BertP
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Senior Member
Joined: 11/07/2003
View Profile
|
Quote:Bert,
Don't have you on ignore, just don't want to bother debating with you on this topic any more.
I really am sorry to hear that. I have not intentionally said anything to offend you, I am just presenting facts as I see them. I have said numerous times that if someone can prove that what I say is wrong, I am all ears. I do not want to post anything that is inaccurate and, if I do, I would appreciate being corrected.
Quote:But.....
Quote:Why do people think that a big block is a special form of a gasser and that a small block is somehow inferior?
Show me a small block to fuel dragster.
Tom
I can't because there aren't any that I am aware of. But, that comes back to what I said about them: The big blocks are beefier and can be pushed to higher limits. The highest HP rating of a small block that I have seen is around 1000HP but the dragsters push their big blocks to around 3500 HP. But, we are not running anywhere near 1000 HP in our little trucks here, so the difference is, IMHO, moot. From our perspective, there is little difference between a small block and a big block aside from weight.
Bert
|
BertP
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Senior Member
Joined: 11/07/2003
View Profile
|
Quote:What were some of the baddest engines ever put in cars???? 455, 440, 426, 427, 429. Some of those old cars are still awsome. Remember the 1969 Plymouth GTX 440? 0 to 60 in 5.8, 1/4 mile in 13.7.
Tom
Absolutely true, but there were a lot of small blocks out there too. The venerable 350 block came in a number of displacements from 327 all the way up to 427 and, if you wanted to get fancy, you could buy a block that had the cam moved and push it to 483! All of the Big Three had awesome small blocks that, when modified with the appropriate hardware, would push up to 800 or 1000 HP - on the street no less.
But, I agree with you. Most of the nostalgia is reserved for the big blocks ![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/smile.gif "smile")
Bert
|
tgatch
Meridian, ID
Senior Member
Joined: 08/13/2003
View Profile
|
Bert,
Not offended. Just you and I see it two different ways.
You say that somebody needs to show you different. I have. The new Duramax is rated for a Higher GCWR than the 8.1 and yet the Duramax has less HP. Obviously torque made the difference. You said you went round and round with GM about this when you had your 6.0. I beleive they gave you an answer, and it didn't fit with what you believed. They finally gave up and gave you some kind of BS answer about cooling. When facts are presented, you just turn around and come up with what if combos such as infinite gear ratios. I deal with the real world. Unfortunately, you have to also. So the answer becomes low end torque, not high end HP.
Tom
|
PSDExcursion
Millstone NJ
Senior Member
Joined: 08/17/2001
View Profile
 Offline
|
Quote:The venerable 350 block came in a number of displacements from 327 all the way up to 427 and, if you wanted to get fancy, you could buy a block that had the cam moved and push it to 483! All of the Big Three had awesome small blocks that, when modified with the appropriate hardware, would push up to 800 or 1000 HP - on the
That is the biggest pile of BS I have seen in a long time. Exactly how do you move a cam to increase displacement ? I had a L-88 427 big block in my 69 Vette and a 327 in my 65 Nova that I purchased new in May of 1965 so I know what I am talking about.
2002 Chevy Express 3500 8.1 155" WB passenger van
41 Ft 2003 Thor Citation 41-ZBSR TT w/ Hensley Arrow
|
BertP
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Senior Member
Joined: 11/07/2003
View Profile
|
Quote:Bert,
Not offended. Just you and I see it two different ways.
You say that somebody needs to show you different. I have. The new Duramax is rated for a Higher GCWR than the 8.1 and yet the Duramax has less HP.
This is, I think, where you and I tend to disagree and agree at the same time. When I refer to the HP being developed by an engine, I am not talking about only its max HP point. The DMax generates much more HP than the 8.1 at low rpm. Is that because of the greater amount of torque that the DMax generates? Yes, it is. But, as I have said in earlier posts, the use of a torque number to indicate what an engine is capable of is pure folly. If I say I have two engines, both of which have a max torque output of 500 lb ft, can you tell me how much work those engines are capable of? Are they equal in their ability to do work? The truth is if that is the only information you have on those engines, you cannot answer those questions. OTOH, if I tell you that I have two engines that develop 500 HP, you will know exactly what those engines are capable of. You need no further information. Does that mean that torque is completely irrelavent? Absolutely not. As seen above, the higher torque engine will develop higher HP at lower rpm and will have an advantage in getting a load moving if both engines are geared the same. You have to add that last disclaimer because if you increase the gear ratio available to the lower torque engine, you can easily negate the advantage the higher torque engine has.
Quote:Obviously torque made the difference. You said you went round and round with GM about this when you had your 6.0. I beleive they gave you an answer, and it didn't fit with what you believed.
They just said that the DMax has more torque. When I asked them to explain, they couldn't. The truth is that they have no idea what torque is and they were just feeding me a canned answer. Why? I have no idea. I'm sure someone figured that that would make most people go away so they would not have to provide any technical data to back their claim up.
Quote:They finally gave up and gave you some kind of BS answer about cooling. When facts are presented, you just turn around and come up with what if combos such as infinite gear ratios. I deal with the real world. Unfortunately, you have to also. So the answer becomes low end torque, not high end HP.
