
from the hub. Mount only the hub to the crank snout
(along with the flywheel at the rear crank flange) for
crankshaft balancing. Do not attach the viscous damper
ring to the hub for balancing!
In short, never install a viscous-type damper or damper
ring to a crank for spin-balancing, since the centrifugal
internal action of the damper's fluid will serve to mask
some of the crank's harmonic disturbances, and will result
in a false spin-balance reading.
APPENDICES
 APPENDIX A: CONVERSION FACTORS
The following is a list of conversion factors for
U.S. and S.I. units of measure that could be of use
to the automobile enthusiast. Also included are
factors for two widely used British measures: British
thermal units, or Btus, and imperial gallons. As is
true elsewhere in the book, abbreviations have been
kept to a minimum and figures are carried out to a
maximum of eight digits.
Factors for converting between two specific units
of measure are reciprocals, i.c., if multiplied
together, the}' have a product of 1.0. For example,
the factor for converting from gallons to quarts is
4.0, while the factor for converting from quarts to
gallons is 0.25. Multiplied together, 4.0 and 0.25
equal 1.0.
So, if you know die factor for converting in one
direction but not for the other, you can find the
latter by dividing the known factor into 1.0.
As a case in point, the list includes a factor of 42
for multiplying a number of barrels of oil to find
the equivalent in gallons. However, no factor is
given for multiplying gallons to find barrels,
because that isn’t a conversion many people would
need to make. The 42-gallon barrel is an arbitrary
unit of measure of oil used in international
commerce and not the real size of a container.
But suppose you did want to know how many
barrels a given number of gallons of oil would
equal. You can find the reciprocal of 42 by dividing
it into 1.0, or 1/42, which would be 0.0238095.
On a scientific calculator, you could enter 42 and
then press the reciprocal key, marked 1 /x.
Another way would be to divide 42 into gallons
to convert to barrels. Mathematically, switching
from multiplication in one direction to division in
the other is the same thing as switching from
multiplying by one conversion factor to multiplying
by its reciprocal.
When one factor is simpler than its reciprocal,
you can save time and effort by knowing when to
divide instead of to multiply. In our example, it
would obviously be quicker and easier to divide the
gallons by 42 than to multiply the barrels by
0.0238095.
In the case of very large numbers, the reciprocal
may not have enough significant digits within an
eignt-digit limit to be of much value. As an example,
take the factor for converting from kilowatt-hours to
joules, which is 3600000.0. On an eight-digit
calculator, the reciprocal for converting from joules
to kilowatt-hours would be 0.0000003. But, if you
enter 0.0000003 and press the 1 /x key, you’ll get a
reciprocal of 3333333.3, an error of more than 7.4
percent. The reciprocal has been rounded to only
one significant digit, and that’s not enough for an
accurate conversion back to the original factor, nor
is it enough for accurate calculations. Consequently,
reciprocals with only one or two significant digits
arc not included in the list.
If you had to convert joules to kilowatt-hours,
you’d get more accurate results by first converting
the joules to kilojoules (multiplying the joules by
0.001 or dividing by 1000) and then convening rhe
kilojoules ro kilowatt-hours (multiplying the
kilojoules by 0.0002778 or dividing by 3600).
Another way to deal with very large or very small
numbers is to use scientific notation, a form of
mathematical shorthand that eliminates the need
for a large number of digits. A scientific calculator
will have a key marked either EXP (for exponent)
or EE (for exponent entry) for using scientific
notation, and instructions for working with it will
be found in the calculator’s manual.
In the list, where the terms gallons, miles and
ounces are used without qualification, they mean
U.S. gallons, statute miles, and avoirdupois ounces,
respectively. Similarly, horsepower and torque mean
SAF. horsepower and torque, while water means
fresh water.
Factors involving water are as measured at 4.0
degrees Celsius or 39.2 degrees Fahrenheit. That’s
the temperature of water at its maximum density,
which serves as the international standard for
measuring the relative density or specific gravity of
other liquids.
Finally, factors which are exact figures are
indicated by an asterisk (*).
 Appendix A: Conversion Factors

TO CONVERT FROM: MULTIPLY BY:

A
atmospheres to bars 1.01325*
atmospheres to inches of mercury 29.921256
atmospheres to inches of water 406.80172
atmospheres to kilograms per square centimeter 1.0332275
atmospheres to kilopascals 101.325*
atmospheres to millibars 1013.25*
atmospheres to pounds per square inch 14.695949

B
barrels, non-oil liquid, to cubic feet 4.2109376
barrels, non-oil liquid, to cubic meters 0.1192405
barrels, non-oil liquid, to gallons 31.5*
barrels, non-oil liquid, to liters 119.24047
barrels, oil, to cubic feet 5.6145833
barrels, oil, to cubic meters 0.1589873
barrels, oil, to gallons 42.0*
barrels, oil, to liters 158.98729
bars to atmospheres 0.9869233
bars to inches of mercury 29.529983
bars to inches of water 401.48716
bars to kilograms per square centimeter 1.0197162
bars to kilopascals 100.0*
bars to millibars 1000.0*
bars to pounds per square foot 2088.5434
bars to pounds per square inch 14.503774
Btus to calories 251.99576
Btus to horscpowcr-hours 0.000393
Btus to joules 1055.0559
Btus to kilogram-meters 107.58576
Btus to kilowatt-hours 0.0002931
Btus to kilojoules 1.0550559
Btus to pounds-fcct 778.16927
Btus to watt hours 0.2930711
Btus per gallon to megajoules per cubic meter 0.279
Btus per gallon to megajoules per liter 0.000279
Btus per minute to horsepower 0.0235809
Btus per minute to kilowatts 0.0175843
Btus per pound to joules per kilogram 2326.*
Btus per pound to kilojoules per kilogram 2.32*
Btus per pound to megajoules per kilogram 0.002326*

c
calorics to Btus 0.0039683
calories to joules 4.1868*
calorics to kilogram-meters 0.4269348
calories to pounds-feet 3.0880252
calories to watt hours 0.001163
centiliters to deciliters 0.1*
centiliters to liters 0.01*
centimeters to feet 0.0328084
Appendix A: Conversion Factors

0 CONVERT FROM: MULTIPLY BY:

centimeters to hands 0.0984252
centimeters to inches 0.3937008
centimeters to meters 0.01*
centimeters to microns 10000.0*
centimeters to millimeters 10.0*
centimeters to mils 393.70079
centimeters to yards 0.0109361
centimeters per second to feet per second 0.0328084
centimeters per second to kilometers per hour 0.036*
centimeters per second to miles per hour 0.0223694
centimeters per second per second to feet per second
per second 0.0438084
centimeters per second per second to g 0.0010197
centimeters per second per second to meters per second
per second 0.01
circles to circumferences 1.0*
circumferences to circles 1.0’
circumferences to degrees 360.0*
circumferences to grades 400.0*
circumferences to minutes 21600.0’
circumferences to quadrants 4.0’
circumferences to radians 6.2831853
circumferences to seconds 129600.0’
cubic centimeters to cubic inches 0.0610237
cubic centimeters to cubic meters 0.000001*
cubic centimeters to gallons 0.0002642
cubic centimeters to liters 0.001*
cubic centimeters to milliliters 1.0*
cubic centimeters to ounces, fluid 0.03381
cubic centimeters to pints 0.0021134
cubic centimeters to quarts 0.0010567
cubic feet to cubic centimeters 28316.847
cubic feet to cubic inches 1728.0’
cubic feet to cubic meters 0.0283168
cubic feet to cubic yards 0.037037
cubic feet to gallons 7.4805195
cubic feet to liters 28.316866
cubic feet to ounces, fluid 957.50649
cubic feet to pints 59.844156
cubic feet to quarts 29.922078
cubic feet, water, to pounds 62.424215
cubic inches to cubic centimeters 16.387064
cubic inches to cubic feet 0.0005787
cubic inches to gallons 0.004329
cubic inches to liters 0.0163871
cubic inches to ounces, fluid 0.5541126
cubic inches to pints 0.034632
cubic inches to quarts 0.017316
cubic inches, water, to pounds 0.0361251
cubic meters to cubic centimeters 1000000.0*
cubic meters to cubic feet 35.314667
cubic meters to cubic yards 1.3079506
 Appendix A: Conversion Factors

