360 stroker how much HP is picked up if everything else stays the same?

[fishmens67]

Torque is a 2" bore with a 6" stroke. lol
how much horsepower with it make. lol

 

[rumblefish360]

Clearly you like distorting the truth behind twisting the words and meanings of the question asked and to make it a true LOL experience in your reply, twist the meanings.

All of your reply is not of argument but deflects the actual answer of the question asked.

You didn’t watch the videos.

Has you watched the videos, you would have kept you lie hole shut instead of making yourself look like an wand then a full stinky asshole with your reply to me.

You truly are on another planet and love to hear yourself repeat yourself and that would be not just wrong but bad advice.

No I'm not, yes maybe at the same rpm but a 408 and 360 will have different powerbands so a 360 and 408 could have the same power curve but different rpms eg. 360 4000-7000 rpm vs 408 3500 - 6500 rpm.



No

Torque has no movement, soon as the crank moves (rpm) we're talking Power, and Power does everything.

 

[rumblefish360]

Torque is a 2" bore with a 6" stroke. lol
how much horsepower with it make. lol

You know what’s really funny (well, made me laugh anyways!) about that statement is the engine masters 383 vs 383 where the short stroke produced more torque than the long stroke engine earlier on in the pull.

Shock the **** outta me.

 

[273]

Clearly you like distorting the truth behind twisting the words and meanings of the question asked and to make it a true LOL experience in your reply, twist the meanings.

All of your reply is not of argument but deflects the actual answer of the question asked.

You didn’t watch the videos.

Has you watched the videos, you would have kept you lie hole shut instead of making yourself look like an wand then a full stinky asshole with your reply to me.

You truly are on another planet and love to hear yourself repeat yourself and that would be not just wrong but bad advice.

Don't know why you need to name call, as for to answer the OP question how much hp does displacement add peak and powerband. Could make more could lose depends on what heads and cam timings etc.. Were talking about, there gonna favor one over the other both would require slightly different setup there's no way to do an apple to apple comparison. But there's nothing in displacement in it self to add hp to peak and powerbands.

I've seen those video's before, the stroker increase Cr to 10.7 over stock you don't think almost two points of Cr didn't make most if not all of that 30 hp gain on a 300 hp engine. So there was no real gain from displacement.

Here a Chevy 302 vs 327 vs 350 the 302 and 327 are pretty identical and the 350 has a slightly different cam and all three basically make the same hp why didn't displacement work here in building more hp ? And yes there an 4.8 vs 5.3 Ls at the end and yes the 5.3 does make slightly more, 17 hp with 30 more Cid 0.56 hp per additional Cid. Is that Cid or some secondary effect ?

Plus engine masters did a 360 vs 410 with same parts and the 410 with it's 50 Cid gain made a whopping 8.5 hp more .17 hp per additional Cid lol
So basically no gain again.

In your and these example there were no real hp displacement gains how could this be if Cid makes power?

 

[273]

You know what’s really funny (well, made me laugh anyways!) about that statement is the engine masters 383 vs 383 where the short stroke produced more torque than the long stroke engine earlier on in the pull.

Shock the **** outta me.

Cause probably the longer runners cause by the width of the engine plus it's not stroke but the displacement that makes torque , the 383 mopar has a bigger piston with more surface area of pressure pushing down but less multiping effect from shorter stroke the Chev has the opposite thing going on, equalling it out.

 

[Phreakish]

You know what’s really funny (well, made me laugh anyways!) about that statement is the engine masters 383 vs 383 where the short stroke produced more torque than the long stroke engine earlier on in the pull.

Shock the **** outta me.

It makes a ton of sense to me - piston area goes up with the square of the radius of the bore, but torque goes up linearly with the increase in throw. But rod angle takes some away from the throw increase, larger bores have few drawbacks other than production cost and sometimes piston weight.

Longer bores help to increase compression due to the larger swept area, and the longer stroke can help build more intake charge momentum and change some of the resonant tuning as a result. But otherwise, the longer stroke just causes the piston to move faster (and farther) at a given rpm, which isn't always good. Flame fronts only go so fast, and friction forces are cumulative. Not to mention that trying to flow more air into the cylinder, but with valves hemmed in by the bore is often a losing proposition.

A short stroke, large bore motor will probably always out power a long stroke motor (of the same displacement). Not to mention that short strokes can shorten the intake path, make it more direct to the carb bores, and fit larger valves. Makes for a potent combo.

I think most strokers gain their torque (and thus hp) from the longer arm and not necessarily the increased volume. The air charge can only expand so much before it becomes a diminishing return. There's a 13% difference in stroke going from 3.58 to 4.0", but the rod angle (73 vs just under 71) is about a 5% change, so maybe a final torque/power gain of 7-10% over a stock stroke, but that same 13% increase in stroke is 13% faster peak piston speed and travel distance, so more friction. Friction is a function of normal force, and not area, so a larger bore pays no friction penalty.