Tom
I have used a lot of different configurations and examples in the discussions I have had. Perhaps I used too many. I have never turned my back on facts, though. If someone can show me that something is correct, I will accept that even if I don't like it. The people at GM, OTOH, were simply automatons programmed to regurgitate whatever BS was fed them. I find that highly offensive. That's one of the reasons I came to this forum. There are some very knowledgable people here who can explain this stuff. I have been meaning to sit down and do a comparison of a DMax and an 8.1 during acceleration to see how much HP they are generating at a given speed. The DMax will generate a lot more HP than the 8.1 well into 2nd gear. Just look at the example I gave where the shift points are at 3000 rpm. The DMax is generating 300 HP while the 8.1 is at 250 when the DMax shifts into 2nd. That's quite a difference. And that is the HP that I have been talking about.
Bert
|
|
|
BertP
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Senior Member
Joined: 11/07/2003
View Profile
|
Quote: That is the biggest pile of BS I have seen in a long time. Exactly how do you move a cam to increase displacement ? I had a L-88 427 big block in my 69 Vette and a 327 in my 65 Nova that I purchased new in May of 1965 so I know what I am talking about.
By recasting the block.
Bert
|
PSDExcursion
Millstone NJ
Senior Member
Joined: 08/17/2001
View Profile
Offline
|
Quote:Quote: That is the biggest pile of BS I have seen in a long time. Exactly how do you move a cam to increase displacement ? I had a L-88 427 big block in my 69 Vette and a 327 in my 65 Nova that I purchased new in May of 1965 so I know what I am talking about.
By recasting the block.
Bert
![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/eek.gif "eek")
|
BertP
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Senior Member
Joined: 11/07/2003
View Profile
|
Quote:
It is a standard off the shelf offering from any high performance shop. It is called "recast" because it was not cast by GM. Instead it was recast by another foundry to different specs. If I recall correctly, the one they use in the 483 has the cam raised .4" so the conn rods will clear it.
Bert
|
PSDExcursion
Millstone NJ
Senior Member
Joined: 08/17/2001
View Profile
Offline
|
Quote:Quote:
It is a standard off the shelf offering from any high performance shop. It is called "recast" because it was not cast by GM. Instead it was recast by another foundry to different specs. If I recall correctly, the one they use in the 483 has the cam raised .4" so the conn rods will clear it.
Bert
|
BertP
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Senior Member
Joined: 11/07/2003
View Profile
|
I have been thinking of another example that, I hope, will clear this HP vs Torque bit up a little.
I was reading about how the military specs out parts of their hardware and it occurred to me that what they do may be helpful here. Basically, they take whatever it is that they are building - say a tank - and design the undercarriage and transmission they want. They then call for a Request For Proposal (RFP) for an engine that states the HP required and the rpm that the transmission will accept. For the sake of argument, let's say 2000 rpm. So, does that mean that anyone who manufacturers an engine that runs at an rpm other than 2000 is ineligable? No. What happens is that the manufacturers identify the engine they have with the required HP and mate it to an over or under drive unit to get its output to 2000 rpm.
For example, let's say that the requirement is for 1500 HP @ 2000 rpm. The candidates are:
Diesel1: 1500 HP @ 1500 rpm = 5252 lb ft Gearing: 0.75:1
Diesel2: 1500 HP @ 2200 rpm = 3581 lb ft Gearing: 1.1:1
Diesel3: 1500 HP @ 2500 rpm = 3151 lb ft Gearing: 1.25:1
Gasser1: 1500 HP @ 4000 rpm = 1969 lb ft Gearing: 2:1
Gasser2: 1500 HP @ 7000 rpm = 1124 lb ft Gearing: 3.5:1
Turbine1: 1500 HP @ 30,000 rpm = 263 lb ft Gearing 15:1
Notice the dramatic difference in torque output of the engines involved: from a high of 5252 to a low of 263. All engines produce 1500 HP. So, what is the output of the power packs (engine plus gearing)? 1500 HP and 3939 lb ft of torque, regardless of engine. Don't believe me? We all know that torque can be multiplied by gearing, so lets multiply:
Diesel1: 1500 HP @ 1500 rpm = 5252 lb ft Gearing: 0.75:1 5252 * .75 = 3939
Diesel2: 1500 HP @ 2200 rpm = 3581 lb ft Gearing: 1.1:1 3581 * 1.1 = 3939
Diesel3: 1500 HP @ 2500 rpm = 3151 lb ft Gearing: 1.25:1 3151 * 1.25 = 3939
Gasser1: 1500 HP @ 4000 rpm = 1969 lb ft Gearing: 2:1 1969 * 2 = 3938
Gasser2: 1500 HP @ 7000 rpm = 1124 lb ft Gearing: 3.5:1 1124 * 3.5 = 3934
Turbine1: 1500 HP @ 30,000 rpm = 263 lb ft Gearing 15:1 263 * 15 = 3945
That is all I have been saying. Do the math and it will work out for you. If I have somehow screwed up the math, please show me where because this is as accurate as I can get.
Bert
|
|
|
|
