|
Re: Engine builders, you have my sympathy
[Re: madscientist]
#1673857
09/24/14 03:40 PM
09/24/14 03:40 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,422
Kalispell Mt.
HotRodDave
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,422
Kalispell Mt.
|
Top fuel has to run a certain bore spacing, 8000 HP requires a certain cylinder wall thickness to live, hence the small bore. It is as big as reasonably possible within the rules. No specified limit directly on the bore size but the block is the limit. Same with pro stock, bore spacing is limited so in a way so is actual bore, you just can't run a .010 wall between the cylinders. Both stroke to the max (allowed by the rules) displacement after they settle on a bore that will live.
You are right on about R/S ratio as for how it works and the benefits but I think displacement trumps it to a farther degree than most would think.
Also there are not huge frictional losses due to long strokes (unless you try to run the same RPM), they just run lower RPM through gearing and friction is then basically a wash.
I am not causing global warming, I am just trying to hold off a impending Ice Age!
|
|
|
Re: Engine builders, you have my sympathy
[Re: ]
#1673859
09/24/14 03:41 PM
09/24/14 03:41 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,457
Washington
madscientist
master
|
master
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,457
Washington
|
Quote:
Quote:
ou claim: "You will never EVER compete in real (read heads up) competition when you have an engine based on less than 1.0 bore/stroke ratio. And 1.0 is the bare MINIMUM. It's just stupid."......I did not change or twist anything....just wondering what others think about that....
I will be the first to admit, when Monte and Tim (mad scientist) speak, I shut my pie hole and try to learn something. There are others here who's opinion I respect, as well, but the list is getting shorter when they get chased off. Tim has done some sweet port work for me, and I used to work and hang at the shop he worked at. No one that knew him ever doubted his knowledge, talent or experience. So he is lightyears beyond where I will ever be, as now I just run what people like him research and develop. The same goes for Marsh, Monte, Best, Sunset Racecraft, Huntsville, ETC.
That's what this post is about. When people of this caliber take the time to impart their hard earned knowledge, it's best to just STFU and listen. You might even learn something.
Well, if you respect and listen to him sooooo much,....
why did you build what HE would call, a "stupid" and "geometrically retarded" engine....and you are in search of another Mopar block...and you want to build a 4.7 bore x 5.5 minimum stroke engine that he would really classify as "stupid" and "geometrically retarded".....??
Tim and Monte appear to be at opposite ends on their engine beliefs.....Monte says he can and has won in heads up races with what Tim describes as "stupid" and "geometrically retarded" engines...that will Never EVER win....
It's understandably puzzling....
DUDE, REALLY?
Tom built what he had, to meet a gaol. He's not there yet, but close. I'm not opposed to doing what Tom did, when you have NO CHOICE. If he had other choices we could talk about that. Choices for Chrysler guy are virtually NON EXISTENT.
So, since as I understand it, you don't race anything, or build anything, I will you a fact. Delay boxes, throttle stops, trick heads and camshafts, big displacement, small displacement, power glides, 5 speeds, clutches...none of that wins races. Great racers find a way to win races with what they have. That's why guys like Tom, Monte, Ken Heard, Butch Shook, Tory Lea, Jeff Marshall and the like win races. Because they are GREAT racers. They win. It's that simple. Now, qualifying at a heads up race and being competitive is a much tougher deal.
CLASS.................DISMISSED
PS...I went old school NW heavy hitters with some of those names there didn't I? Glad to say I know them all. Not that they would claim me..........................
Just because you think it won't make it true. Horsepower is KING. To dispute this is stupid. C. Alston
|
|
|
Re: Engine builders, you have my sympathy
[Re: HotRodDave]
#1673860
09/24/14 03:47 PM
09/24/14 03:47 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 19,379
Las Vegas
Al_Alguire
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 19,379
Las Vegas
|
Awe come on Ted a little spirited debate can be fun. As good ole Abraham Lincoln said
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt"
"I am not ashamed to confess I am ignorant of what I do not know."
"It's never wrong to do the right thing"
|
|
|
Re: Engine builders, you have my sympathy
[Re: ]
#1673861
09/24/14 03:53 PM
09/24/14 03:53 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,128
Salt Lake City
camastomcat
OP
top fuel
|
OP
top fuel
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,128
Salt Lake City
|
Quote:
Quote:
ou claim: "You will never EVER compete in real (read heads up) competition when you have an engine based on less than 1.0 bore/stroke ratio. And 1.0 is the bare MINIMUM. It's just stupid."......I did not change or twist anything....just wondering what others think about that....
