|
|
|
|
|
Register To Post |
| BeachBum | What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Master Guru
 
|
Check out the below link.... am I alone, or are the naturally aspirated numbers a little bit disappointing ? I would expect a bit more than 537 HP out of a 450 sbc with a 4.125" stroke, especially considering its running a well known and proven Competition cams XE294HR with 242/248 @ .050" - .571/.599 lift.
It is down on compression, I think it said 9.3-1.... I would think if they upped the compression to around 10-1, the motor would jump 10-20.... but, it would still be low in my opinion. I don't like the dyno only because its too close to my set-up, and I'm hoping for a little bit more than that.... with less stroke.  http://www.compcams.com/Community/Art ... Details.asp?ID=1360918455 |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 2:14
|
|||
 Transfer
|
 
|
||
| jsup | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Elite Guru
 
|
They said in the first sentence, the mission of the build was torque, not HP, yet, your post talks about HP. They weren't building a HP motor. They said that.
They had over 500lbs of torque from 2000RPMs all the way up the line. Given their goal, I think it was a success. The cam was small, as they admit, and the conclusion was it was an 11 second motor in a heavy car. If success is measured by meeting the stated goal in the mission statement, then it was successful. The article does show how much engineering goes into building the right motor, and picking cool parts out of a catalog is a fairly superficial way to go about it. They were talking about cam bearing size and location relative to deck, etc... |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 3:24
|
|||
|
_________________
Parts don't make power, engines make power. |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| BeachBum | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Master Guru
|
Jsup, I don't care what they were talking about..... I "as in me" was talking about HP (Horsepower).....I said that in my first post in this thread.
I think the set-up is low for a cam that has 242/248 and about .600 lift..... there are 383's with less cam making more HP.... I am interested in peoples opinion on how much they think that low compression effected that motor. |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 3:40
|
|||
|
_________________
863 cubic inches of C4 & C6 muscle C6 Corvette Z06 - Lemans Metallic Blue C4 Corvette 436 - Pure Black http://www.cardomain.com/ride/3933547 ... chevrolet-corvette/page-1 |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| mseven | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Senior Guru
 
|
starting w/that set-up if they were willing to go up to 11:1 I figure about 30hp. gain. 20 min. if just going to 10.5:1. I think the 215 pro 1 is a bit small for that combo and it could have also used more cylinder head.
The overall number does seem low, I would have expected at least 560-575. Scott S.and schmidt's crate 434's w/about same cam, 220 head is near 595. |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 3:48
|
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| jsup | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Elite Guru
|
Well, then, I don't know what to tell you. You're disappointed in HP when the first sentence of the article says specifically:
Quote:
Clearly the people who designed the motor got what they wanted. And clearly that design was a torque play. Perhaps you need to re consider your design parameters to get what you want if you're concerned. It was designed on a Olds Rocket block, which , as they say, raises the cam .800 inch. Is your block similar? There are implications to these seemingly minute changes and differences. As for the compression. From what I understand a point of compression is good for about 20HP or less on that sized motor. The only reason I know is I asked the question when I was picking a CR. |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 3:49
|
|||
|
_________________
Parts don't make power, engines make power. |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| cuisinartvette | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Elite Guru
|
Beach, what kind of head are you using on that, still using a 23 degree?
I take it your ci is similar? |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 3:59
|
|||
|
_________________
You will be redirected to that thread. Click here if your browser does not automatically redirect you. |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| BeachBum | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Master Guru
|
Jsup, I didn't ask if the people who designed the motor are happy ? I asked the people on this forum if they felt that motor was down on HP..... do you understand this ? I read the article before you, I know exactly what it says. It doesn't change the fact, I think its low on HP. I'll mark you down as a: you think its about right....
With that cam, I felt that regardless of the torque curve, it should have pulled harder up top and brought in somewhere around 560-580 HP as it sits, while still maintaining a strong torque curve... with more compression, I would have thought it would have been close to 600 ... this is my opinion. I suspect the manifold choice and cr may have hurt the power by as much as it did, but not sure. |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 4:01
|
|||
|
_________________
863 cubic inches of C4 & C6 muscle C6 Corvette Z06 - Lemans Metallic Blue C4 Corvette 436 - Pure Black http://www.cardomain.com/ride/3933547 ... chevrolet-corvette/page-1 |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| cuisinartvette | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Elite Guru
|
If that motor used an out of the Dart 215 head theres your answer on hp, it just isnt enough for that motor.
