Search results for query: *

Problem with AJ is he's too focused on CR (V/P), Obviously cr is important but not at the cost of overall air flow. In the end of the day it's the power curve that's important not how you get it.

I don't see how this and my observation contradicts one another ? Mph is far as I hear based on hp not torque. 106 vs 112 if the 3 lbs-ft per degree at peak holds true, be around 20 lbs-ft isn't that gonna help in all the areas you stated ? I wasn't making a case for either way, was just...

The ones I could find didn't seem to.

Possibly, I didn't notice that part of it, I'll looked them up and see/report back.

So far every lsa shootout I've seen, seems to average around 3 lbs-ft per degree of lsa.

LoL

Agreed, Why I generally argue this stuff generally comes down to each personal preferences, the right cam, head, carb etc... is heavily dependent on who it's for more then what it's for.

One thing people forget when saying you generally need mid range (rpm) power, is that one of the ways of building good mid range is with good top end power. Eg. below , a 245 hp 2 bbl 350 to a 500+ hp one, as you can see all the built engines made great mid range power 3000-5000 rpms. Even the...

The greyed out area is overlap, if you look the two main specs for overlap is intake valve opening and exhaust valve closing, the later has a huge effect on cylinder pressure. As you can see tightening the lsa and or increasing duration will increase overlap by moving IVO and EVC points. We...

Not sure, I've always heard if port design allows it at the throat should be mcsa, but since many ports don't push rod pinch is generally where mcsa happens, I'm like you on this I'm just a learning, I also want to build a bench.

Ideally if port design allows it, isn't valve/throat should be mcsa ? But push rod pinch in a lot of heads becomes mcsa because of general port designs were stuck with.

It makes a lot sense to me, but thanks for the disclaimer :)

So basically cause soft choke your mcsa can be smaller then you think it is. That makes a lot of sense now, that's a big puzzle piece for me thanks. Makes sense why depending on port design, maximum tolerable calculated velocity varies cause of hidden effective mcsa's.

I've heard Eric say he finds engines under 6500 rpms less sensitive to getting eg.. csa mcsa velocities etc.. Right compared to engines working above 7000 rpm. But wouldn't be possibly lower for poorer design heads like we run vs crazy 9-12 degree heads with ports raised inches off the deck?

I'm guessing, why it works out say 290 cfm based off 124% vs a way less efficient engine is the end result lbs-ft per cid and hp per cfm is probably somewhat linear, so a 365 @ 6500 rpm with a VE of 90% vs 120% the hp per cfm and lbs-ft per cid is probably somewhat relative to each other so...

I get that, but I'm just wondering if there based off too ideal engines to be useful to an average guy's engine even though as I pointed out in post #34 it basically matches what I would guesstimate my way. Even though my guesstimation based on a somewhat inefficient engine.

If I was to figure how much cfm needed for say a 365 @ 6500 rpm with my monkey math (left to right) 365 x 1.25 x .9 x 6500 / 5252 / 1.8 = 282 cfm vs 365 x 6500 x 0.0009785 / 8 = 290 cfm. So basically the same (282 vs 290 cfm) but mine is figured by a lot less efficient engine 1.25 x .9 is...

I like how he explained where the 0.0009785 comes from.

But what about an average guy's engines, most aren't getting over 100% VE never mind 124%, Same with velocity can the typical sbm, bbm handle 640 fps ?

Looks like there's a decent amount of meat for porting, How thin can you realistically go?

** Edit, I miss read your statement, I now see your basically agreeing, so my reply was pointless :) I do believe it's a personal thing, you seem very conservative when it comes to driveability, which there's nothing wrong with that and bet there's a huge number guy's that are similar. But...

Problem is everyone is different in their wants/needs and level of compromises, so to find the prefect cam that gives the ideal balance of driveability and performance can vary quite a bit from one person to another, and doesn't help some people insist their idea/level of compromise is obviously...

In Eric's cam contest most were pro's and there was a huge power margin between them so it kind of seems getting a pro to pick your cam can be quite a crapshoot too.

I also hear UTG brainwashes people into 318 fans, he's amassing an army of 318 lover's to take over the world :)

REALLY?? LOL

You should be able to make that even with stock cam and TF's :)

I agree don't go too crazy on HP but most modern cars easily make 300+ gross hp so 250 ish hp seems like a decent start.

I agree too but engines that make greater 3500-5000+ power tend good peak power too. The problem is keeping as much 1500-3500 rpm power as possible while gaining 3500-5000+ rpm power, since it's far easier to lose in this range, than gain over the basic hop ups.

I never could really watch him, found it to dry and boring, I just fast forward through it, if he does something I'm interested in.