What would it take to make 1.44 lbs-ft per cid ?

Mean416 said
Interesting topic. I think it's more interesting than hp/cut in because you can always head flow and rpm your way to higher power.

I don't have a ton to add here. I would ask, what fundamentally yields more torque? Do that.

Basically torque is per powerstroke (1revolution) & hp is all the powerstrokes over time (rpm).

So more torque is basically how much air/fuel can be crammed in per powerstroke (VE%) and how efficiently you can turn that potential energy into rotational force.

Mean416 said
I would also ask, what fundamentally reduces parasitic losses. Do that.

It may be that there's a sweet spot where you get better efficiency between bore stroke and displacement. Put another way, I'd bet that st the extremes you get reduced tq/cu in. So a 273 or a 572 might make lower tq/cu in.

Stating the obvious here, but a cam and intake matched to both make peak torque at the same rpm seems like a big fundamental one to get right.

Obviously we basically know all the ingredients to do a decent job 1.15-1.30 tq:cid, and vaguely know above that, obviously getting the velocity right (VE%) plays a big role, but beside knowing that don't seem like to many can give a less abstract idea of what it takes velocity wise and other aspects to be more in the 1.35-1.45 tq:cid club.

And I get it for the most part it doesn't matter, cause it's generally easier and probably cheaper to build a less efficient larger engine for a given hp & rpm.