Edit: Just read it, intake too. |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 4:02
|
|||
|
_________________
You will be redirected to that thread. Click here if your browser does not automatically redirect you. |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| BeachBum | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Master Guru
|
Quote:
My motor is the same as that motor, except .125" less stroke for a 436. I am using AFR 210 comp eliminators.... my cam choice is fairly similar to that grind. |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 4:02
|
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| BeachBum | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Master Guru
|
Quote:
Possibly.... that is a lot of cubes for those cylinder heads. But, I think a bit more power still should have been there, but not sure. |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 4:06
|
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| jsup | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Elite Guru
|
Quote:
With all due respect, that can not be a serious question. Here you have people telling you the reason they built the thing was torque and ignored HP, then when it's down on HP, as they stated the design criteria was, you ask the question, do you think it was down on HP. Well, YEAH. If your question is what did they do to suppress HP and get torque, and what could change to flip that equation, I have no answer. But to beat them up for getting the result they wanted and saying something is wrong because HP is down, is kinda off the point of the build. I think the basis of the question is flawed. |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 4:06
|
|||
|
_________________
Parts don't make power, engines make power. |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| jsup | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Elite Guru
|
Quote:
You can't be serious. Blame the heads? Say it, go ahead. My god guys these are professionals who built a motor to a particular spec. You just don't like the spec. The entire motor, cam location, cam, rocker ratio, etc....was designed to achieve exactly what they achieved, which only proves they knew WTF they were doing. That's what professionals do. |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 4:08
|
|||
|
_________________
Parts don't make power, engines make power. |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| jsup | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Elite Guru
|
Quote:
So let me get this straight, too much cubes for a 215 head, but 210s are OK. got it. sigh... In which case a set of Brodix X-10s would be the ticket. I gotta go find my left over percs. Here we go again. I've heard the story before.... |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 4:09
|
|||
|
_________________
Parts don't make power, engines make power. |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| cuisinartvette | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Elite Guru
|
Yeah Im serious. These magazine builds are done with parts handed out by mfs to sell parts most the time. Doesnt mean its optimal for the setup. Some are, many arent.
450 ci is a lot and the 215 imo doesnt give it enough to become a hp motor. Beach's heads will breathe better. Beach was asking why it didnt make much hp I gave my opinion. |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 4:14
|
|||
|
_________________
You will be redirected to that thread. Click here if your browser does not automatically redirect you. |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| BeachBum | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Master Guru
|
Quote:
Jsup, you don't get it.... you think because they are happy, I should be.... but I don't care what they were trying to do or if they were happy. I am looking at the combination and coming to my own conclusion. btw, the small cam in that article was the "torque" cam that had a smooth idle, this one had what they called a livable idle and they were obviously trying to find some HP with it. I think its low for what they are doing. The question is not flawed..... |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 4:15
|
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| BeachBum | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Master Guru
|
Quote:
No, here "you" go..... we're just talking about a motor... you're going in the other direction. |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 4:19
|
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| jsup | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Elite Guru
|
Quote:
Ya know BB, I like having conversations with you because you're reasonable, well thought out, and civil. Sometimes, we fire on different cyls and just don't intellectually connect. I will just chalk this up as one of those times. |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 4:20
|
|||
|
_________________
Parts don't make power, engines make power. |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| cuisinartvette | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Elite Guru
|
Lets pretend they are Kmart brand Ok?