I will be the first to admit, when Monte and Tim (mad scientist) speak, I shut my pie hole and try to learn something. There are others here who's opinion I respect, as well, but the list is getting shorter when they get chased off. Tim has done some sweet port work for me, and I used to work and hang at the shop he worked at. No one that knew him ever doubted his knowledge, talent or experience. So he is lightyears beyond where I will ever be, as now I just run what people like him research and develop. The same goes for Marsh, Monte, Best, Sunset Racecraft, Huntsville, ETC.
That's what this post is about. When people of this caliber take the time to impart their hard earned knowledge, it's best to just STFU and listen. You might even learn something.
Well, if you respect and listen to him sooooo much,....
why did you build what HE would call, a "stupid" and "geometrically retarded" engine....and you are in search of another Mopar block...and you want to build a 4.7 bore x 5.5 minimum stroke engine that he would really classify as "stupid" and "geometrically retarded".....??
Tim and Monte appear to be at opposite ends on their engine beliefs.....Monte says he can and has won in heads up races with what Tim describes as "stupid" and "geometrically retarded" engines...that will Never EVER win....
It's understandably puzzling....
I hate to say this but, I think it's only puzzling to you. I wanted to run with the big dogs with a Mopar......so I went with what I thought was the best option for all of the criteria Ma Mopar had at the time. That was 2011. I also hadn't even considered using anything but the Mopar available stuff, at that time. It will be hard to change. If I do, it will be as a result of needing to go faster, cheaper. If I don't, I'll just reconcile myself with staying where I'm at. Also, I never said anything about me personally wanting a 4.700 bore x 5.500 stroke, I just said it was available for those that did. I think if Monte and Tim had a conversation face to face, they would agree on a lot of engine building techniques and combos. It's hard to type things on here and have someone sniping from the roof top, as it appears you enjoy doing. If that is not your intention, and I'll give you the benefit of doubt, it appears that way and you should know that. If you really don't understand, then it might be best to ask relevant questions instead of trying to make a point that has to this point, been irrelevant.
|
|
|
Re: Engine builders, you have my sympathy
[Re: tboomer]
#1673862
09/24/14 04:01 PM
09/24/14 04:01 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
You boys about done with the crap so the rest of us here can try and learn something? 
Ted, I am trying to learn something here......
Monte says he HAS and WILL win, in a heads up class, with a 632 engine, which has a 4.6 bore x 4.75 stroke,..... but Tim claims that an engine with what he himself calls "stupid" and "Geometrically retarded" bore/stroke like that will not only Never win a heads up race, but will Never EVER win....
Tom says these 2 are very sharp and when they talk, he listens....yet he wants to build a 4.7 bore x 5.5 Minimum stroke engine.....
It is confusing and to me very contradicting statements by 3 guys that each appear to know their stuff. But they all can't be correct....
|
|
|
Re: Engine builders, you have my sympathy
[Re: ]
#1673866
09/24/14 05:37 PM
09/24/14 05:37 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,457
Washington
madscientist
master
|
master
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,457
Washington
|
Quote:
Quote:
You boys about done with the crap so the rest of us here can try and learn something?
Ted, I am trying to learn something here......
Monte says he HAS and WILL win, in a heads up class, with a 632 engine, which has a 4.6 bore x 4.75 stroke,..... but Tim claims that an engine with what he himself calls "stupid" and "Geometrically retarded" bore/stroke like that will not only Never win a heads up race, but will Never EVER win....
Tom says these 2 are very sharp and when they talk, he listens....yet he wants to build a 4.7 bore x 5.5 Minimum stroke engine.....
It is confusing and to me very contradicting statements by 3 guys that each appear to know their stuff. But they all can't be correct....
THere are more than 1 way to skin a cat. Just because Monte and I disagree on engine geometry is not a big deal. What is a big deal is guys like you who have no compass. I have fired customers like you, and I'm proud I have done it. If you don't like what I say, blow off. You can't learn, won't learn.
If I was building what Tom is doing, I would build a 4.560 bore (bigger if I could get it) and use a 4.00 stroke for 523 inches. I would use the absolute longest rod in the tallest block I could buy. My thought is 1250-1275 HP at 8800. That should be high 6's if the rest of the combo is right. And 8800 is not a lot with todays valve train.
