340 Vs 360
Exactly. If RPM isn’t your thing you give up power not doing it. Most guys don’t have the stomach for big RPM and that in todays world is 8500 and up.
Building an engine for 6500 RPM in my world is a waste of power.
But cheap assed Chrysler guys want to run the cheapest **** they can find, so that’s what you get.
RPM is King of horsepower. A quick trip to a dragstrip (excluding bracket cars which has retarded engine development by decades) you’ll quickly learn that big torque numbers don’t matter.
And in fact it doesn’t really matter for street/strip either because torque doesn’t move the car.
Those who love to read and speculate but don’t actually test what they read still think torque moves the car and makes it faster, regardless of proof.
As an example, I’ve asked on multiple platforms for years and years to show me a single power/speed calculator based on torque.
Answer: there isn’t one because it’s not what moves the car.
You're right that horsepower is what moves the car.
Horsepower = Torque x RPM / 5,252
But RPM can't be king. Neither can torque.
It takes both.
Taking one variable in an equation and calling it "the king" doesn't work, that isn't science.
My issue with "rpm is king of horsepower" is that it's just the reverse argument of "torque is king of horsepower"
They're both neglecting the importance of the remaining part of the equation.
Let's really bench-race here.
If you built 21 different small block mopar engines, all with the same compression, cylinder head, cam, intake, etc.
All with an equal bore, let's say 4.04"
But each one had a different stroke length.
1st) with 4.00" stroke
2nd) with 3.900" stroke
3rd) with 3.800" stroke
4th with 3.700" stroke
..etc
...etc
21st) with 2.00" stroke
The biggest engine is a going to displace 410ci, the smallest engine is a 205ci
Do you think *any* of the smaller engines could ever realistically create more horsepower than the larger 410ci with the 4.00" crankshaft?