0 CONVERT FROM: MULTIPLY BY:

cubic meters to gallons 264.17205
cubic meters to liters 1000.0*
cubic meters, water, to kilograms 999.94004
cubic meters, water, to pounds 2204.4903
cubic yards to cubic feet 27.0*
cubic yards to cubic meters 0.7645549
cubic yards to gallons 201.97403
cubic yards to liters 764.55486

D
deciliters to centiliters 10.0*
deciliters to liters 0.1*
degrees to circumferences 0.0027778
degrees to grades 1.1111111
degrees to minutes 60.0*
degrees to quadrants 0.0111111
degrees to radians 0.0174533
degrees to seconds 3600.0*

F
fathoms to feet 6.0*
fathoms to meters 1.8288*
fathoms to yards 2.0*
feet to centimeters 30.48*
feet to fathoms 0.1666667
feet to furlongs 0.0015152
feet to inches 12.0*
feet to hands 3.0*
feet to kilometers 0.0003048
feet to meters 0.3048*
feet to mils 12000.0*
feet to yards 0.3333333
feet per second to centimeters per second 30.48*
feet per second to feet per minute 60.0*
feet per second to kilometers per hour 1.09728*
feet per second to knots 0.5924838
feet per second to meters per second 0.3048*
feet per second to miles per hour 0.6818182
feet per second per second to centimeters per second per second 30.48*
feet per second per second to g 0.0310809
feet per second per second to meters per second per second 0.3048’
furlongs to feet 660.0’
furlongs to meters 201.168*
furlongs to miles 0.125*
furlongs to yards 220.0*

G
g to centimeters per second per second 980.665*
g to feet per second per second 32.174049
g to meters per second per second 9.80665’
gallons to cubic centimeters 3785.4118
gallons to cubic feet 0.1336806
Appendix A: Conversion Factors

TO CONVERT FROM: MULTIPLY BY:

gallons to cubic inches 231.0*
gallons to cubic meters 0.0037854
gallons to cubic yards 0.0049511
gallons to liters 3.7854118
gallons to ounces, fluid 128.0*
gallons to pints 8.0*
gallons to quarts 4.0*
gallons, acetone, to pounds 6.6
gallons, castor oil, to pounds 8.1
gallons, ethanol (ethyl alcohol), to pounds 7.6
gallons, ether, to pounds 6.2
gallons, gasoline, to pounds 6.0
gallons, Kerosene, to pounds 6.6
gallons, liquid propane, to pounds 4.25
gallons, methanol (methyl alcohol), to pounds 6.7
gallons, naptha, to pounds 5.6
gallons, nitromethane, to pounds 9.4
gallons, oil (crude), to pounds 7.5
gallons, oil (refined), to pounds 7.0
gallons, turpentine, to pounds 7.3
gallons, water, to pounds 8.3449037
gallons, water (sea), to pounds 8.6
gallons, imperial, to liters 4.54609*
gallons, imperial, to gallons, U.S 1.2009499
gallons, U.S., to gallons, imperial 0.8326742
gallons per horsepower-hour to liters per kilowatt-hour 0.0793181
gons to grades 1.0*
grades to circumferences 0.0025*
grades to degrees 0.9*
grades to gons 1.0*
grades to minutes 54.0*
grades to radians 0.015708
grades to quadrants 0.01
grades to seconds 3240.0*
grains to grams 0.0647989
grains to milligrams 64.798911
grains to ounces 0.0022857
grams to grains 15.432358
grams to kilograms 0.001*
grams to milligrams 1000.0*
grams to ounces 0.035274
grams to pounds 0.0022046
grams per centimeter to kilograms per meter 10.0*
grams per cubic centimeter co pounds per cubic foot 62.42796
grams per cubic centimeter to pounds per cubic inch 0.0361273
grams per cubic centimeter to pounds per gallon 8.3454044
grams per cubic centimeter to kilograms per cubic meter 1000.0*
grams per kilowatt-hour to pounds per horsepower-hour 0.001644

H
hands to centimeters 10.16*
hands to feet 0.3333333
 Appendix A: Conversion Factors

TO CONVERT FROM: MULTIPLY BY:

hands to inches 4.0*
horsepower to pounds-feet per minute 33000.0*
horsepower to pounds-feet per second 550.0*
horsepower, metric, to horsepower, SAE 0.9863201
horsepower, metric, to kilogram-meters per second 75.0*
horsepower, metric, to kilowatts 0.7354988
horsepower, SAE, to horsepower, metric 1.0138697
horsepower, SAE, to kilowatts 0.7456999
horsepower-hours to Btus 2544.4336
horsepower-hours to calorics 641186.48
horsepower-hours to kilojoules 2684.52*
horsepower-hours to kilowatt-hours 0.7456999
horsepower-hours to mega joules 2.68452*

I
inches to centimeters 2.54*
inches to feet 0.0833333
inches to hands 0.25*
inches to meters 0.0254*
inches to microns 25400.0*
inches to millimeters 25.4*
inches to mils 1000.0*
inches to yards 0.0277778
inches of mercury to atmospheres 0.0334211
inches of mercury to Bars 0.0338639
inches of mercury to inches of water 13.595915
inches of mercury to kilograms per square centimeter 0.0345316
inches of mercury to kilopascals 3.3863886
inches of mercury to millibars 33.863886
inches of mercury to pounds per square foot 70.726197
inches of mercury to pounds per square inch 0.4911541
inches of water to atmospheres 0.0024582
inches of water to bars 0.0024907
inches of water to inches of mercury 0.0735515
inches of water to kilograms per square centimeter 0.0025398
inches of water to kilograms per square meter 25.398476
inches of water to kilopascals 0.249074
inches of water to millibars 2.4907397
inches of water to pounds per square foot 5.2020179
inches of water to pounds per square inch 0.0361 251

J 0.0009478
joules to Btus
joules to calories 0.2388459
joules to kilogram-meters 0.1019716
joules to kilojoules 0.001*
joules to megajoules 0.000001*
joules to newton-meters 1.0*
joules to ounces-inches 141.61193
joules to pounds-feet 0.7375622
joules to pounds-inchcs 8.8507457
joules to watt-hours 0.0002778
Appendix A: Conversion Factors