Look at what they can flow in comparison ,which one do you think the bigger motor would want? Remember those are Big Block Ci sizes, its going to require more than the typical SBC motor...Lots more. |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 4:23
|
|||
|
_________________
You will be redirected to that thread. Click here if your browser does not automatically redirect you. |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| jsup | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Elite Guru
|
Quote:
There we have it. If they just would have used AFR they'd be making XX more power. Got it. And that is the conclusion we always come to. You know, professionals designed this motor to do particular things, they got the result they wanted. Dart makes a 230 head. Did you ever think for a second to say maybe there's more power in a Dart 230 head, nope probably not. If they were going for HP maybe they would have selected other Dart heads, which may have smoked the AFR. Never crossed your mind I bet. The difference between professionals designing motors and internet hacks designing them, is professionals get the results they set out for, hence, purpose built motors. There is no motor an AFR head can't help, got it. Is the goal to get down the track real fast? Or to impress people with HP numbers. Cause they estimate that's an 11 second motor in a pretty heavy car. I don't see what's wrong with that for a mild daily driver. Someone once said "that would be sleeper territory" if I remember correctly. It was considered impressive when the right parts were used. Not so impressive now. Got it. |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 4:25
|
|||
|
_________________
Parts don't make power, engines make power. |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| BeachBum | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Master Guru
|
Quote:
Let me try using an example for you..... about 6 or 7 years ago GMHTP had a build-up of a Stroker motor built by professionals that was "identical" to my motor at that time that they were trying to build a good street/strip torque motor..... when they finally got it done, they dynoed it and it came out to 320 rwhp...... and they patted themselves on the back for a job well done. But, I immediately questioned the results and felt there should have been more. (Well actually I knew there should be more considering my exact same set-up made more torque and power)..... and there was, they tuned and tuned and finally got more.... my point, a professional who built a motor came in low with the results.... and they were. Do you understand what I am saying..... I don't think this motor is right, they could have made more torque and hp in my opinion. But who knows.... maybe thats just what that combination will make if tuned right.... I don't know, hence my question to other forum members to get there opinion. Nothing more or less.... |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 4:33
|
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| jsup | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Elite Guru
|
Quote:
Glad you see that now. |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 4:35
|
|||
|
_________________
Parts don't make power, engines make power. |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| BeachBum | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Master Guru
|
Quote:
Huh ?????? |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 4:35
|
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| jsup | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Elite Guru
|
Quote:
OK, that clears it up a bit. Could they have gotten more HP and torque? IDK. The cam was small, the intake plays a fairly large role in torque vs hp. It was a longer runner dual plane intake, clearly a torque oriented intake. The heads are a bit small, if this is a Dart sponsored project, perhaps the 230s may have been more appropiate if HP were the goal, but it wasn't. It was a carbed motor, so tuning wasn't really an issue, not that you can't tune a carb, but it's a lot less than an EFI tune and less likely to be that far off. I think my point is that ever part in the motor was selected for the goal. The intake, the carb, the heads, the cam, all of it. Selected to try to get streetable torque. Therefore I think it is impossible to point to any one place that would be the culprit. What frustrates me, is comments like a 215 head of XXX is too small but a 210 from somewhere else is OK. That magazine articles from XXX are good and from XXXX are bad. The double standards and the knee jerk reaction to go straight to a place which is not appropriate. It's a simplistic response to a complex question. Like I said, they had a goal and picked every part as it related to that goal. Could they have gotten more HP or Torque if they changed something? Yeah, perhaps. But you can't pick and choose one part. As soon as you change one part which was not picked as part of the combination you'll change the characteristics of the motor, you know that. WHen all parts of the combination are chosen for a particular result, taking one part out may lead to a WORSE result. Agian, I'll beat the horse, each part was chosen to meet the stated goal so to take one element in a vacuum and point to it as the weak spot, if there is one, is as I said, simplistic. |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 4:53
|
|||
|
_________________
Parts don't make power, engines make power. |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| BeachBum | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Master Guru
|
I've re-evualated the motor, and I've downgraded my expectations of that motor, primarily due to the dual plane intake, cr and heads. I still think its a little shy in the HP area, but that probably could have been compensated through jet size tuning..... but not sure.