There's got to be a reason most modern production engines are close to the same stroke length and rarely over about 3.75 (for a gasoline powerplant).

 

[B3422w5]

"Same heads, cam, carb, headers, gears, vert, etc." All these thing will work different with different displacements, rod ratio's, torque, rpm etc.. so it could these part's we're just more suited to the 418.

I thought the 360 ran better for what it was than the 418.
Have upgraded from stock stroke to stroker a number of times over the years.
Have never seen just a couple of tenths. Always at least double that. So it would be very hard to convince me otherwise when I have actually done it, and raced both ways

 

[pittsburghracer]

I think a lot of guys build stock stroke engines that are under performers. Talk to some of the guys that run stockers and listen to what they have to say. My sons stoke crank 360 ran 6.54 four different times at 3200 pounds which according to the charts is a 10.20-10.30 running a .620 lift roller cam. Same heads, intake, carb, and a .650 lift roller cam and a 4 inch stroke crank ran a best of 10.11

 

[justinp61]

Stroker suck, everyone just needs to run a 273 and know that they have the pinnacle of performance under their hood.

Now, where is my slide rule and calculator? LOL

 

[Rat Bastid]

I think a lot of guys build stock stroke engines that are under performers. Talk to some of the guys that run stockers and listen to what they have to say. My sons stoke crank 360 ran 6.54 four different times at 3200 pounds which according to the charts is a 10.20-10.30 running a .620 lift roller cam. Same heads, intake, carb, and a .650 lift roller cam and a 4 inch stroke crank ran a best of 10.11

True.

 

[273]

Stroker suck, everyone just needs to run a 273 and know that they have the pinnacle of performance under their hood.

Now, where is my slide rule and calculator? LOL

That or just fully port the W2 maybe different cam etc..

 

[rumblefish360]

Planning next engine. current engine is 360 12:1 (actual), STX-21 cam, W-2 heads with pocket porting, Holley W2 intake, 4:56 gears. car weighs 3100 w/ driver. this motors dyno'd at 510HP
maybe a little more now with better carb. current best is 10.64 at 125.
So if I leave everything the same, and install stroker kit 416, how much do you think I would pick up?
Thanks,
Greg

I could not find the engine masters ep. 18 where they compare a stock vs stroked engine set with a Chrysler 360 vs a 408.

Both engines were bored over @.040, both had Edelbrock heads and intake, carb size was the same, an 850 XP Holley, both had the same Comp extreme cam @241/247@050 - .545 on a 110. TTI headers were used with what looks like an 18” extension on the header.

The stroker produced 479 lbs of torque, 36.4 lbs. of more torque at a scant 200 rpm difference less @ 4K rpm, 8.5 more HP of 431 @ 300 rpm less @5500 than the 360.

The real difference is the torque curve. The stroker destroys the stock stroke 360 but a good bit more power.
The stroker torque curve decline doesn’t merge with the 360’s until approximately 5900 rpm. Where of course the HP is also the same.

So much for 273’s power rpm ranges he listed….
Keep dreaming 273, one day you’ll come around.
Perhaps you should actually build an engine and go to the dyno room for real life experience instead of “Theory” and put down your slide ruler and abacus. This way you’ll actually know something and won’t have to twist words, meanings and lead others on a messed up path sI h misleading words.

You are a piece of work.

I’m outta this stupid convo.

 

[pittsburghracer]

Planning next engine. current engine is 360 12:1 (actual), STX-21 cam, W-2 heads with pocket porting, Holley W2 intake, 4:56 gears. car weighs 3100 w/ driver. this motors dyno'd at 510HP
maybe a little more now with better carb. current best is 10.64 at 125.
So if I leave everything the same, and install stroker kit 416, how much do you think I would pick up?
Thanks,
Greg

Let’s dig a little deeper into your combo but first congratulations on the 10.64@125mph. My first question would be how much quicker do you want to go? Let’s find out and see if we can get you there without building a stroker.

 

[Rat Bastid]

I could not find the engine masters ep. 18 where they compare a stock vs stroked engine set with a Chrysler 360 vs a 408.

Both engines were bored over @.040, both had Edelbrock heads and intake, carb size was the same, an 850 XP Holley, both had the same Comp extreme cam @241/247@050 - .545 on a 110. TTI headers were used with what looks like an 18” extension on the header.

The stroker produced 479 lbs of torque, 36.4 lbs. of more torque at a scant 200 rpm difference less @ 4K rpm, 8.5 more HP of 431 @ 300 rpm less @5500 than the 360.

The real difference is the torque curve. The stroker destroys the stock stroke 360 but a good bit more power.
The stroker torque curve decline doesn’t merge with the 360’s until approximately 5900 rpm. Where of course the HP is also the same.

So much for 273’s power rpm ranges he listed….
Keep dreaming 273, one day you’ll come around.
Perhaps you should actually build an engine and go to the dyno room for real life experience instead of “Theory” and put down your slide ruler and abacus. This way you’ll actually know something and won’t have to twist words, meanings and lead others on a messed up path sI h misleading words.