TO CONVERT FROM: MULTIPLY BY:

joules to watt-seconds 1.0
joules per gram to kilojoules per kilogram 1.0*
joules per kilogram to Btus per pound 0.0004299

K
kilograms to grams 1000.0*
kilograms to newtons 9.80665*
kilograms to pounds 2.2046224
kilograms to tons, long 0.0009842
kilograms to tons, short 0.0011023
kilograms, water, to liters 1.00006
kilograms per cubic meter to grams per cubic centimeter 0.001*
kilograms per cubic meter to pounds per cubic foot 0.062428
kilograms per cubic meter to pounds per gallon 0.0083454
kilograms per kilowatt-hour to pounds per horsepower-hour 1.6439879
kilograms per liter to pounds per gallon 8.3454064
kilograms per meter ro grams per centimeter 0.1
kilograms per meter to pounds per foot 0.671969
kilograms per meter to pounds per inch 0.0559974
kilograms per square centimeter to atmospheres 0.9678411
kilograms per square centimeter to bars 0.980665*
kilograms per square centimeter to inches of mercury 28.959021
kilograms per square centimeter to inches of water 393.7244
kilograms per square centimeter to kilograms per square meter 10000.0*
kilograms per square centimeter to kilopascals 98.0665*
kilograms per square centimeter to millibars 980.665*
kilograms per square centimeter to pounds per square foot 2048.1614
kilograms per square centimeter to pounds per square inch 14.223343
kilograms per square meter to kilograms per square centimeter 0.0001*
kilograms per square meter to pounds per square foot 0.2048161
kilogram-meters to Btus 0.0092949
kilogram-meters to calories 2.3422781
kilogram-meters to joules 9.80665*
kilogram-meters to pounds-feet 7.2330139
kilogram-meters to watt-hours 0.0027241
kilojoules to Btus 0.9478171
kilojoules to horsepower-hours 0.0003725
kilojoules to joules 1000.0'
kilojoules to kilowatt-hours 0.0002778
kilojoules to megajoules 0.001
kilojoules per ki ogram to Btus per pound 0.4299226
kilojoules per ki ogram to joules per gram 1.0
kilometers to meters 1000.0
kilometers to miles, nautical 0.5399568
kilometers to miles, statute 0.6213712
kilometers per hour to centimeters per second 27.777778
kilometers per hour to knots 0.5399568
kilometers per hour to meters per second 0.2777778
kilometers per hour to miles per hour 0.6213712
kilometers per liter to miles per gallon, imperial 2.8248094
kilometers per liter to miles per gallon, U.S. 2.3521459
kilopascals ro atmospheres 0.0098692
 Appendix A: Conversion Factors

TO CONVERT FROM: MULTIPLY BY:

kilopascals to bars 0.01*
kilopascals to inches of mercury 0.2952998
kilopascals to inches of water 4.0148716
kilopascals to kilograms per square centimeter 0.0101972
kilopascals to millibars 10.0*
kilopascals to pascals 0.001*
kilopascals to pounds per square foot 20.885434
kilopascals to pounds per square inch 0.1450377
kilowatts to Btus per minute 56.869027
kilowatts to horsepower, metric 1.3596216
kilowatts to horsepower, SAE 1.3410221
kilowatts to newton-meters per second 1000.0*
kilowatt-hours to Btus 3412.1416
kilowatt-hours to horscpowcr-hours 1.3410221
kilowatt-hours to joules 3600000.0*
kilowatt-hours to kilojoules 3600.0*
kilowatt-hours to mega joules 3.6*
kilowatt-hours to watt-hours 1000.0*
knots to feet per minute 101.26859
knots to feet per second 1.6878099
knots to kilometers per hour 1.852*
knots to miles per hour 1.1507794

L
liters to centiliters 100.0*
liters to cubic centimeters 1000.0*
liters to cubic feet 0.0353147
liters to cubic inches 61.023744
liters to cubic yards 0.0013079
liters to deciliters 10.0*
liters to gallons, imperial 0.2199692
liters to gallons, U.S 0.2641721
liters to milliliters 1000.0*
liters to ounces, fluid 33.814023
liters to pints 2.1133764
liters to quarts 0.879877
liters to quarts 1.0566882
liters, water, to kilograms 0.99994
liters, water, to pounds 2.2044903
liters per kilowatt-hour to gallons per horsepower-hour 12.607459
liters per kilowatt-hour to quarts per horsepower-hour 3.1518648
liters per kilowatt-hour to pints per horsepower-hour 1.5759324

M
megajoules to joules 1000000.0*
mega joules to kilojoules 1000.0*
megajoules to kilowatt-hours 0.2777778
megajoules to horscpowcr-hours 0.3725061
megajoules per kilogram to Btus per pound 429.92261
meters to fathoms 0.5468067
meters to feet 3.2808399
meters to furlongs 0.004971
Appendix A: Conversion Factors

TO CONVERT FROM: MULTIPLY BY:

meters to inches 39.370079
meters to kilometers 0.001
meters to mils 39370.079
meters to yards 1.0936133
meters per second to kilometers per hour 3.6*
meters per second to feet per second 3.2808399
meters per second per second to centimeters per second per second 100.0
meters per second per second to feet p-er second per second 3.2808399
meters per second per second to g 0.1019716
microinches to micrometers 0.0254*
micrometers to microinches 39.370079
micrometers to microns 1.0*
microns to centimeters 0.0001*
microns to inches 0.0000394
microns to microinches 39.370079
microns to micrometers 1.0*
microns to millimeters 0.001*
microns to mils 0.0393701
miles, nautical, to feet 6076.1155
miles, nautical, to kilometers 1.852*
miles, nautical, to miles, statute 1.1597794
miles, nautical, to yards 2025.3718
miles, statute, to feet 5280.0*
miles, statute, to furlongs 8.0*
miles, statute, to kilometers 1.609344*
miles, statute, to miles, nautical 0.8689762
miles, statute, to yards 1760.0*
miles per gallon, imperial, to kilometers per liter 0.3540062
miles per gallon, imperial, to miles per gallon, U.S 0.8326742
miles per gallon, U.S., to kilometers per liter 0.4251437
miles per gallon, U.S., to miles per gallon, imperial 1.2009499
miles per hour to centimeters per second 44.704*
miles per lour to feet per minute 88.0*
miles per hour to feet per second 1.4666667
miles per hour to kilometers per hour 1.609344*
miles per hour to knots 0.8689762
millibars to atmospheres 0.0009869
millibars to bars 0.001*
millibars to inches of mercury 0.02953
millibars to inches of water 0.4014872
millibars to kilograms per square centimeter 0.0010197
millibars to kilopascals 0.1*
millibars to millimeters of mercury 0.7500617
millibars to pascals 100.0*
millibars to pounds per square foot 2.0885434
millibars to pounds per square inch 0.0145038
milligrams to grains 0.0154324
milligrams to grams 0.001*
milli grams to ounces 0.0000353
milli iters to cubic centimeters 1.0*
milli iters to liters 0.001*
milli iters to ounces, fluid 0.033814
 Appendix A: Conversion Factors