See how simple that is.
BTW, it would have 2x4's on it because I think the silliest thing you can do is handicap a package with a kinked up intake.
Flame on keyboard hero.
Just because you think it won't make it true. Horsepower is KING. To dispute this is stupid. C. Alston
|
|
|
Re: Engine builders, you have my sympathy
[Re: madscientist]
#1673867
09/24/14 05:56 PM
09/24/14 05:56 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You boys about done with the crap so the rest of us here can try and learn something?
Ted, I am trying to learn something here......
Monte says he HAS and WILL win, in a heads up class, with a 632 engine, which has a 4.6 bore x 4.75 stroke,..... but Tim claims that an engine with what he himself calls "stupid" and "Geometrically retarded" bore/stroke like that will not only Never win a heads up race, but will Never EVER win....
Tom says these 2 are very sharp and when they talk, he listens....yet he wants to build a 4.7 bore x 5.5 Minimum stroke engine.....
It is confusing and to me very contradicting statements by 3 guys that each appear to know their stuff. But they all can't be correct....
THere are more than 1 way to skin a cat. Just because Monte and I disagree on engine geometry is not a big deal. What is a big deal is guys like you who have no compass. I have fired customers like you, and I'm proud I have done it. If you don't like what I say, blow off. You can't learn, won't learn.
If I was building what Tom is doing, I would build a 4.560 bore (bigger if I could get it) and use a 4.00 stroke for 523 inches. I would use the absolute longest rod in the tallest block I could buy. My thought is 1250-1275 HP at 8800. That should be high 6's if the rest of the combo is right. And 8800 is not a lot with todays valve train.
See how simple that is.
BTW, it would have 2x4's on it because I think the silliest thing you can do is handicap a package with a kinked up intake.
Flame on keyboard hero.
You just keep up with the personal name-calling and attacks...and conveniently ignore facts......
According to what YOU say.....Monte has and never EVER will win a heads-up Race with his "silly" and "geometrically retarded" engine combo....He and others may disagree......So it appears your theory's work better on the keyboard than in real life !! Monte said he just won a race a few weeks ago !!! End of Story !!
And your friend Tom hasn't even hired you to build his engine...wonder why ?? Maybe he has doubts about your beliefs....wait, not maybe, he obviously ignored you completely and has been for years !!
|
|
|
Re: Engine builders, you have my sympathy
[Re: madscientist]
#1673868
09/24/14 06:00 PM
09/24/14 06:00 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,266
Renton Washington
Triple Threat
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,266
Renton Washington
|
Quote:
That's why guys like Tom, Monte, Ken Heard, Butch Shook, Tory Lea, Jeff Marshall and the like win races. Because they are GREAT racers. They win.
PS...I went old school NW heavy hitters with some of those names there didn't I? Glad to say I know them all. Not that they would claim me..........................
I'm a little too young to know all of those names, but most of them I do know. 
-Dustin
67 Dart, 9 second, 392" G3 Hemi
68 Barracuda 340 F/SA
|
|
|
Re: Engine builders, you have my sympathy
[Re: ]
#1673869
09/24/14 06:38 PM
09/24/14 06:38 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,128
Salt Lake City
camastomcat
OP
top fuel
|
OP
top fuel
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,128
Salt Lake City
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You boys about done with the crap so the rest of us here can try and learn something?
Ted, I am trying to learn something here......
Monte says he HAS and WILL win, in a heads up class, with a 632 engine, which has a 4.6 bore x 4.75 stroke,..... but Tim claims that an engine with what he himself calls "stupid" and "Geometrically retarded" bore/stroke like that will not only Never win a heads up race, but will Never EVER win....
Tom says these 2 are very sharp and when they talk, he listens....yet he wants to build a 4.7 bore x 5.5 Minimum stroke engine.....
It is confusing and to me very contradicting statements by 3 guys that each appear to know their stuff. But they all can't be correct....
THere are more than 1 way to skin a cat. Just because Monte and I disagree on engine geometry is not a big deal. What is a big deal is guys like you who have no compass. I have fired customers like you, and I'm proud I have done it. If you don't like what I say, blow off. You can't learn, won't learn.