|
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 4:54
|
|||
|
_________________
863 cubic inches of C4 & C6 muscle C6 Corvette Z06 - Lemans Metallic Blue C4 Corvette 436 - Pure Black http://www.cardomain.com/ride/3933547 ... chevrolet-corvette/page-1 |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| jsup | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Elite Guru
|
Quote:
when you asked the question is the motor giving up power the first place we went were the heads. See, people think a 195 head is enough for a 427, but a 215 isn't enough for a 450. I saw where it was going and what the answer was going to be. Call it my crystal ball. |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 4:57
|
|||
|
_________________
Parts don't make power, engines make power. |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| jsup | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Elite Guru
|
Quote:
So basically what I said up top. |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 4:58
|
|||
|
_________________
Parts don't make power, engines make power. |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| BeachBum | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Master Guru
|
Quote:
Much better.... this is discussion. On could have the AFR 210's made more power with that set-up vs the Dart 215's in that test, I dunno.... each indivdual will have their own opinion on that, and thats okay..... But, as a note, they did change just one part.... and it was to a much bigger cam than the torque cam. btw, don't get me wrong on motors like this, I've always been a big fan of torque motors !! You can run minimal converter/cam/gear and have a car that your wife can drive, and yet they et much better than most know.... I prefer that. |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 4:59
|
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| BeachBum | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Master Guru
|
Quote:
Not exactly, I think its still down... but I have downgraded my personal expectations by a few.... |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 5:02
|
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| jsup | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Elite Guru
|
Quote:
Thanks. Once we get on the same page it goes well, doesn't it. |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 5:03
|
|||
|
_________________
Parts don't make power, engines make power. |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| jsup | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Elite Guru
|
Quote:
That intake is a lot like a TPI as much as an intake could be. Look at the picture, look at those "runners", that's a torque intake if I ever saw one.  I betcha a single plane would change the numbers pretty dramatically. |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 5:04
|
|||
|
_________________
Parts don't make power, engines make power. |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| BeachBum | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Master Guru
|
Quote:
Yes, as expected an SP would help that motor as well as other things, but I felt it was low on HP as it sits with the parts they have. Part of the reason is looking at these other motors in the below link. But, it doesn't matter.... just bench racing. http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c4-te ... -recent-dyno-results.html |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 5:45
|
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| cuisinartvette | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Elite Guru
|
You could always spend some time inside that DP and pick things up. There are gains to be had in the plenum and runners to avoid buying a new intake.
|
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 5:59
|
|||
|
_________________
You will be redirected to that thread. Click here if your browser does not automatically redirect you. |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| jsup | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Elite Guru
|
Quote:
My crystal ball worked. Hey, out of curiosity, is there any way to prove with the motor you linked to, with the properly chosen fully CNC'd machine head from any other competitor, the AFR would have made more power? No, there isn't. Every manufacturer has their motors with impressive numbers. Just last week I put up a 600HP, well 597 to be exact, motor with Brodix CNC'd IKs. Was anything proven there? Pick your poison, they're all the same if built right. Some better with particular combos over others....but all good manufacturers have competitive products. The vast AFR superiority myth is just that, a myth. You're right, it's all bench racing. |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 6:00
|
|||
|
_________________
Parts don't make power, engines make power. |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| BeachBum | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Master Guru
|
Quote:
Why would I want to prove that ? I don't understand.... Whats wrong ? |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 6:05
|
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| jsup | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Elite Guru
|
Quote:
OK, here's the way I read it.... You start a thread that says "hey, look at the anemic numbers on this motor"....not AFR At the end of this thread you link me to a thread that says "hey look at these great numbers" using AFR. The implication, to me at least, is clear. If may quote you from the other thread: Quote:
So I have to ask....have you ever posted an impressive dyno sheet from a motor where the heads weren't AFR? Just wonderin' do you specifically look for AFR dynos? Are those the only dyno sheets out there? Maybe it's the AFR demographic to go get dyno sheets while the Brodix guys are out winning races and piling up trophies. IDK. DId you ever start a thread "hey look at these anemic numbers from an AFR headed motor?" like you did here? Did the words "I think they aren't making all the power they can ever cross your keyboard in regards to a motor with AFR heads? Again, just wonderin'. Cause I am fairly confident there are plenty of people running other products putting down some impressive numbers with their fully CNC'd heads. I just find it strange none of those are the subject of threads. But it's late and I've be rebuilding a laptop all evening for my daughter, maybe I'm just tired, I don't know. |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 6:12
|
|||
|
_________________
Parts don't make power, engines make power. |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| BeachBum | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Master Guru
|
Here are a couple of recent posts by myself on motors with cylinder heads other than AFR's....
