neit_jnf said:264 whp and 302 wtq!
haven't seen it posted so here goes (huge scans)...
RogRacer said:I hate to say this....but there is something wrong with the data in the article. Look at the plot. The numbers do not agree with the claims in the summary boxes. I "think" what may have happened is that the plots are FWHP, while the summarized numbers (302 ft-lb, 264 hp) may have been "corrected" (by some unknown mechanism) back to the crank. (uhm)