Re: torque per cube?
[Re: MuscleMike]
#578448
01/11/10 11:57 PM
01/11/10 11:57 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,840 Flint, Michigan
B1Fish540
master
|
master
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,840
Flint, Michigan
|
Quote:
622", 11.3:1, solid roller, 150psi cranking, 92 speedway premium, 1.4 per cid.
B1 heads are odd because they don't flow enough air relative to the port size (or CSA: cross section area) on a big inch combo the port is big enough to support the cid but the flow isn't there to support RPM so the engines tend to nose over early.
Mike @MM
Thats because they are a wedge and have limited valve size, right? Does the TS also lack flow for big inch motors?
|
|
|
Re: torque per cube?
[Re: B1Fish540]
#578449
01/12/10 01:08 AM
01/12/10 01:08 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,616 Riverside, Ca
G_bob
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,616
Riverside, Ca
|
505", 13:1, 4.40" bore x 4.15 stroke, Victor max wedge heads, 2.20"/1.81 valve, 355/284 cfm @ .700. Solid roller 264/268 @ .050, .716 gross lift with 1.7 rockers Super victor intake, 1050-8896 dominator, 2"/3.5" hooker super comp headers Made 683 tq @ 5000, 768 hp @ 6500 If I did my math right, that's 1.35 ft lb per cube. Made 689 and 776 with a 1.5" tapered spacer. 505" on the IMM dyno
|
|
|
Re: torque per cube?
[Re: dodgeboy11]
#578452
01/12/10 10:21 AM
01/12/10 10:21 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,088 Frostbitefalls MN (Rocky&Bullw...
gregsdart
OP
I Live Here
|
OP
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,088
Frostbitefalls MN (Rocky&Bullw...
|
Quote:
I prefer to build a race engine for hp. If I want to build a tow truck I'll build for torque.
I bet you would agree, that after you reach a very high hp level, you will be looking to enhance every step of the intended rpm range, right? Even if you sacrifice a peak hp spot, but spread out the torque, creating more average hp. My best hp dyno sheet was not my best dyno pull, the one with the best average hp by 3 or 5 hp is my best overall combo. One of my reasons for starting this post was to learn ways to move the torque peak up, as my combo goes fastest with the converter way over the present torque high point. Anything I can do to move that point higher will help, provided I don't loose too much in the process.
Last edited by gregsdart; 01/12/10 10:26 AM.
8.582, 160.18 mph best, 2905 lbs 549, indy 572-13, alky
|
|
|
Post deleted by Defbob
[Re: blownzoom440]
#578453
01/12/10 10:26 AM
01/12/10 10:26 AM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
|
|
Re: torque per cue?
#578454
01/12/10 10:31 AM
01/12/10 10:31 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,088 Frostbitefalls MN (Rocky&Bullw...
gregsdart
OP
I Live Here
|
OP
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,088
Frostbitefalls MN (Rocky&Bullw...
|
Hemifred, that is some serious power! I notice it makes 1.548 ft lbs per cube at 6,000 rpm. That is about as efficient a motor as I have seen listed so far!
8.582, 160.18 mph best, 2905 lbs 549, indy 572-13, alky
|
|
|
Re: torque per cube?
[Re: SportF]
#578455
01/12/10 12:21 PM
01/12/10 12:21 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,478 Kalispell Mt.
HotRodDave
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,478
Kalispell Mt.
|
Quote:
I am kinda curious why you would build for torque, assuming a race or even a pleasure motor. If you look at all the torque and horse power figures, torque on a decent motor is always within about 10% of HP. When you get like a nail head Buick that makes 350 HP and 450 pounds of torque, or a diesel that makes 300 hp and 600 ft pounds, well that's either a failure to rev or something else wrong. I have heard guys talk and say it’s the torque that moves the car. Well, would you want 10,000 pounds of torque at 5 RPM? I don't think so, it wouldn't get you anywhere. I'd like to hear other opinions on this, but if it’s a race motor, you want power, don't you? That equates to RPM's and torque put together. Build for horse power and the torque will come.
Build for HP and the TQ will come through really low gear ratios and high stall TQ converters, things that make a car less fun to drive. This is why I build big high TQ motors for the street so I don't have to multiply it back into TQ
What ever ones end goal is (especially in a drag car is) to put as much TQ to the rear wheels as possible you can get it through high RPM power being multiplied back into TQ or just plain big TQ. It is just that big HP seels motors.
I am not causing global warming, I am just trying to hold off a impending Ice Age!
|
|
|
Post deleted by Defbob
[Re: B1Fish540]
#578463
01/12/10 04:33 PM
01/12/10 04:33 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
|
|
Re: torque per cube?
#578464
01/12/10 05:03 PM
01/12/10 05:03 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 293 Kansas City Metro
mbogina
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 293
Kansas City Metro
|
The current crop of Comp Eliminater and Pro Stock engines have reached a development point that 1.6 Ft Lbs of Torque per Cube and slightly over 2.6 HP per Cube are realistic goals. Building for Torque vs Horsepower is something of a misnomer, since a big HP number is really just a conversion of a big Torque number at a higher RPM. A rising or dead flat torque curve is the fastest way to increase HP, since the same or higher TQ number at a higher RPM increses the HP equation the quickest.
TQ x RPM/5250=HP
In order to move the location of the TQ peak and/or increase the TQ output, generally the MCSA will need to increase, it seems to be a defined TQ predicter for a well developed engine.
Be a Rebel- Break the Laws of Physics!
|
|
|
Re: torque per cube?
[Re: mbogina]
#578465
01/12/10 05:55 PM
01/12/10 05:55 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 232 Lansing, MI
MuscleMike
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 232
Lansing, MI
|
HP DOES NOT EXIST per sa. Torque is the only measure of rotational energy PERIOD! HP is torque x RPM/5252. Cam profile, head flow, CSA and engine volume (CID) can drastically effect where and when you make torque. HP is only the ability to make torque a RPM. A big head on a small engine will make lousy low speed torque but it will be able to support RPM so it makes HP at a higher RPM. The converse is true if you have a small head on a big engine, it will make gobbs of torque but the small head will not allow the engine to breath at higher RPM to make more HP. Thats why 440's were always perceived as torquey engines. A good amount of cubic inches with a head better suited for 350-370" engine. Class over Mike @MM
|
|
|
|
|