If I was building what Tom is doing, I would build a 4.560 bore (bigger if I could get it) and use a 4.00 stroke for 523 inches. I would use the absolute longest rod in the tallest block I could buy. My thought is 1250-1275 HP at 8800. That should be high 6's if the rest of the combo is right. And 8800 is not a lot with todays valve train.
See how simple that is.
BTW, it would have 2x4's on it because I think the silliest thing you can do is handicap a package with a kinked up intake.
Flame on keyboard hero.
You just keep up with the personal name-calling and attacks...and conveniently ignore facts......
According to what YOU say.....Monte has and never EVER will win a heads-up Race with his "silly" and "geometrically retarded" engine combo....He and others may disagree......So it appears your theory's work better on the keyboard than in real life !! Monte said he just won a race a few weeks ago !!! End of Story !!
And your friend Tom hasn't even hired you to build his engine...wonder why ?? Maybe he has doubts about your beliefs....wait, not maybe, he obviously ignored you completely and has been for years !!
The main reason I don't use him is, he builds engines for people on a very limited basis and restores guns for most of his livelihood. I moved 800 miles away from where he lives which might have something to do with it, as well.
What exactly is your motivation here dude? To keep this thread going with badgering and drivel? I'm not sure why you continually act like an ignoramus. A mechanical goober with nothing to back up your comments. Is there any purpose to your shooting your keyboard mouth off other than to p!ss people off trying to grow their knowledge?
|
|
|
Re: Engine builders, you have my sympathy
[Re: camastomcat]
#1673870
09/24/14 06:41 PM
09/24/14 06:41 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,008
Sweet Home Alabama
MRMOPAR622
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,008
Sweet Home Alabama
|
Quote:
ou claim: "You will never EVER compete in real (read heads up) competition when you have an engine based on less than 1.0 bore/stroke ratio. And 1.0 is the bare MINIMUM. It's just stupid."......I did not change or twist anything....just wondering what others think about that....
I will be the first to admit, when Monte and Tim (mad scientist) speak, I shut my pie hole and try to learn something. There are others here who's opinion I respect, as well, but the list is getting shorter when they get chased off. Tim has done some sweet port work for me, and I used to work and hang at the shop he worked at. No one that knew him ever doubted his knowledge, talent or experience. So he is lightyears beyond where I will ever be, as now I just run what people like him research and develop. The same goes for Marsh, Monte, Best, Sunset Racecraft, Huntsville, ETC.
That's what this post is about. When people of this caliber take the time to impart their hard earned knowledge, it's best to just STFU and listen. You might even learn something.
Tom,like you I listen to everything some of the guys in the know like you mention have to say.Some of them are good some of them or just salesman with book knowledge,but will give them credit to maybe that book knowledge even if they don't/can't do the work could be useful in sharing the information with someone who could.I see some that are good in some area's but in others they are not.At long last I now see a lot of people for what they are Red-Necks and now that I know not to pay them any attention have come to some what enjoy laughing at what they say. 
For conversation we can call the ones you mention Pro's and the others Red-Necks.
Now what I used have a problem with is the Red-Necks,but they have just as much right to have there say as the Pro's.And if there is going to be any finger pointing you must 1st point to the so call Pro's who should be smart enough not to come on here and talk down too and try to belittle the Red-Necks and think they will bow down to them!
And in closing don't you Daymn Red-Necks have sense enough not to try and run the Pro's off.But if you must.......
PS when are we going to learn from post like this and start helping and working with each other????Now I might be just a Bracket Racer but I am smart enough to know this is not helping the Mopar movement!
Last edited by MRMOPAR622; 09/24/14 06:48 PM.