0 CONVERT FROM: MULTIPLY BY:

millimeters to centimeters 0.1*
millimeters to inches 0.0393701
millimeters to meters 0.001*
millimeters to microns 1000.0*
millimeters to mils 39.370079
mils to centimeters 0.00254*
mils to feet 0.0000833
mils to inches 0.001*
mils to meters 0.0000254*
mils to microns 25.4*
mils to millimeters 0.0254’
mils to yards 0.0002778
minutes to degrees 0.0166667
minutes to grades 0.0185185
minutes to radians 0.0002909
minutes to quadrants 0.0001852
minutes to seconds 60.0*

N
newtons to kilograms 0.1019716
newtons to ounces 3.5969431
newtons to pounds 0.2248089
newtons per meter to newtons per millimeter 0.001*
newtons per meter to pounds per foot 0.0685218
newtons per millimeter to newtons per meter 1000.0*
newtons per millimeter to pounds per foot 68.52178
newtons per millimeter to pounds per inch 5.7101471
newtons per square meter to pascals 1.0*
newton-meters to joules 1.0*
newton-meters to pounds-fcct 0.7375622

0
ounces to grains 437.5*
ounces to grams 28.35*
ounces to kilograms 0.0283495
ounces to milligrams 28349.523
ounces to newtons 0.2780139
ounces to pounds 0.0625*
ounces, fluid, to cubic feet 0.0010444
ounces, fluid, to cubic inches 1.8046875
ounces, fluid, to gallons 0.0078125*
ounces, fluid, to milliliters 29.573529
ounces, fluid, to pints 0.0625*
ounces, fluid, to quarts 0.03125*
ounces-inches to joules or newton-meters 0.0070616
ounces-inches to pounds-feet 0.0052083
ounces-inches to pounds-inchcs 0.0625*

P
pascals to bars 0.00001*
pascals to inches of mercury 0.0002953
pascals to inches of water 0.0040149
Appendix A: Conversion Factors

TO CONVERT FROM: MULTIPLY BY:

pascals to kilograms per square centimeter 0.0000102
pascals to kilopascals 1000.0*
pascals to millibars 0.01*
pascals to newtons per square meter 1.0*
pascals to pounds per square foot 208.85434
pints to cubic centimeters 473.17647
pints to cubic feet 0.0167101
pints to cubic inches 28.875
pints to gallons 0.125*
pints to liters 0.4731765
pints to ounces, fluid 16.0*
pints to quarts 0.5*
pints per horsepower-hour to liters per kilowatt-hour 0.634545*
pounds to grains 7000.0*
pounds to grams 453.6
pounds to kilograms 0.4535924
pounds to newtons 4.4482217
pounds to ounces 16.0*
pounds to tons, metric 0.0004536
pounds, water, to cubic feet 0.0160194
pounds, water, to cubic inches 27.681566
pounds, water, to cubic meters 0.0004536
pounds, water, to gallons 0.1198336
pounds, water, to liters 0.4536196
pounds per cubic foot to grams per cubic centimeter 0.0160185
toot to pounds per cubic inch
pounds per cubic foot 0.0005787
pounds per cubic foot to Kilograms per cubic meter 16.018464
pounds per cubic foot to pounds per gallon 0.1336806
pounds per cubic inch to grams per cubic centimeter 27.679905
pounds per cubic inch to pounds per cubic foot 1728.0*
pounds per cubic inch to kilograms per cubic meter 27679.905
pounds per cubic inch to pounds per gallon 231.0*
pounds per foot to kilograms per meter 1.488164
pounds per foot to newtons per meter 14.5939
pounds per foot to newtons per millimeter 0.0145939
pounds per foot to pounds per inch 12.0
pounds per gallon to grams per cubic centimeter 0.1198264
pounds per gallon to pounds per cubic foot 7.4805195
pounds per gallon to kilograms per cubic meter 119.82643
pounds per gallon to kilograms per liter 0.1198264
pounds per gallon to pounds per cubic inch 0.004329
pounds per norsepower-hour to grams per kilowatt-hour 608.2774
pounds per horsepower-hour to grams per megajoule 168.9659
pounds per horsepower-hour to kilograms per kilowatt-hour 0.6082774
pounds per inch to kilograms per meter 17.857968
pounds per inch to newtons per millimeter 0.1751268
pounds per inch to ounces per inch 16.0
pounds per inch to pounds per foot 0.0833333
pounds per square foot to atmospheres 0.0004725
pounds per square foot to bars 0.0004788
pounds per square feet to inches of mercury 0.014139
pounds per square foot to inches of water 0.1922331
 Appendix A: Conversion Factors

TO CONVERT FROM: MULTIPLY BY:

pounds per square foot to kilograms per square centimeter 0.0004882
pounds per square foot to kilograms per square meter 4.8824277
pounds per square foot to kilopascals 0.0478803
pounds per square foot to millibars 0.4788026
pounds per square feet to pascals 47.880259
pounds per square foot to pounds per square inch 0.006944
pounds per square inch to atmospheres 0.068046
pounds per square inch to bars 0.0689476
pounds per square inch to inches of mercury 2.0360207
pounds per square inch to inches of water 27.681566
pounds per square inch to pounds per square foot 144.0*
pounds per square inch to kilograms per square centimeter 0.070307
pounds per square inch to kilopascals 6.8947574
pounds per square inch to millibars 68.947574
pounds-feet to Btus 0.0012851
pounds-feet to calorics 0.3238316
pounds-feet to joules or newton-meters 1.3558179
pounds-feet to kilogram-meters 0.138255
pounds-feet to ounccs-inchcs 192.0*
pounds-feet to pounds-inches 12.0*
pounds-feet to watt-hours 0.0003766
pounds-feet per minute to horsepower 0.0000303
pounds-inchcs to joules or newton-meters 0.1129848
pounds-inches to ounces-inchcs 16.0*
pounds-inchcs to pounds-feet 0.0833333

Q
quadrants to circumferences 4.0*
quadrants to degrees 90.0*
quadrants to grades 100.0*
quadrants to minutes 5400.0*
quadrants to radians 1.5707963
quadratics to seconds 3240000.0*
quarts to cubic centimeters 946.35295
quarts to cubic feet 0.0334201
quarts to cubic inches 57.75
quarts to gallons 0.25*
quarts to liters 0.9463529
quarts to ounces, fluid 32.0*
quarts to pints 2.0*
quarts per horsepower-hour to liters per kilowatt-hour 0.3172725

R
radians to circumferences 0.0159154
radians to degrees 57.295779
radians to grades 63.661978
radians to minutes 3437.7468
radians to seconds 206264.81

s
seconds to degrees 0.0002778
seconds to grades 0.0003086
Appendix A: Conversion Factors

TO CONVERT FROM: MULTIPLY BY:

seconds to minutes 0.0166667
seconds to radians 0.0000049
square centimeters to square feet 0.0010764
square centimeters to square inches 0.1550003
square centimeters to square yards 0.0001196
square feet to square centimeters 929.0304
square feet to square inches 144.0*
square feet to square meters 0.092903
square feet to square yards 0.1111111
square inches to square centimeters 6.4516*
square inches to square feet 0.0069444
square inches to square meters 0.0006452
square inches to square millimeters 645.16*
square inches to square yards 0.0007716
square meters to square feet 10.76391
square meters to square inches 1550.0031
square meters to square yards 1.19599
square yards to square feet 9.0*
square yards to square inches 1296.0*
square yards to square meters 0.8361274

