I swear to god, you Pilot Point kids are like cats with a laser pointer. "ZOMG!!!!! Hyperbole fail?!? Must change subject!!!"
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
480 RWHP is not all that these days
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by majorownage View Postare you fucking kidding me?
it has a broad torque curve because it has an OHV?!?!?! LOL
You are dumber than a sack of rocks. It has a broad torque curve because its moderate cam.
A stock mod has just as flat a torque curve. But at 100 less ft-lbs
Comment
-
Originally posted by ThreeFingerPete View PostSo you don't think that an OHV engine will have a broader power curve than an OHC engine, with all else being equal?
they both need different lobes, centerlines and lifts for maximizing/flattening the torque curveFull time ninja editor.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by majorownage View Postdepends
they both need different lobes, centerlines and lifts for maximizing/flattening the torque curve
Want some evidence? Let me google it, since apparently you girls in Pilot Point can't afford Google.
"All of the above points to an obvious airflow advantage for four-valve heads, given a fixed cylinder bore size. But there's yet another advantage, this one related to the curtain area. Since multiple valves necessarily result in smaller valve diameters, this means that less valve lift is required to maximize flow. Less lift and smaller (read: lighter) valves makes the job of the valve springs much easier. Indeed the difficulty of closing the valves is often a limiting factor to how high an engine can safely rev, and it's an extremely difficult problem to work around in a production engine where a valve spring life of a few thousand miles just isn't acceptable.
This clearly points towards a multi-valve design - and almost by default, overhead cams** - as being superior for peak power. No big surprise, eh? But peak power is rarely what we're after in a production engine.
More important is maintaining a healthy amount of torque over the usable rev range. No, this isn't some sort of claim that Torque Is King, since proponents in that camp are usually interested only in peak numbers, and preferably at a low RPM. To obtain this, we need to fill the cylinder as much as possible across the rev range. Simply maximizing the valve area is not the way to accomplish this task, and choking down the intake tract to maintain velocity at low revs isn't the way to go, either."
Comment
-
shadow will post his dyno #s
there is a reason why dohc engines were BANNED from the engine masters challenge.
And this isn't about peakhp, this is area under the curve, with a rev limit. Not to mention Kaase has won the most out of anybody, mostly with ford-based enginesFull time ninja editor.
Comment
-
Originally posted by majorownage View Postshadow will post his dyno #s
there is a reason why dohc engines were BANNED from the engine masters challenge.
And this isn't about peakhp, this is area under the curve, with a rev limit. Not to mention Kaase has won the most out of anybody, mostly with ford-based enginesZOMBIE REAGAN FOR PRESIDENT 2016!!! heh
Comment
-
Originally posted by majorownage View Postshadow will post his dyno #s
there is a reason why dohc engines were BANNED from the engine masters challenge.
And this isn't about peakhp, this is area under the curve, with a rev limit. Not to mention Kaase has won the most out of anybody, mostly with ford-based engines
What is it exactly that you and your felch-buddy over there are trying so poorly to explain?
Comment
-
Originally posted by majorownage View PostAnd this isn't about peakhp, this is area under the curve, with a rev limit. Not to mention Kaase has won the most out of anybody, mostly with ford-based engines
Comment
-
Originally posted by ThreeFingerPete View PostOh, the world's fastest mile car is a factory stock GT? That's impressive. You're a fucking moron.
Lol.. Youre a fucking moron, because you can't read.
320rwhp. 7.67 @ 90mph 1.7 60'
DD: 2004 GMC Sierra VHO 6.0 LQ9 324whp 350wtrq
Comment
-
Originally posted by Yale View PostIt must not be because they wanted to keep the playing field level or anything. Riddle me this, geniusitis, how is a naturally aspirated DOHC 4.6L Cobra engine going to beat a 400ci engine with canted valve heads? It's not going to, that's how. Also, way to be a magazine mechanic, just like you are when you post as Mike, or 03shadow2v, whichever it is.
Hey cheesemaster, we are all 3 diferant people.
320rwhp. 7.67 @ 90mph 1.7 60'
DD: 2004 GMC Sierra VHO 6.0 LQ9 324whp 350wtrq
Comment
-
Originally posted by ThreeFingerPete View PostOh, please tell me what "this" is about. It has drifted from super cars, to efficiency to standing miles, trailing off a bit around the 500rwhp longevity of stock LS1 engines, etc.
What is it exactly that you and your felch-buddy over there are trying so poorly to explain?
320rwhp. 7.67 @ 90mph 1.7 60'
DD: 2004 GMC Sierra VHO 6.0 LQ9 324whp 350wtrq
Comment
-
Originally posted by ThreeFingerPete View PostYour car doesn't have a rev limit? Most of us cannot afford a $20,000 long block, so yes, there are rev limits.
I was talking about a rev limit.
When the competition engines are dynoed, they have to make max average horsepower up to a certain rpm.Full time ninja editor.
Comment
Comment