Search results for query: *

And even if you want more power it's generally cheaper and easier to build it by slightly less efficient means.

I'd say it depends, say you bore a 400/440 out to 4.375" and put a 600-800 hp top end on it, to me the question is where (rpm wise) do you want to make the power 3.38" high rpm or 4.50" 2000 or so rpms lower or somewhere in between.

Well then, good luck to you, sir.

Does that mean you got a chance to win $60 grand ?

Some goal for the engine might help narrow it down, hp, rpm, driver, racer etc.. ? If your shooting for 550 hp and under wouldn't really worry about stroking it.

Longer stroke has higher piston speeds for same rpm, generally shorter rod ratios (higher friction), being applied to the bore over a greater distance, My guess that those are gonna influence fictional hp loss more than ring contact area.

He didn't say anything about total surface area, maybe going further up and down the bore has more frictional hp loss than the contact area of the rings on a larger bore ?

People generally go out of their way to run longer rods if they can, what situation would you go shorter as the primary goal ? Not for some secondary reason like to be able to run shorter deck and or stroker crank etc..

How ? It's only if you build a stroker Mopar you only have to worry about like 4"+ stroke sbm and 4.25" + stroke bbm and they don't seem to care about it, But there's tons of long rod swap options for Chev and Ford so it would seem they worry about it more. Is there huge power gains to be had...

Good thing about Mopars you got to go out of your way to build poor bore stroke and rod ratios. At the local circle tracks you can tell which Chev's run 6" rods, they sound different (stronger), and there faster but could be if there gonna cheat with rods they're probably doing a lot more than...

Would be nice, probably saves that stuff for his paid seminars, but at least he willing to share quite a bit of his knowledge with people, a lot don't.

Don't forget a 500 cfm carb, can't make good torque without it.

He said there like $100,000 engines, I'm guessing well over half for a pair completed heads with rockers.

Yes I understood all that when I watched the video, I just found it interesting to basically spend $50,000 + per engine plus all the R&D just to extend the rpm of the shift points a few hundred plus rpms but I get why though.

It makes sense, you just don't hear many in the more average guy type builds overly worrying about the powerband after peak hp, especially willing to put that amount of time and effort and $$$$. Like a lot of strokers seem to nose over after peak they seem more concentrated on under the curve to...

Thought it was pretty interesting that all that work ($$$$$) was basically not to increase peak and under the curve hp but but to get more usable rpm (higher shift points) after peak, so the engine drops around peak gaining more average power. And that the hemi head basically flowed enough from...

If I was to build a stroker it probably be 470 is the biggest you can go and keep all the so called ideal bore stroke and rod ratios. I get that the short deck 451 is ideal for the 3.75" stroke but I'd have a problem stroking an engine ($$$$) that ends up same size as a overbored 440 :)

That's what I like about Chrysler they knew the basic rotating assembly was fine so they basically designed the G3 hemi around that. They basically just keep swapping top end types, you got ploy, LA wedge, Magnum wedge, now hemi, hemi is obviously further removed design wise than the other 3.

Probably figured out they didn't need so tall of a piston.

Back in the day I remember everyone worrying about that a strokers were only gonna last x amount of miles and frictional hp loss be so high it won't make it worth it, but seems like time proved that mostly wrong. But we generally don't have to worry about that since most of our engines come...

I would guess for any given bore size and rpm ain't really a factor like 9-12 thousands rpms is no big deal I'm sure there's will be a point were the increase frictional hp loss will cost more than any displacement of air gain through stroke where that is? I remember an 413/426 Max Wedge super...

Ratio or angle ?

If you look at torque differences between 273/318/340 350/361/383/400 383/413/426/440 displacement was done through Bore size, kind of show what's being added. But it you look at the 4" bores displacements 289,302,351w,m,c and 400 or 302,327 and 350 or even our 360 torque difference is mainly...

And a 400/351M is 10.297 got 4 different block heights to choose from, to put under a set of Cleveland heads.

Is there a perfect engine? It's probably depend on the situation and goals, basically you need X power to accomplish Y what's the best way to get there with whatever design restraints you got.

I sure there's away but it's really not needed, basically like in this case, say a 400 over bored to a 409 and our normal 360 into a 408. For the same given amount of fuel and air ones gonna get a higher percentage of it's torque from the larger piston but the other will have more multiplying...

Obviously nothing about that engine is stock but it does show there's nothing wrong about the basic short block, bore stroke and rod ratio. Put a great top end on it and gonna get decent results even without adding stroke, and no reason to an extent that a 383 or even a 361 couldn't do well. And...

There's no real performance advantage of running a square or under square engine. Obviously you can make power with them people do all the time. But smaller bore less breathing ability and less surface area for combustion force to be applied and less displacement for any given stroke, longer...