T
tons, long, to kilograms 1016.0469
tons, long, to pounds 2240.0*
tons, long, to tons, short 1.12*
tons, metric, to kilograms 1000.0*
tons, metric, to pounds 2204.6226
tons, metric, to tons, short 1.1023113
tons, short, to kilograms 907.18475
tons, short, to pounds 2000.0*
tons, short, to tons, long 0.8928571
tons, short, to tons, metric 0.9071847

w
watt-hours to Btus 3.4121416
watt-hours to calorics 859.84523
watt-hours to joules 3600.0*
watt-hours to kilogram-meters 367.09784
watt-hours to kilowatt-hours 0.001*
watt-hours to pounds-fcct 2655.2237

Y
yards to centimeters 91.44*
yards to fathoms 0.5*
yards to feet 3.0*
yards to furlongs 0.0045455
yards to inches 36.0*
yards to meters 0.9144*
yards to mils 36000.0*

*Exact figure
 APPENDIX B: BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adler, U., editor-in-chief. Automotive
Handbook, 2nd English edition. Stuttgart,
Germany: Robert Bosch CimbH, 1986.
Alston, Chris. Drag Race Chassis Tuning
Manual. Sacramento, California: Alston
Industries, 1985.
Anand, Dev. "Dyno Secrets," Car Craft
Annual 1988. Los Angeles: Petersen Publishing
Company, 1988, pp. 167-169.
---------- ."Street Machine Reference Guide,"
Car Craft, Vol. 38, No. 2, February 1990, pp.
67-68, 73-74.
Anderson, Edwin P. Gas Engine Manual, 2nd
edition revised by Ted Pipe. Indianapolis:
Theodore Audel and Company, 1977.
Auth, Joanne Buhl. Deskbook ofMath
Formulas and Tables. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company, 1985.
Bell, A. Graham. Performance Tuning in
Theory and Practice: Four Strokes. Somerset,
England: Haynes Publishing Group, 1981.
Bird, J.O. Newnes. Engineering Science Pocket
Rook. London: William Heinemann Limited,
1987.
Bishop, Owen. Yardsticks of the Universe. New
York: Peter Bedrick Books, 1982.
Blocksma, Mary. Reading the Numbers: A
Survival Guide to the Measurements, Numbers
and Sizes Encountered in Everyday Life. New
York: Penguin Books, 1989.
Brianza, David. Beginning Technical
Mathematics Made Easy. Blue Ridge Summit,
Pennsylvania: TAB Books, 1990.
Campbell, Colin. The Sports Car: Its Design
and Performance, 4th edition. Cambridge,
Massachusscts: Robert Bentley, 1978.
---------- . The Sports Car Engine: Its Tuning and
Modification. Cambridge. Massachusetts:
Robert Bentley, 1964.
Carmichael, Robert D., and Edwin R. Smith.
Mathematical Tables and Formulas. New York:
Dover Publications, 1962.
Chevrolet Power, 4th edition. Warren,
Michigan: Chevrolet Motor Division, General
Motors Corporation, 1980.
Christy, John, editor. Supertuning. New York:
New American Library, 1966.
Chrysler Kit Car. Catalog SP11. Detroit:
Chrysler Corporation, 1977.
Corn, Juliana, and Tony Behr. Technical
Mathematics through Applications. Philadelphia:
Saunders College Publishing, 1982.
Csere, Csaba. "Torque of the'lown,'' Car and
Driver, Vol. 36, No. 1, July 1990, pp. 24-25.
Emiliani, Cesare. The Scientific Companion:
Exploring the Physical World with Facts, Figures,
and Formulas. New York: John Wiley and Sons,
1988.
Estes, Bill. The RVHandbook. Agoura,
California: Trailer Life Books, 1991.
---------- ."Weigh Your RV," RVDo It Yourself.
Calabasas, California: Trailer Life Books, 1975,
pp. 26-29.
"Figure It Out!" Drag Racing USA, Vol. 6,
No. 9, June 1970, pp. 45-47, 60-61, 70.
Fitch, James W. Motor Truck Engineering
Handbook, 3rd edition. Anacortes, Washington:
Published by the author, 1984.
Flammang, James. Understanding Automotive
Specifications and Data. Blue Ridge Summit,
Pennsylvania: TAB Books, 1986.
Francisco, Don. "Math and Formulas for Hot
Rodders," Hot Rod Magazine Yearbook Number
One. Los Angeles: Petersen Publishing
Company, 1961, pp. 35-39.
Greenberg, Leon A. Alco-Calculator: An
Educational Instrument. Piscataway, New Jersey:
Rutgers University Center of Alcohol Studies,
1983.
Appendix B: Bibliography
Hale, Patrick. Drag Strip Dyno," The First
60 Feet: A Newsletterfor the Quarter Users
Group, July 1987.
---------- Quarter. Jr. Computer software.
Phoenix, Arizona: Racing Systems Analysis,
1987. Apple, Commodore and IBM disks.
High Performance Engines. Dearborn,
Michigan: Ford Motor Company, 1969.
Hills, Herbert Impco Carburetion. Cerritos,
California: Impco Carburetion, n.d.
Hudson, Ralph G., S.B. The Engineers'
Manual, 2nd edition. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1979.
Huntington, Roger. American Supercar.
HPBooks, 1983.
---------- ."True Power," Car Life, Vol. 17, No.
4, May 1970, pp. 10-13.
Jarman, Trant. "Lets Torque," Automobile,
Vol. 2, No. 3, June 1987, pp. 40-41.
Jennings, Gordon. Two-Stroke Tuner's
Handbook. HPBooks, 1973.
Jute, .Andre. Designing and Building Special
Cars. London: B.T. Batsford, 1985.
Klein, Herbert Arthur. The Science of
Measurement: A Historical Survey. New York:
Dover Publications, 1988.
Landis, Bob. "Racer Arithmetic," The Pacers
Complete Reference Guide. Santa Ana,
California: Steve Smith Autosports, 1976, pp.
196-199.
Losee, Jim. "Guide to Formulas and
Conversions," Car Craft, Vol. 37, No. 12,
December 1989, pp. 52-55.
Ludlam, F.W. The Elementary Theory ofthe
Internal Combustion Engine, 3rd edition.
London and Glasgow: Blackie and Sons, 1947.
Martin, Mike. Mopar Suspensions. Brea,
California: S-A Design Books, 1984.
McFarland, Jim. The Great Manifold Bolt-On.
El Segundo. California: Edclbrock Corporation,
1982.
---------- ."Hot Rod Shop Series: Basic
Mathematics for the Car Enthusiast," Hot Rod
Magazine, Vol. 33, No. 1, January 1980, pp.
54-59.
---------- ."Power Theory," Engines, Hot Rod
High Performance Series, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1987,
pp. 24-26.
---------- ."Street Machine Math," Car Craft
Yearbook, Los Angeles: Petersen Publishing
Company, 1987, pp. 87-89.
Metric Conversion Tables. Woodbury, New
York: Barrens Educational Series, 1976.
Moore, Claude S., Bernie L. Griffin, and
Edwar d C. Polhamus Jr. Applied Math for
Technicians, 2nd edition. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1982.
Newton, K., W. Steeds and T.K. Garrett. The
Motor Vehicle, 11th edition. London:
Butterworths, 1989.
NHRA Drag Rules. Glendora, California:
National Hot Rod Association, published
annually.
Oddo, Frank. "Thumbs Up on Engine Life,"
Popular Cars, Vol. 8, No. 6, June 1986, p. 66.
Patterson, G.A. Engine Thermodynamics with
a Pocket Calculator, 2nd edition. Palos Verdes
Estates, California: Basic Science Press, 1983.
Pitt, Jerry. "Time for Torque," Car Craft, Vol.
36, No. 11, November 1988, pp. 34-37.
Puhn, Fred. How to Make Your Car Handle.
Los Angeles, California: Price Stern
Sloan/HPBooks, 1976.
Richmond, Doug. Metrics for Mechanics.
Berkeley, California: Dos Reales Publishing,
1974.

