283 vs 289!! (longest VS thread?)
[:0][:0][:0][:0]
0
-
And yet stroke isn't the only thing torque is dependent on.
I'll await the lecture from Doug on the basics of Torque and that way we can all be on the same page (and maybe learn something in the process).
I once had a phone interview with a German VP of Engineering and he asked me for the lest expensive way to increase torque output from an IC engine. After I answered he informed me that I was incorrect and asked if perhaps I'd like to try again. It turned out that he thought that increasing the connecting rod length would increase torque. Rod length has zip to do with torque.
Anyone want to wade in on the LEAST expensive way (from a production stand point) to increase torque output from an IC engine?0 -
quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
And yet stroke isn't the only thing torque is dependent on.
I'll await the lecture from Doug on the basics of Torque and that way we can all be on the same page (and maybe learn something in the process).
I once had a phone interview with a German VP of Engineering and he asked me for the lest expensive way to increase torque output from an IC engine. After I answered he informed me that I was incorrect and asked if perhaps I'd like to try again. It turned out that he thought that increasing the connecting rod length would increase torque. Rod length has zip to do with torque.
Anyone want to wade in on the LEAST expensive way (from a production stand point) to increase torque output from an IC engine?
If i was FORCED to hazard a guess, i'd say the "EASIEST/least costly" way, would be to increase "INTAKE RUNNER LENGTH"..0 -
BZZZZZT - "increase intake runner length" is incorrect! Try again? You are on the right track with EASIEST/cheapest. 0 -
Relieve exhaust back pressure?
Are U speaking of internal/mechanical mods, or simple "bolt on" torque?0 -
quote:Originally posted by fishkiller41
Relieve exhaust back pressure?
Are U speaking of internal/mechanical mods, or simple "bolt on" torque?
I don't know of an inexpensive bolt on way to increase torque. I'd like to hear about that.
It's a very simple part change. For a production line, it would simply be a new part replacing an old part.
Changing the stroke is EXPENSIVE. So is changing the bore size, crank center, pistons, heads, etc. We are looking for an INEXPENSIVE way to increase torque. Cheap even (again from the production stand point - the customer would get to pay a bit more for this change).0 -
Header collector extensions? 0 -
Larger/more CFM carb.or a hi-rise manifold,which in effect acts to lengthen intake air fuel mixture travel, so as to allow for better preheat/atomization of the fuel mixture...
Other than valve timing and lift/duration changes, which can be done by changing the rocker arms,that's about it, for non invasive/expensive torque multipliers.
For major valve timing/lift/duration changes, camshaft/lifter and rocker type replacement has to happen.That is not really "inexpensive" either.0 -
I'll forgo the torque lecture for another time/thread. We don't want this one to get too long[:D] As far as the least expensive way to improve torque, it's a lot like "speed costs money, how fast do you want to go ??".
However, when X says it's a matter of changing a single part, that puzzles me.
Methods for creating a torque increase at the lowest cost per lb/ft increase, in my view would be the following:
1) Nitrous oxide injection
2) Forced induction - supercharger (of course we all know that a turbo is a supercharger)
3) Increase compression ratio by using smaller combustion chambers - and that may be the one to which Mr. X refers.
4) Reducing camshaft overlap
5) Reducing the diameter and increasing the length of the exhaust runners - typically with headers
6) Increasing the length of the intake runners
7) On a carburetted engine, reducing the diameter of the primary venturis
8) Increasing the rate of lift and the height of the camshaft lobes
9) Water injection combined with increased spark lead
10) Reducing the exhaust valve timing event.
11) Using a split profile camshaft
12) Changing camshaft advance/retard relative to the crankshaft timing - again, that may be the one to which X refers.
13) That's probably the one I missed that he was talking about.
By far the most cost effective way to increase torque is through forced induction, followed by nitrous oxide injection. The downsides to both these approaches are: Reduced engine life and increased maintenance requirements. Speaking of reduced engine life, I have seen engines with too much of the bottle, live for 2 or 3 seconds, when enthusiastically driven. Can't say the same (as much) for blowers.
Bear in mind that you can't JUST change the torque output without having an effect also on the horsepower output (and where you want it to be with respect to RPM).
When designing the modifications to an existing engine, one must start by considering the use to which the engine is to be put. It is a far different approach to building a drag-race engine compared to an engine specifically built for towing (or NASCAR, or road-racing, or hot street, etcetera). Gearing in the transmission and axle(s) must also be included in the initial overall concept.
By the way, changing piston rod length only changes the torque CURVE, not the amount of available torque - and there are arguments on both sides of the benefits of doing this at all - I believe that there are better ways to change the curve.
In the (my) final analysis, I don't believe that one can only seriously consider only one aspect (torque) of the engine - or for that matter, the entire vehicle.