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c4-te ... son-article-on-383-a.html http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c4-te ... e/2193132-c4-200-mph.html This post we are in right now has nothing to do with AFR....just as the posts above have nothing to do with AFR.... it has everything to do with the motor in the article in this thread and the motor "as it sits with the parts it has"... I think it can perhaps make more power with the cylinder heads it has right now. I didn't post, does anybody think this motor can make more power with different cylinder heads such as AFR. You really do need to get off the AFR thing.... every post is not about them..... |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 6:24
|
|||
|
_________________
863 cubic inches of C4 & C6 muscle C6 Corvette Z06 - Lemans Metallic Blue C4 Corvette 436 - Pure Black http://www.cardomain.com/ride/3933547 ... chevrolet-corvette/page-1 |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| jsup | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Elite Guru
|
Look, when I went off track was when the first question was "what are the heads"....let's not pretend we don't know the underlying comments that were coming forth following that.
My point, my irritation, my insanity, is that this is a perfect example where we can pick apart every aspect of this motor from the carb, to the cam, to the intake. Like I said, here's a motor where every part was selected for torque, as that was the spec. With all the moving parts in a motor all the other parts to choose from, the first thing we go to is to make the point "that's not enough head" and "what heads do you have"? If the goal, the stated purpose, was torque, it was the perfect head given the choices. How do we know this? They made torque. I'm sick of talking about heads myself. I'd perfer to talk about cam attack and how it effects this motor, or the intake, or anything other than heads. I didn't bring heads into this. But it was clear where it was going to go, at least to eme. Why do we have to go directly to looking toward the heads as a weakness and start having the conversation on that basis. As I pointed out in post 24 there are a lot of things that could cause it. Let's talk about how that COMBINATION got the the result. Seems Ron is under the opinion the entire problem with this motor is the heads and the fix is AFR. That's where this was going to go. You know it, I know it, Ron knows it. Remember, this was a purpose built motor, and torque was goal, and given the sponsor of the article, that's another revelation we had tonight that a manufacturer sponsoring a magazine article is not valid but I digress, perhaps that was the best head DART had to make TORQUE. If they were going for power it would have been a different DART head for HP. And there's no telling if that Dart head would or would not have out performed an AFR if the goal was HP. But that is not what was going to be discussed. Just how throwing a fully CNC'd 210 on there would have made more power. That was the discussion which got under my skin. I know you didn't start this about AFR or anything else, but that's where we were going. THEN, as Ron likes to do (and ron, I love ya man) is to frame the argument around THIS setup built for torque with his "kmart heads" or whatever it was. History tells me the criteria for the right head on this motor would have been, oh I don't know, small ports big flow? History tells me where that was going too. He started framing the argument in a particular way that there was only one solution. SO anyway, at 1:46, I have this laptop that I can't even find stupid drivers for, dam dell, and I'm writing crap on the interweb about two hunks of metal. I should have drank more today...oh well, tomorrow. |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 6:46
|
|||
|
_________________
Parts don't make power, engines make power. |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| cuisinartvette | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Elite Guru
|
[QUOTE]Remember, this was a purpose built motor, and torque was goal, and given the sponsor of the article, that's another revelation we had tonight that a manufacturer sponsoring a magazine article is not valid but I digress, perhaps that was the best head DART had to make TORQUE. If they were going for power it would have been a different DART head for HP. And there's no telling if that Dart head would or would not have out performed an AFR if the goal was HP.