Roc, Doug. Rochester Carburetors, revised edition.
Los Angeles, California: Price Stern Sloan/HPBooks,
1986.
Rogowski, Stephen J. Computers for Sea and Sky.
Morristown, New Jersey: Creative Computing Press,
1982.
SAF. Handbook, 4 vols. Warrendale, Pennsylvania:
Society of Automotive Engineers, published
annually.
Schimizzi, Ned V. Mastering the Metric System.
New York: New American Library, 1975.
Schofield, Miles. Basic Engine Math," Basic
Engine Hot Rodding. Los Angeles: Petersen
Publishing Company, 1972, pp. 14-17.
Shepard, Larry S. How to Hot Rod Small-Block
Mopar Engines. New York: HPBooks, 2003.
---------- .Mopar Chassis Speed Secrets. Farmington
Hills, Michigan: Chrysler Corporation Direct
Connection, 1984.
---------- .Mopar Oval Track Modifications.
Farmington Hills, Michigan: Chrysler Corporation
Direct Connection, 1983.
---------- . Tech Tips, ” Mopar Performance News,
"Finding the Head CCs," Vol. 8, No. 3, April 1987,
p. 8; "CC’ing the Block," Vol. 8, No. 4, May 1987,
pp. 8-9; ".500" Down Fill Volumes,' Vol. 8, No. 5,
June 1987, p. 10; "Compression Ratio," Vol. 8, No.
6, July 1987, pp. 14-15; "Gearing," Vol. 10, No. 9,
October 1989, p. 11.
Sherman, Don. "Pfederstarke and Other
Horsepower Secrets Revealed, " Car and Driver, Vol.
30, No. 12, June 1985, pp. 26-27.
Simanaitis, Dennis. 'Technical Tidbits, " Road &
Track, Vol. 38, No. 2, October 1986, pp. 148-149.
---------- . "Technical Correspondence," Road &
Track, "Lets Ask the Professor," Vol. 37, No. 10, June
1986, pp. 206-207; "Engine Output and Altitude,"
Vol. 39, No. 9, May 1988, pp. 166-168;
"Calculating RPM and Speed," Vol. 39, No. 10, June
1988, pp. 158-160, 162; "Predicting Horsepower,"
Vol. 42, No. 2, October 1990, pp. 170-171.
Smith, Carroll. Tune to Win. Osceola, Wisconsin:
Classic Motorbooks, 1978.
Appendix B: Bibliography
Smith, Philip H. The Design and Tuning of
Competition Engines. 6th edition revised bv
David N. Wenner. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Robert Bentley, 1977.
Smith, Steve. Advanced Race Car Suspension
Development, revised edition. Santa Ana.
California: Steve Smith Autosports, 1975.
Storer, Jay. "What Is Horsepower?" Hot
Rod Yearbook Number 13.1-os Angeles:
Petersen Publishing Company, 1973, pp.
114-117.
Taborek, Jaroslav J. Mechanics of Vehicles.
Cleveland, Ohio: Pen ton Publishing
Company, 1957.
Taxel, I. Conversion Factors with Metric
Calculator. Woodmere, New York: Published
by the author, 1964.
Zmr Inflation and Substitution/Performance
Formulas. Akron, Ohio: BFGoodrich, 1986.
Titus, Rick. "The Pursuit of Control," Hot
Rod 1986 Annual. Los Angeles: Petersen
Publishing Company, 1985, pp. 146-151.
Urich, Mike, and Bill Fisher. Holley
Carburetors, Manifolds & Fuel Injection. New
York/New York: Penguin Group
(USA)/HPBooks, 1994.
Van Valkcnburgh, Paul. Race Car Engineering and
Mechanics, 2nd edition. Seal Beach, California:
Published by rhe author, 1986.
Von Hclmolt, Ken. "Differential Equations," 4x4
Answer Book. Canoga Park, California: Four
Wheeler Publishing, 1987, pp. 69-71.
Wallace, Dave. "Chassis Tune-Up," Hot
Rod 1986Annual. Los Angeles: Petersen
Publishing Company, 1985, pp. 88-98.
Wilson, Waddell, and Steve Smith. Racing
Engine Preparation. Santa Ana, California:
Steve Smith Autosports, 1975.
Winchell, Frank. "A Lesson in Basic
Vehicular Physics," Automobile Magazine,
Vol. 2, No. 9, December 1987, pp. 45-50.
 INDEX
Aerodynamics
frontal area and, 55-56
handling basics and, 57
horsepower requirements for, 54-55
pitch couple in, 58
ram air pressure and, 58
roll, pitch, yaw in, 56-58
Air capacity
carburetor size and, 32-34
formulas for, 31
volumetric efficiency and, 31-34
Amount to mill formula, 15
Atmospheric correction factors, 25-26
Average miles per gallon, 84-87, 93
B Displacement, 1, 2, 3-4, 7
Bore, 3-6
formula for, 7
Brake horsepower and torque, 21-22
formulas for, 25
Brake mean effective pressure, 29
Brakes, rolling resistance and, 60
Brake specific fuel consumption, 22, 25, 29
c E
Carburetor, 32-34
cc-ing, 10-11
Center of gravity, 38
added weight and, 44
calculating ground level wheelbase for, 44
formulas for, 44
fuel tank foil or empty for, 43
height of, 43, 44
horizontal position and, 41
lengthways location of, 41
measuring ground level wheelbase for, 43-44
necessary dimensions for, 43
sideways location of, 41
suspension and tire deflection and, 42-43
vertical position and, 42-44
weights and measures and, 42
Centrifugal force, 48, 57
cfm. See Cubic feet per minute
Chamber capacity measurement, 9
Combustion chamber
area estimation of, 12-13
milled heads and, 12
planimeters for, 13-14
volume calculation of, 12
volume measurement of, 9-11
Compressed volume formula, 15
Compression ignition, 9
Compression ratio, 8-9, 15
Computer programs, 69, 72
handheld computers and, 70
port areas and, 70-71
quarter-milc c.t. and mph and, 65, 66
Conferences, 72
Crankshaft balancing, 100
heavy metal in, 98-99
lever arm in, 97-98
>arts in motion in, 94-97, 95, 96
Cu ■)ic centimeters, 8
Cubic feet per minute (cfm), 31, 34
Cy inder, 3-4, 7, 15
D
Density, 23
metric, 5-6
ratio, 13, 15
Downshifts, 62-63
Driveshaft torque, 61-62, 63
Drive wheel torque, 45-46, 49
Dynamometer, 21, 22
Dyno chart, 23-24
Elapsed time (c.t.), 65-68
Elevation, 24-25
c.t. See Elapsed time
F
Flywheel comparison, moment of inertia and,
'51-53
Formula(s), 67
for air capacity, 31
for amount to mill, 15
for average miles per gallon, 87, 93
for average mph, 87
for bore, 7
for brake horsepower and torque, 25
for brake horsepower loss, 25
for brake specific fuel consumption, 25
for center of gravity, 44
for centrifugal force, 48
for compressed volume, 15
for compression ratio, 15
for crankshaft balancing, 99
for cylinder volume, 7, 15
for displacement, 7
for displacement ratio, 15
for gear ratio, 79
for g force and weight transfer, 49
for indicated horsepower and torque, 30
 Index