The whole works is a system for putting power to the ground, and must be looked at from the roof of the car to the tires.
I hope I didn't bore you too much.
And I hope I hit upon (somewhere in there) the proper response to the question posed by the brilliant mind (and I mean that with all sincerity) of iceracerx.
Thank you for your patronage.
There will be a test.
Doug0 -
quote:Originally posted by Colt Super
I'll forgo the torque lecture for another time/thread. We don't want this one to get too long[:D] As far as the least expensive way to improve torque, it's a lot like "speed costs money, how fast do you want to go ??".
Bear in mind that you can't JUST change the torque output without having an effect also on the horsepower output (and where you want it to be with respect to RPM).
In the (my) final analysis, I don't believe that one can only seriously consider only one aspect (torque) of the engine - or for that matter, the entire vehicle.
The whole works is a system for putting power to the ground, and must be looked at from the roof of the car to the tires.
I hope I didn't bore you too much.
And I hope I hit upon (somewhere in there) the proper response to the question posed by iceracerx.
Thank you for your patronage.
There will be a test.
Doug
We have a winner. And several great points, esp the one about a vehicle being a system. An engine with 800 ft*lbs of torque is useless if the suspension lifts instead of plants when power is applied to the rear axle. Likewise an engine capable of turning 18 grand wouldn't be much good with 4:11 gears. Increasing power increases heat which often leads to cooling issues which might have to be dealt with by a change to the body (sometimes that pesky cooling air just won't go where you want it to, like through the radiator) in addition to a bigger radiator and all that can lead to engine bay packaging problems. So 100% on the system bit, Doug.
Torque is nothing more then a force applied to a lever that in-turn rotates a shaft. In an IC engine, the stroke is the lever and the pressure on the piston is the force.
The least expensive way to increase torque is to increase the pressure on the top of the piston. Increasing the compression ratio is very easy to do and will increase combustion pressure dramatically.
Doug and Fish, of the deep pockets club, think that forced induction is inexpensive. Me, I'd go for thinner head gaskets, decking the block, etc. Again, I was talking about production engines which are made by the 100s of thousands and where changing the line is expensive. A hot rodder/single engine builder can pick and chose the components as the engine is built.
So to get back on track, I'm changing my vote to the 289 built by Studebaker.0 -
Yeah - you can probably take about four INCHES of deck height off'n that sucker !![:D]
Doug0 -
"Doug and Fish, of the deep pockets club, think that forced induction is inexpensive. Me, I'd go for thinner head gaskets, decking the block, etc. Again, I was talking about production engines which are made by the 100s of thousands and where changing the line is expensive. A hot rodder/single engine builder can pick and chose the components as the engine is built."
I did NOT say "inexpensive".
I said the "lowest cost per lb/ft increase" can be derived from forced induction.
I stand by that statement.
And, if'n you're referring to a street engine, it's also the easiest thing to do by a shadetree mechanic, not needing to crack the engine.
I have had 3 cars with forced induction - a '57 Ford Sunliner (that's the one that didn't have ECZ-G heads - matter of fact, as far as I know, it and the 332 FE engine were the only Fords that ever had fully machined combustion chambers), with the factory Paxton-McCulloch, a '63 Olds F-85 Jetfire Convertible, and an '89 Merkur XR4-ti - both the latter having turbos. The Jetfire also used water-alcohol injection.
A side note from wiki:
Paxton Automotive
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Paxton Automotive is a United States-based manufacturer of superchargers for automotive use. The company is the major proponent of the centrifugal type supercharger. Early products were offered under the McCulloch name. Some Paxton superchargers have been factory fitted, but most units sold have been aftermarket installed. Paxton products are possibly best known for their frequent use in performance-modified Ford Mustangs.
Inventor Robert Paxton McCulloch began producing superchargers to his design in 1937 for the Ford Flathead V8, a popular engine for performance modification at the time. The company estimates that around 5,000 were built before World War II stopped production.
Postwar, McCulloch developed a more sophisticated supercharger and began selling it in 1953. This was factory fitted to a number of vehicles at the time, including the Kaiser Manhattan, Packard Panther, Studebaker Golden Hawk, 1957 Packard Clipper and 1958 Packard Hawk.
In 1956, McCulloch set up a separate Paxton Superchargers division, selling it off in 1958. Supercharged engines were used for one successful year in NASCAR racing, after which forced induction was banned from the sport. For this purpose, Paxton superchargers were fitted as the rare (211 produced) F-option for the 1957 Ford Thunderbird.
A short run of Shelby Mustangs were fitted with Paxton superchargers, and Ford dealers offered Paxton superchargers as a dealer-fitted Ford Mustang option from 1965 to 1972. Paxton still provides supercharger kits for old Mustangs as well as more recent models.