But that is not what was going to be discussed. Just how throwing a fully CNC'd 210 on there would have made more power. That was the discussion which got under my skin. I know you didn't start this about AFR or anything else, but that's where we were goin[/QUOTE] Noones framing an arguement and I knew this thread was headed for the same old demise as usual thus my "Kmart comment. I said both the heads and intake imo are the limiting factors. I am wondering if the real reason this upsets you is the motor in the link is 30cubes bigger than yours, similar cam, same heads and makes 537 so maybe yours wont hit "about 600" after all. Its all I can think of, I dont know why you get so upset about all this. Anyways how about getting this back on track. It is about the package, its a sum of parts and is only as good as its weakspot. Im no technical expert, just sayin'.... |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 7:07
|
|||
|
_________________
You will be redirected to that thread. Click here if your browser does not automatically redirect you. |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| jsup | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Elite Guru
|
Quote:
I'm not to worried about it, really. And, if I'm running in the 11s, as the article predicts, I don't care if I'm doing it on 100hp. Casue getting to the line first is more important to than the dyno sheet, right? Besides, it's a nice flat torque curve, we're told that's important. Now let's address the point shall we, about my being concerned that this is so close to my motor and making anemic power..hmmm 1. Different block with the offset cam location, as discussed in the article 2. Different bore 3. Different Stroke 4. Different pistons, rods, rings 5. Different cam, since we don't have the cam card we don't know 6. Different specs, deck, etc 7. Different compression 8. Different fuel delivery, carbed 9. Different intake, significantly 11. Different compression ratio 11.Rockers, ok, same rockers you got me 12. Different heads, 64cc vs. 72cc and I had mine cleaned up at the factory I mean just about every spec, ever part that can be different about this motor is different than mine. The ONLY similarity is the heads happen to have the same part number on the heads. Is that all you see in a motor is the head? Do you think builders start with a head and build from there? The entire performance characteristics of a motor is solely based on two chunks of aluminum screwed to the top and all other parameters in the motor mean nothing? Betcha there's a lot of people who spent a lot of money doing R&D who wish they had known that. Does is sound ridiculous when you read it back? So bottom line, no, there is on similarity that I am even remotely concerned with. So, the sum of the parts is only as good as the weak spot, and what would that be? Just wonderin'.....and how would you fix it? Still, just wonderin'. If a motor was designed to conform to a specific design criteria, and it does that, how is that a "weak spot" at all. See, there you go framing the argument in a manner inconsistent with the original intent of the build. It doesn't fit YOUR version of how it should act, therefore it's "weak". I say quite the opposite, I think it's actually pretty strong. Not everyone wants the same thing from a motor (highest peak HP) and being able to build to a customer spec separates the men from the boys, these guys did it regardless of the parts they used and your opinion about them. And yes, you do have a habit of framing the argument in a particular fashion. Post 24 was completely on track. Nite all. |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 7:14
|
|||
|
_________________
Parts don't make power, engines make power. |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| pr0zac | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Elite Guru
|
any low compression motor isn't going to put up numbers. especially when the cam is designed for a motor with more compression. but when you stick that supercharger on it it fell right in line.
|
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 13:28
|
|||
|
_________________
96 lt4. 357ci, 11:1, LE 226/232, LE2 LT4 heads, ported LT4 intake, EM Gladiator44, EM LT's, stock exhaust, NX kit. |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| jsup | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Elite Guru
|
Quote:
Nope, still weak. Wrong heads. Should be putting out more. |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 13:32
|
|||
|
_________________
Parts don't make power, engines make power. |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| BeachBum | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Master Guru
|
Jsup, Why does every thread turn into you pouting about cylinder heads ? I just cannot emphasize enough to you, this thread wasn't about the Dart cylinder heads on that motor. But, somehow you have turned my thread into a "don't make fun of my cylinder head" thread again.
I give up..... |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 15:52
|
|||
|
_________________
863 cubic inches of C4 & C6 muscle C6 Corvette Z06 - Lemans Metallic Blue C4 Corvette 436 - Pure Black http://www.cardomain.com/ride/3933547 ... chevrolet-corvette/page-1 |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| jsup | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Elite Guru
|
Quote:
If you're talking about my last post, I was joking and making a point, a fairly accurate one too. UMMM.....isn't that the point my long rambling post made? Like I said, there are so many things to discuss on this motor, I have on idea why the first place we need to go every single time is the heads. What's with that fixation? And I'm not even saying the heads chosen are perfect. I am saying that with all the aspects of this thing to look at to singularly focus on the head as the first and foremost as the primary issue for this perceived "problem" (see I still say there's no problem based on the criteria of the build) is weak. Again, it was not me who introduced heads into this. I spoke to the stated goals of the build and if they were achieved. When you yourself clarified, I spoke to the intake and the carb as being a place to look and spoke to how the entire parts list was picked based on its contribution to the goal. And btw, my point to diffuse this stupid discussion on heads is to point out that given the stated goals, they picked the right parts, including the heads. Now, if the goals change so the heads, but I am sure you are painfully aware there is more than one other solution. I am not the one who tried to introduce the cyl heads as the primary issue. Did I respond to that as being ripe with folley, yes, of course, because it was. Not having been the one to introduce it, how do you pin this on me? Every time one of these comes up, someone, as if in a reflex, mentions cyl heads when in fact there are 10000 other aspects to look at. For pointing that out, I'm a bad guy. You say power someone says heads and how whatever head it is isn't the right head, unless of course it is the "right" head. Tell me again who wants to have the narrow conversation on heads. We all know where this was going. If they only used AFR 210 they would have made far more power, because that's where it always goes with some people, and honestly, I tire of it. I have to hand it to you Beach Bum, at least you had the stones to say "would it have made more power, I don't know" that right there is fair. Hey guess what that big orange ball is in the middle of the picture:  Hint: Not XXX heads. |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 16:24
|
|||
|
_________________
Parts don't make power, engines make power. |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| tpi421vett | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Registered Vendor
|
I have a 450, and here's my opinion. First, they did it the easy way... a tall deck, try it with a standard deck height, it makes things real interesting! If they want a torque motor, the heads and intake don't seem to be the problem, to me it has too much cam. With that low compression, and that sized cam, it's giving up cylinder pressure big time. They could put more compression in it, and still have it pump gas friendly. I think they should either put more compression in it, or use about 10 degree's less duration, or both.