for inertia, 50-53 speedometer error, 73-74, 75, 76, 82

for instrument error, 76 testing for, 73-76
for lateral acceleration, 49
for lateral weight transfer, 49 L
for mean effective pressure, 30 Lateral acceleration, 47, 49
for mechanical efficiency, 30 calculating, 47-48
for moment of inertia, 53 Left/right distribution, 37-38
for mph, 68, 79, 83, 87
for overall gear ratio, 68 M
for piston speed, 19 Mean effective pressure, 27-30
for quarter-mile e.t. and mph, 68 Mechanical efficiency, 29-30
for racing carb cfm, 34 Micrometer, 4
for revolutions per minute, 19, 79 Miles per gallon, 84
for shift points, 64 average, formulas for, 87, 93
for street carb cfm, 34 Miles per hour (mph), 65-67
for stroke, 7 average, 84-87
for tire diameter, 79 formulas for, 68, 79, 83, 87
for tire sizes and their effects, 83 indicated and actual, 82-83
for torque, 25 moment of inertia and, 50, 53
for volumetric efficiency, 34 Milled heads, 12
for weight distribution, 38 Moment of inertia
Frontal area, aerodynamics and, 55-56 flywheel comparison in, 51-53
Front/rear distribution, 36-37 mph and, 50, 53
Fuel, 22, 25, 29, 43 speed and, 51
check, 23 tire diameter and, 50-51, 53
economy, 88-93 Moving time vs. travel time, 85
mph. See Miles per hour
G
Gear ratio, 79 N
overall, 66-68, 78 Numbers, 1, 2
g force, 45^6, 49 rounding off, 3, 6
g force and weight transfer, 45-46
centrifugal force in, 48 0
formulas for, 49 Odometer error, 73-74, 75, 76
lateral acceleration in, 47-49 Overall gear ratio, 66-68, 78
lateral weight transfer in, 48, 49 Oversteer, 37
Ground level wheelbase, 43-44
P
H pi, 1,7
Headers, dyno-testing, 24 Piston dome measurement, 12
Honing, 4-5 Pistons, 100
Horsepower, 20-21, 25, 27-30, 54-55 Piston speed
Hybrids, 88, 89, 90 average, 16-18
problems from, 16
I rev limits and, 18
Indicated horsepower and torque, 27-30 small-block V-8, 18-19
Indicated mean effective pressure, 27 Pitch, 56-57
Indicated torque, 28-29 couple, 58
Indicator, 27 PLAN, horsepower and, 27-28
Inertia, 52, 53, 90 Planimeters, 13-14
formulas for, 50-53 Public scale, 35
Instrument error
formulas for, 76
inconsistencies in, 75
Index

T
Quarter-mile e.t. and mph, 68 Temperature, 25-26
computer programs and, 65, 66 Theoretical cfm, 31, 34
gearing for speed in, 66-67 Tire diameter, 50, 53, 78-79
downsize, 82-83
R effective drive ratio and, 81, 83
Raceway lap times, average speeds and, 85-86, 87 equivalent drive ratio and, 81, 83
Racing carb, 33 metric, 81
cfm, formula for, 34 roll-out method for finding, 51
Rake angle, 60 section height and width in, 80-81
Ram air pressure, 58 Torque, 21—22, 25
Revolutions per minute, 19, 77-79 driveshaft, 61-62, 63
Rod strength, 18 drive wheel, 45-46, 49
Roll, 56-58 indicated, 28-29
Rolling resistance, 90-91 indicated horsepower and, 27-30
brakes and, 60 mechanical efficiency from, 29
coast down and, 59 frailer tongue weight, 39—40
rake angle and, 60
tire pressure and, 59 U
weight and, 60 Understeer, weight distribution and, 37
wheel alignment and, 60
Roll-out method, for finding tire diameter, 51 V
Volumetric efficiency, 31-34
S
Shift points W
driveshaft torque and, 61-62 Weight, 42, 44, 50, 60, 68, 90. See also g force and
formulas for, 64 weight transfer
ideal, 62-63 -cartying hitch, 39
Snap gauge, 4 -distributing hitch, 39-40
Spark ignition, 9 from e.t., 65-66
Specific gravity, 22-23 Weight distribution, 41
Speed, 51. See also Piston speed adding weight at either end in, 38-39
average, raceway lap times and, 85-86, 87 center of gravity of add-ons and, 38
centrifugal force and, 57 front/rcar distribution, 36-37
Speedometer error, 73-74, 75, 76, 82 left/right distribution, 37-38
Street carb trailer tongue weight and, 39-40
cfm, formula for, 34 understeer and oversteer and, 37
size of, 32-33, 34 Weight of vehicle
Stroke, 1,2 portable car scales for, 35, 38
checker, 3 problems measuring, 35-36
formula for, 7 public scale for, 35
Suspension and tire deflection, 42-43 truck scales for, 35, 36
Symbols, 2 wheel weights in pairs and, 35
 ABOUT THE AUTHORS

John Lawlor
John I-awlor was an automobile enthusiast since boyhood.
He started writing about cars while still in college, with a
weekly motoring column in the campus newspaper at Loyola
University in Los Angeles, California.
He became a professional journalist in the late 1950s,
when he went to work for Petersen Publishing Co., where he
became a senior editor of Motor Trend and later, an editor in
the firms book division.
During the 1960s, he moved to Bond Publishing
Company, where he was an assistant editor of Car Life and a
contributor to the parent magazine, Road & Track. He has
also served as the managing editor of Popular Hot Rodding
and Speed Age magazines.
In 1967, he served as public relations director for the
Inaugural Mexican 1000, the first off-road race down
Mexico’s Baja California peninsula. His efforts resulted in
more event coverage by motor enthusiasts’ magazines than
any previous motorsport event of any kind. As a result, in
1979 Lawlor became the first journalist or publicist elected
to the Off-Road Hall of Fame, sponsored by the Specialty
Equipment Market Association (SEMA). In 1989, he was
similarly honored as one of the first ten inductees into the
Dune Buggies and Hot VWs Magazine Hall of Fame.
He was the author of three additional books: Hou> to Talk
Car, a dictionary of automotive slang; Inside Full-Time Four-
Wheel Drive, a guide to the New Process 203 system
published by Chrysler in the mid-70s; and HPBooks Auto
Dictionary, with John Edwards.