Still in business, Paxton now supplies complete supercharging kits for popular performance-modified cars, as well as bare superchargers for more customised installations.
One of the more unusual applications for the Paxton brand superchargers was as an air pump in the air purifying "CO2 Scrubber" of U.S. Navy submarines.
In conclusion - if you want me to go fastest, cheapest - BLOW ME!!
Doug0 -
And no mention of Andy Granatelli? The shame. 0 -
Damn -
and I even missed mentioning Ak Miller.
Doug0 -
quote:Originally posted by Colt Super
Damn -
and I even missed mentioning Ak Miller.
Doug
Ak is mentioned earlier in this thread. It was reference to an article about Duntov designing the SBC. Miller was one for the interviewees.
Mr STP bought Paxton, I was just wondering why Wiki didn't mention that.0 -
Sometimes... wiki ain't overly bright.
I only cite it when it supports my thoughts or agrees with me[8D]
Doug0 -
quote:Originally posted by Colt Super
Sometimes... wiki ain't overly bright.
I only cite it when it supports my thoughts or agrees with me[8D]
Doug
Good point and great tactic.0 -
Are we gonna be able to get this thing to...
four pages ??
Doug0 -
Well, we can open a discussion on Alcohol vs gasoline as a fuel.
Points to ponder:
Alcohol (methanol NOT Jim Beam or some such) has a lower heat content then gasoline and requires more fuel consumed to product the same power.
At a fuel/air ratio of 1:5.5, methanol allows for a 1:20 compression ratio.
The downside is that methanol is hydroscopic and that can lead to hydraulic lock.0 -
Gittin' it ON !!
Doug0 -
quote:Originally posted by kimi
[:D]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzkEviShBUw
Hey Top, ever pull a wheelie with your T bolt? I had a buddy that could do that with his 72 Nova with a built 350. He couldn't come close to 9 seconds in the 1/4 though.0 -
quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
quote:Originally posted by kimi
[:D]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzkEviShBUw
Hey Top, ever pull a wheelie with your T bolt? I had a buddy that could do that with his 72 Nova with a built 350. He couldn't come close to 9 seconds in the 1/4 though.
It would be nice to have one of those screamers! No such luck. My old HP 289 Fairlane was the most favorite of all the Fords I have owned. I'll post a picture of it one of these days.
Out of the cars you have owned, iceracer, which one was your most favorite?0 -
In the days of the flathead - WAAAY before your time - it was fairly common to see them fueled by alky on the street.
They didn't have a great deal of range.
My Brother had a '52 Ford with a 3/8 X 3/8 flatty running alcohol on the street.
The exhaust smelled all wrong.
Doug0 -
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
quote:Originally posted by kimi
[:D]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzkEviShBUw
Hey Top, ever pull a wheelie with your T bolt? I had a buddy that could do that with his 72 Nova with a built 350. He couldn't come close to 9 seconds in the 1/4 though.
It would be nice to have one of those screamers! No such luck. My old HP 289 Fairlane was the most favorite of all the Fords I have owned. I'll post a picture of it one of these days.
Out of the cars you have owned, iceracer, which one was your most favorite?
That's a tough question to answer because they've all been favorites at one time or another. I had a '55 210 Chevy that broke my heart and wallet back in HS. That was followed by a '58 Chevy PU with a 413 Mopar stuffed in it. Then I got smart and bought a nice '72 Chevelle 350. There was a 76 LT1 Camaro in the mix for a while. I had a clapped out AH spridget (sprite + midget) in college that was great when it ran. In 84 I became a Mopar guy and finally bought brand new vehicles. I had planned on building a '41 Willies Coupe but never got around to it. Now I drive a leaned on 360 cu in powered 2000 Dodge Dakota R/T, high stall converter, modified trans valving, shaker hood scoop, headers w/ twin cats and H pipe... it's basically the truck I wanted in HS. Now I'm planning on building a 365 Bathtub and taking a x country trip when it's finished.
Just a curve, but my favorite ride was a '66 Sportster that my HS gf's dad helped me build. It was hard to start on cold mornings, but luckily the farm drive was down hill.
I'll post a pic of the R/T after I wash it.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Colt Super
In the days of the flathead - WAAAY before your time - it was fairly common to see them fueled by alky on the street.
They didn't have a great deal of range.
My Brother had a '52 Ford with a 3/8 X 3/8 flatty running alcohol on the street.
The exhaust smelled all wrong.
Doug
So Doug, when would you say the golden age of the flatty was? (and I was around in the 50's, I just was more interested in breasts than anything else)0 -
quote:Originally posted by Colt Super
Are we gonna be able to get this thing to...
four pages ??