|
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 17:14
|
|||
|
_________________
AFR Dealer, can sell at prices too low to advertise. 801-953-6391 08 C6 LS3,3LT,Z51,A6,NPP 91 vette,450ci, AFR 220, miniram,FAST, Crane 252/260 solid roller, 200 shot nos, ZF6, 4 link, 9", DA corrected to 1300 ft 9.65@145.xx 450ci now with AFR 235... |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| jsup | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Elite Guru
|
Thanks, TPI, I learned something, it's thoughtful, addresses the OP question, and on point. I appreciate your input.
I hope to see more of this kind of information from you in the future. There's more depth in those few sentences than I've seen in a long time. I love discussions beyond the superficial. Would those things you talk about changing add more Torque, HP or both? Remember, this is purpose built to a spec. If they give up torque I would not consider that to be an improvement based on the scope of work. |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 17:22
|
|||
|
_________________
Parts don't make power, engines make power. |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| pr0zac | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Elite Guru
|
i thought that is what i said?
|
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 18:29
|
|||
|
_________________
96 lt4. 357ci, 11:1, LE 226/232, LE2 LT4 heads, ported LT4 intake, EM Gladiator44, EM LT's, stock exhaust, NX kit. |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| bogus | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Grand Imperial Pooh-Bah
 
|
Quote:
people get fixated on peak numbers. They make for great bragging rights and people can relate easily to it. I also blame the automakers for making it such a selling point. However, give me a motor with a nice flat torque curve, and I will be a happy camper. 500 ftlbs from 2000 rpms? Oh, yea, baby. It's all about drivablity. Give me power from 0-6k. I don't care about a 8000 RPM redline... the motor is dead to me until 3k RPM. For the street, that's pointless. |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 19:27
|
|||
|
_________________
The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place. - George Bernard Shaw Education is the best tool to overcome irrational fear. - me |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| 88BlackZ51 | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Senior Guru
 
|
Quote:
You need Jim to build you a motor. Well said! Idle right thru to redline! No dead spots. Who wants a motor that starts making power at 3000 rpm's or so.....Boring! |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 19:56
|
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| jsup | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Elite Guru
|
Quote:
They are only bragging rights for the ignorant. Fodder for the masses. I agree with your point. It's a shame it's become such a benchmark. But for the light on intellect it is something easy to grasp, as you point out. Kinda like flow numbers. |
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 20:05
|
|||
|
_________________
Parts don't make power, engines make power. |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
| pr0zac | Re: What do you guys think of this motor ? | ||
|
Elite Guru
|
if you think a motor with a decent cam isn't going to have cam surge or hickups below 2k you are high on something. that goes for both autos with lockups and 6 speeds. i don't care how much torque it has. you aren't going to see under 3k for the most part so i don't see what all the hype is all about. i have a 2200 stall in my 94 trans am which is stock except for headers with 2.73's and its RARE that i see under 2k except when its locked up. and i have to be doing at least 45mph to get that.
|
||
Posted on: 2008/11/28 20:56
|
|||
|
_________________
96 lt4. 357ci, 11:1, LE 226/232, LE2 LT4 heads, ported LT4 intake, EM Gladiator44, EM LT's, stock exhaust, NX kit. |
|||
|
Transfer
|
|
||
You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.
|
|