Bill Hancock
Bill Flancock was chosen to write the revision of John’s
original work. As a mechanical engineer, Bill worked for
Chrysler Corporation in their 70s NASCAR program for
ten years and then left to start and run his own company,
Arrow Racing Engines, Inc, which specializes in high
performance engine development in the Detroit area. After
selling the business in 2008, Bill currently writes and does
consulting work for the performance industry. This revision
incorporates several new chapters on emerging areas of
interest in the performance calculations arena.

GENERAL MOTORS
Big-Block Chevy Engine Buildups: 978-1-55788-484-8/HP1484
Big-Block Chevy Performance: 978-1-55788-216-5/HP1216
Building the Chevy LS Engine: 978-1-55788-559-3/HP1559
Camaro Performance Handbook: 978-1-55788-057-4/HP1057
Camaro Restoration Handbook ('61-'81): 978-0-89586-375-1/HP758
Chevy LS Engine Buildups: 978-1-55788-567-8/HP1567
Chevy LS Engine Conversion Handbook: 978-1-55788-566-1/HP1566
Chevy LS1/LS6 Performance: 978-1-55788-407-7/HP1407
Classic Camaro Restoration, Repair & Upgrades:
978-1-55788-564-7/HP1564
The Classic Chevy Truck Handbook: 978-1-55788-534-0/HP1534
How to Rebuild Big-Block Chevy Engines:
978-0-89586-175-7/HP755
How to Rebuild Big-Block Chevy Engines, 1991-2000:
978-1-55788-550-0/HP1550
How to Rebuild Small-Block Chevy LT-1/LT-4 Engines:
978-1-55788-393-3/HP1393
How to Rebuild Your Small-Block Chevy:
978-1-55788-029-1/HP1029
Powerglide Transmission Handbook: 978-1-55788-355-1/HP1355
Small-Block Chevy Engine Buildups: 978-1-55788-400-8/HP1400
Turbo Hydra-Matic 350 Handbook: 978-0-89586-051-4/HP511
FORD
Classic Mustang Restoration, Repair & Upgrades:
978-1-55788-537-1/HP1537
Ford Engine Buildups: 978-1-55788-531-9/HP1531
Ford Windsor Small-Block Performance:
978-1-55788-558-6/HP1558
How to Build Small-Block Ford Racing Engines:
978-1-55788-536-2/HP1536
How to Rebuild Big-Block Ford Engines:
978-0-89586-070-5/HP708
How to Rebuild Ford V-8 Engines: 978-0-89586-036-1/HP36
How to Rebuild Small-Block Ford Engines:
978-0-912656-89-2/HP89
Mustang Restoration Handbook: 978-0-89586-402-4/HP029
MOPAR
Big-Block Mopar Performance: 978-1-55788-302-5/HP1302
How to Hot Rod Small-Block Mopar Engine, Revised:
978-1-55788-405-3/HP1405
How to Modify Your Jeep Chassis and Suspension For Off-Road:
978-1-55788-424-4/HP1424
How to Modify Your Mopar Magnum V8:
978-1-55788-473-2/HP1473
How to Rebuild and Modify Chrysler 426 Hemi Engines:
978-1-55788-525-8/HP1525
How to Rebuild Big-Block Mopar Engines:
978-1-55788-190-8/HP1190
How to Rebuild Small-Block Mopar Engines:
978-0-89586-128-5/HP83
How to Rebuild Your Mopar Magnum V8:
978-1-55788-431-5/HP1431
The Mopar Six-Pack Engine Handbook:
978-1-55788-528-9/HP1528
Torqueflite A-727 Transmission Handbook:
978-1-55788-399-5/HP1399
IMPORTS
Baja Bugs & Buggies: 978-0-89586-186-3/HP60
Honda/Acura Engine Performance: 978-1-55788-384-1/HP1384
How to Build Performance Nissan Sport Compacts, 1991-2006:
978-1 -55788-541-8/HP1541
HPBooks
How to Hot Rod VW Engines: 978-0-91265-603-8/HP034
How to Rebuild Your VW Air-Cooled Engine:
978-0-89586-225-9/HP1225
Porsche 911 Performance: 978-1-55788-489-3/HP1489
Street Rotary: 978-1-55788-549-4/HP1549
Toyota MR2 Performance: 978-155788-553-1/HP1553
Xtreme Honda B-Series Engines: 978-1-55788-552-4/HP1552
HANDBOOKS
Auto Electrical Handbook: 978-0-89586-238-9/HP387
Auto Math Handbook: 978-1-55788-554-8/HP1554
Auto Upholstery & Interiors: 978-1-55788-265-3/HP1265
Custom Auto Wiring & Electrical: 978-1-55788-545-6/HP1545
Electric Vehicle Conversion Handbook: 978-1-55788-568-5/HP1568
Engine Builder's Handbook: 978-1-55788-245-5/HP1245
Fiberglass & Other Composite Materials: 978-1 -55788-498-
5/HP1498
High Performance Fasteners & Plumbing: 978-1-55788-523-
4/HP1523
Metal Fabricator's Handbook: 978-0-89586-870-1/HP709
Paint & Body Handbook: 978-1-55788-082-6/HP1082
Plasma Cutting Handbook: 978-1-55788-569-2/HP1569
Practical Auto & Truck Restoration: 978-155788-547-0/HP1547
Pro Paint & Body: 978-1-55788-563-0/HP1563
Sheet Metal Handbook: 978-0-89586-757-5/HP575
Welder's Handbook, Revised: 978-1-55788-513-5
INDUCTION
Engine Airflow: 978-155788-537-1/HP1537
Holley 4150 & 4160 Carburetor Handbook: 978-0-89586-047-
7/HP473
Holley Carbs, Manifolds & F.I.: 978-1-55788-052-9/HP1052
Rebuild & Powertune Carter/Edelbrock Carburetors:
978-155788-555-5/HP1555
Rochester Carburetors: 978-0-89586-301-0/HP014
Performance Fuel Injection Systems: 978-1-55788-557-9/HP1557
Turbochargers: 978-0-89586-135-1 /HP49
Street Turbocharging: 978-1-55788-488-6/HP1488
Weber Carburetors: 978-0-89589-377-5/HP774
RACING & CHASSIS
Advanced Race Car Chassis Technology: 978-1-55788-562-3/HP562
Chassis Engineering: 978-1-55788-055-0/HP1055
How to Make Your Car Handle: 978-1-91265-646-5/HP46
How to Build a Winning Drag Race Chassis & Suspension: 978-1-
55788-462-6/HP1462
The Race Car Chassis: 978-1-55788-540-1/HP1540
The Racing Engine Builder's Handbook: 978-1-55788-492-3/HP1492
STREET RODS
Street Rodder magazine's Chassis & Suspension Handbook: 978-
1-55788-346-9/HP1346
Street Rodder's Handbook, Revised: 978-1-55788-409-1/HP1409
ORDER YOUR COPY TODAY!
All books are available from online bookstores
(www.amazon.com and www.barnesandnoble.com) and auto
parts stores (www.summitracing.com or www.jegs.com). Or
order direct from HPBooks at www.penguin.com/hpauto. Many
titles are available in downloadable eBook formats.