Post A Reply
read DMs/my profile
login
|
join CAFords
|
search
|
faq
|
»
Northern California Ford Owners
»
Automotive
»
Tech Talk
»
Anybody run the E cam 4 degrees retarded?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bwkelley76: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by 93PONY: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by bwkelley76: [qb] First off I'm a fan of the 331 as I'm sure you noticed from my earlier posts. What a lot of people don't realize is the 331 is a "buzz" motor and the bottom end has a great rod to stroke ratio and can handle well over 6000 rpm continuously. The larger cubes and the more desirable geometry ads torque as well so a lot of people wonder why anyone would want to raise the rpm. A 347 is another story, designed for torque only and not my favorite combo. [/qb][/QUOTE]HP = (TQ x RPM)/5252 Horsepower is Torque at RPM. You can't make HP without Torque..... Therefore, [b]a 347 that makes more Torque will make more Horsepower.[/b] :p [/qb][/QUOTE]Splitting hairs, I love it. ;) I may have embellished a little in my wording to make a point but it's a point well made ;) Now don't get offended by what I'm about to say , it's my life and how I live it. You're right, horsepower and torque are very related and they are supposed to work together to complete a task. You really need to let go of the "math" behind the whole thing though, you're killin me here. Gotta love "desktop dyno." Sorry man I gave up on it years ago. Ever notice how and where torque and horsepower cross over one another on the charts? Torque and horsepower are related as you say, however "HOW WELL" they are related is more important. It goes far beyond what a calculator can do. Toss the calculator when it comes to estimating horsepower and torque, trust me on this. Use the calculator for what it's intended like the dimensions and geometry of the engine's internals. A dyno is the only thing that can measure horsepower and torque under "real-life" conditions and those real-life conditions will change the outcome drastically. All a calculator will ever be able to do is give you dimensions and maybe "guess" what the outcome will be based on the dimension. It can only use the software it's programmed with (pre-set conditions, not real-life conditions) for estimated outcome. Torque and horsepower peak #'s, especially pre-fabbed guestimations based on calculations are worthelss. Here's the problem. If peak torque and horsepower are only momentary and don't chase eachother down the rpm range, making them useful together, then they are just a number you'll possibly never use. I've seen motors that can make 500+ horsepower and 650 lb.ft of torque for nearly a millisecond but they feel and perform like they actually make about 300. ..Kindof a waste if you ask me and they aren't usable on the street by any means. Its easy. As far as engine building goes we know there is no replacement for displacement and more cubes are going to make more power. That's the easy part. All you can do is design the engine correctly by using the longest rod possible with the largest piston possible and the longest stroke possible. Once you start shrinking the rod it's time to stop. Then all you can do is add displacement with boost or get a taller block! Otherwise we'd be running around with piston attached directly to the crankshaft with a really long stroke and engines would make maximum torque at 200 rpm's and max horsepower at 500. (if that) The rod is there for a reason, more than one actually. You lose driveability and longevity once you shrink the rod. That's the mistake made by the 347. They do make GREAT torque and horsepower don't get me wrong, but the torque is the only real benefit (the only thing you really feel) and it's a momentary jolt in comparison with a 331. That's why I refer to the 347 as "for torque only." ;) You can't get an airplane in the air if you can't have just enough jolt for take-off (torque), plus enough continuous power to keep it going down the runway, and then enough power left while up in the air (torque plus horsepower working together). It's a happy medium between the two that gets the job done. The longer the "power" lasts (torque and horsepower combined) the better. 331's accomplish this well. They give you a good initial jolt and they keep pulling. 347's give you an insane jolt and then fall on their face. ...(unless you really push the envelope and rev them higher, assuming you have the airflow to achieve it, but either way you're too far above your torque curve for the horsepower to be useful) ..hence the falling on its face comment. In Peak #'s The 347 will make both impressive horsepower and torque I will not argue that point. However the 331 will also make impressive horsepower and torque for longer and in more usable parameters. It will have a more usable and flatter torque curve rather than the "peaky" torque curve of the 347. A 347 gives you the "seat of the pants" feel for a moment but it wont hold you in the seat as long as the 331 will that I guarantee. Peak numbers don't win races. Horsepower and torque that compliment eachother the entire way through the rpm band is what wins races. :) ..This is another reason I'd like to see that 331 with a good cam that makes good power from 1500-6500 instead of the E-cam that has a more peaky power band. [/QB][/QUOTE]
(
how?
)
Instant Emojis
Instant UBB Code
What is UBB Code?
Options
Disable smilies in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Questions/Requests/Suggestions? email CAFords
Fueled by
Ford Mustang Owners
on CaliforniaFords.com