"To Be The Man'You Have Got To Beat The Man"
"T/D and Pro-Bracket Racer"
|
|
|
Re: Engine builders, you have my sympathy
[Re: camastomcat]
#1673872
09/24/14 07:52 PM
09/24/14 07:52 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,166
CT
GTX MATT
master
|
master
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,166
CT
|
You know whats ironic, madscientist keeps talking about the screwed up geometry of the stroker motors. I don't know much about the actual effects only what I've been told (i.e. not firsthand experience), but I always liked how the MoPar engineers stayed close to optimum on the bore/stroke and the rod/stroke ratios, I believe they all hover pretty close to 1.8:1 on the rod/stroke other than the 360. Anyway, I know you're talking about the super high HP apps where the aftermarket has fixed things that Chevy did wrong to make big horsepower. But, as everyone is ALWAYS discredited Ma Mopar for what she did do, it seems that lots of people preach nowadays that B/S and R/S ratios don't matter. Whats their proof? Chevrolet and Ford production engines with 1.5:1 R/S ratios. Who taught us to build geometrically retarded engines? Them GM and Ferd boys! Who tried to tell everyone undersquare motors are torquey? Those olds and pontiac guys with their 4.25 and 4.15 inch strokes. Ya, those engines are "Torque engines" because they can't even live much past 5000 rpm, at least not in near stock form. And don't forget, the engine with the GM rep as a torque monster hemi killer (  ) the 455 Buick, has the shortest stroke of the BOP 455s and Chevy 454 at 3.9 inches. I know what you mean when you're saying the factory stuff is junk, but for 40 year old factory junk, its pretty good. I think thats why there are some guys who don't want an aftermarket block. For years Mopar racers had an advantage because our stock stuff is better than what everyone else had stock, and better than some of their aftermarket stuff, but its not the case anymore. Lots of us are stuck in the past. Myself included, and I wasn't even there.
Now I need to pin those needles, got to feel that heat
Hear my motor screamin while I'm tearin up the street
|
|
|
Re: Engine builders, you have my sympathy
[Re: ]
#1673876
09/24/14 09:53 PM
09/24/14 09:53 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,457
Washington
madscientist
master
|
master
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,457
Washington
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You boys about done with the crap so the rest of us here can try and learn something?
Ted, I am trying to learn something here......
Monte says he HAS and WILL win, in a heads up class, with a 632 engine, which has a 4.6 bore x 4.75 stroke,..... but Tim claims that an engine with what he himself calls "stupid" and "Geometrically retarded" bore/stroke like that will not only Never win a heads up race, but will Never EVER win....
Tom says these 2 are very sharp and when they talk, he listens....yet he wants to build a 4.7 bore x 5.5 Minimum stroke engine.....
It is confusing and to me very contradicting statements by 3 guys that each appear to know their stuff. But they all can't be correct....
THere are more than 1 way to skin a cat. Just because Monte and I disagree on engine geometry is not a big deal. What is a big deal is guys like you who have no compass. I have fired customers like you, and I'm proud I have done it. If you don't like what I say, blow off. You can't learn, won't learn.
If I was building what Tom is doing, I would build a 4.560 bore (bigger if I could get it) and use a 4.00 stroke for 523 inches. I would use the absolute longest rod in the tallest block I could buy. My thought is 1250-1275 HP at 8800. That should be high 6's if the rest of the combo is right. And 8800 is not a lot with todays valve train.
See how simple that is.
BTW, it would have 2x4's on it because I think the silliest thing you can do is handicap a package with a kinked up intake.
Flame on keyboard hero.
You just keep up with the personal name-calling and attacks...and conveniently ignore facts......
According to what YOU say.....Monte has and never EVER will win a heads-up Race with his "silly" and "geometrically retarded" engine combo....He and others may disagree......So it appears your theory's work better on the keyboard than in real life !! Monte said he just won a race a few weeks ago !!! End of Story !!
And your friend Tom hasn't even hired you to build his engine...wonder why ?? Maybe he has doubts about your beliefs....wait, not maybe, he obviously ignored you completely and has been for years !!
How do you KNOW what I do? I knew some guys would come on here and tell me how good their GM copy cat stuff is. Innovation went out the window. How many comp guys are running 1.0 B/S ratios (or less).
The math also says I'm correct. 532 CID will make the exact same HP as a 632 CID, except the 532 will do it at a higher RPM. And that, my silly friend , will make the 532 QUICKER than the 632, if the guy with the car understands how to make the best of the RPM.
And that, my silly little friend, is a whole 'nother can of worms. It's much easier to use a powerglide than fix your junk, nonhooking car. Can't tell you how many engines I have done (especially dirt cars) where we made more HP on the dyno and went slower on the track. All the circle track gurus (and all the kings men) couldn't get the junk cars to hook. When they finally got sick of getting beat, they fixed their junk chassis and started winning. Silly little boys
Or how about the 13 second dude who says the starting line is crap, and his junk blew the tires off because the track guys cut the pimp juice and cost him the round, and 15 minutes later a guy runs a high 8 on 275's? Fix your junk.
Later dude.
Just because you think it won't make it true. Horsepower is KING. To dispute this is stupid. C. Alston
|
|
|
|
|
No wonder half of you guys never get a project to the track. 