Doug
It sure does look
like it!!0 -
quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
quote:Originally posted by kimi
[:D]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzkEviShBUw
Hey Top, ever pull a wheelie with your T bolt? I had a buddy that could do that with his 72 Nova with a built 350. He couldn't come close to 9 seconds in the 1/4 though.
It would be nice to have one of those screamers! No such luck. My old HP 289 Fairlane was the most favorite of all the Fords I have owned. I'll post a picture of it one of these days.
Out of the cars you have owned, iceracer, which one was your most favorite?
That's a tough question to answer because they've all been favorites at one time or another. I had a '55 210 Chevy that broke my heart and wallet back in HS. That was followed by a '58 Chevy PU with a 413 Mopar stuffed in it. Then I got smart and bought a nice '72 Chevelle 350. There was a 76 LT1 Camaro in the mix for a while. I had a clapped out AH spridget (sprite + midget) in college that was great when it ran. In 84 I became a Mopar guy and finally bought brand new vehicles. I had planned on building a '41 Willies Coupe but never got around to it. Now I drive a leaned on 360 cu in powered 2000 Dodge Dakota R/T, high stall converter, modified trans valving, shaker hood scoop, headers w/ twin cats and H pipe... it's basically the truck I wanted in HS. Now I'm planning on building a 365 Bathtub and taking a x country trip when it's finished.
Just a curve, but my favorite ride was a '66 Sportster that my HS gf's dad helped me build. It was hard to start on cold mornings, but luckily the farm drive was down hill.
I'll post a pic of the R/T after I wash it.
You've been extremely fortunate to have had so many great cars. I'm looking forward to seeing the pic!0 -
quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
quote:Originally posted by Colt Super
In the days of the flathead - WAAAY before your time - it was fairly common to see them fueled by alky on the street.
They didn't have a great deal of range.
My Brother had a '52 Ford with a 3/8 X 3/8 flatty running alcohol on the street.
The exhaust smelled all wrong.
Doug
So Doug, when would you say the golden age of the flatty was? (and I was around in the 50's, I just was more interested in breasts than anything else)
My Dad raced a '32 flathead coupe with Ardun heads in the late '30s on Bonneville, but there really wasn't a lot of hotrod development then.
The Fords ruled the streets and tracks until the innovative Cadillac OHV V-8 came out in '47, followed shortly by the Olds OHV V-8.
At that point the Fords were really threatened and development of them took off like a rocket (pardon the pun, and if you don't get it, nevermind).
The flatties had only 3 main bearings and and were much like early SBCs in terms of blowing rods and cranks when they were built up.
The MOPAR Hemis were released in '51, and while the engines had great potential, the drive trains sucked (fluid clutches, etc.) and the cars themselves were hideously overweight - so they were not a player then (remember me talking about the entire system ??).
Ford was pretty surprised by the Cads and Oldsmobiles, and started a crash program to build their own OHV V-8s. The first ones being released in the '52 Lincolns - winners of the Carrera Pan America (Mexican Road Race), finishing 1, 2, 3, that year. I believe it was Bill Stropp's team that brought home the gold. And the builders were the guys that were later to become the legendary name Holman and Moody (using the motto: "Competition Proven"). Those were technically Y-Blocks, as were the later FE engines of 427 fame.
Under the Ford and Mercury marques, the first overheads in production came out in 1954, predating the SBC by a year. The Fords were 239 cubic inches and the Mercs 256 - both the same displacements as the previous year's flatheads. The song "Hot Rod Race" was based on a Lincoln engine swapped into a '30s Ford body: "Well you've heard the story of the hot rod race, where the Ford and the Mercury were settin' the pace...". Later a very "B" movie was made, based on the song. Also "Thunder Road", starring Robert Mitchem was centered around these cars.
But to (finally) answer your question, I'd say that the heyday of hot flatheads ran from 1946 through 1950 or so. There is much, MUCH more to be said about automotive innovation from 1946 through the early sixties, that can't be covered due to space limitations (hahahaha).
So you have there some history, and some opinion.
I leave it to you to sort out.
Doug0 -
Like a Olds Rocket 88 Doug? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by kimi
You've been extremely fortunate to have had so many great cars. I'm looking forward to seeing the pic!
I'm not sure about the fortunate part... the most I spent was 400 bucks on the Pickup. I was just your typical Michigan farm kid with more hay and milk money then brains. All my buddies drove new pickups, but I wasn't interested in that. I started collecting oil cars, trucks and motorcycles as soon as I could afford them. Went through cars like a kid in a candy shop (I owned 4 runners while still in HS. All I had to do was keep em out of sight from my Mom), but it's the bikes I kept. Now they are funding my retirement so it's all working out in the end. [:)]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
161 comments