You are a piece of work.

I’m outta this stupid convo.

And that’s what wrong with those tests. Who build a 360 with the same cam as a 408?

I would have built the 360 to rpm as much as it could without cam timing that killed the bottom too bad.

But surely it wouldn’t have the same cam as the 408.

RPM is what makes the difference. They know this on that show, but it doesn’t fit the magazine narrative of dual plane intakes, split pattern cams and wide lobe centers.

 

[rumblefish360]

And that’s what wrong with those tests. Who build a 360 with the same cam as a 408?

Well, I guess if one wanted to pick the pepper out of the fly poop, you could have a felid day. But the test was pretty basic in the way they laid it out. Everything the same except displacement. FWIW, no matter how you slice it, that cam is lame. I wondered about the cam itself and just for ***** and giggles, I installed in a 10.5-1, Edelbrock top end w/a 750, 340@030 over.
Crap 1-5/8 headers that are normally reserved for the break in engine stand.
The one thing I did was order it on a 108 instead of the 110. I have to say that it lacks torque and is the normal crappy lower end. I’d imagine the 110 would be a good few ft. lbs. less making it shittier. Still a fun engine that deserves a little silver star for effort. Better headers and a extension on the end would help a lot!

I would have built the 360 to rpm as ignition as it could without cam timing that killed the bottom too bad.

Rephrase please

RPM is what makes the difference. They know this on that show, but it doesn’t fit the magazine narrative of dual plane intakes, split pattern cams and wide lobe centers.

As with all things, they have there place & I’d hope, a very good reason why that path was taken.

 

[273]

I could not find the engine masters ep. 18 where they compare a stock vs stroked engine set with a Chrysler 360 vs a 408.

Both engines were bored over @.040, both had Edelbrock heads and intake, carb size was the same, an 850 XP Holley, both had the same Comp extreme cam @241/247@050 - .545 on a 110. TTI headers were used with what looks like an 18” extension on the header.

The stroker produced 479 lbs of torque, 36.4 lbs. of more torque at a scant 200 rpm difference less @ 4K rpm, 8.5 more HP of 431 @ 300 rpm less @5500 than the 360.

The real difference is the torque curve. The stroker destroys the stock stroke 360 but a good bit more power.
The stroker torque curve decline doesn’t merge with the 360’s until approximately 5900 rpm. Where of course the HP is also the same.

But most would gear the 360 with one or two steps deeper so the powerbands would be more inline even then the 410 looks like it's slightly stronger in the power curve. Would you spend the thousands to get it or would you just port the W2 cam etc.. ?

So much for 273’s power rpm ranges he listed….

Don't act like different displacement having similar power are gonna have a different powerbands. Like that's a wacky idea yes I gave a 500 rpm but this one engine has a 300 rpm spread.

I’m outta this stupid convo.

I'd prefer if you stayed out of all Convo's you just name call.
Never asked ya once to talk with me, I try to avoid you much as possible your one of the main reason I don't come around much for last year or so.

 

[Rat Bastid]

Well, I guess if one wanted to pick the pepper out of the fly poop, you could have a felid day. But the test was pretty basic in the way they laid it out. Everything the same except displacement. FWIW, no matter how you slice it, that cam is lame. I wondered about the cam itself and just for ***** and giggles, I installed in a 10.5-1, Edelbrock top end w/a 750, 340@030 over.
Crap 1-5/8 headers that are normally reserved for the break in engine stand.
The one thing I did was order it on a 108 instead of the 110. I have to say that it lacks torque and is the normal crappy lower end. I’d imagine the 110 would be a good few ft. lbs. less making it shittier. Still a fun engine that deserves a little silver star for effort. Better headers and a extension on the end would help a lot!

Rephrase please



As with all things, they have there place & I’d hope, a very good reason why that path was taken.

I fixed that screwed up sentence. I have no idea how the word ignition got in there!

 

[rumblefish360]

I would have built the 360 to rpm as much as it could without cam timing that killed the bottom too bad.

Ahhhhhhh!!!! Gotcha!

Well then!!! That’s a solid lifter cam and well ported intake, heads and a damn good header. My favorite.
I have a few more HFT cams to dick around with. But the next couple of engines will be SFT’s.
Garage to build first.

 

[B3422w5]

And that’s what wrong with those tests. Who build a 360 with the same cam as a 408?

I would have built the 360 to rpm as much as it could without cam timing that killed the bottom too bad.

But surely it wouldn’t have the same cam as the 408.

RPM is what makes the difference. They know this on that show, but it doesn’t fit the magazine narrative of dual plane intakes, split pattern cams and wide lobe centers.

I did. Same cam 360 as 416.
High flash convertor makes it near impossible to have a cam unworkable in a stock stroke motor

 

[rumblefish360]

But most would gear the 360 with one or two steps deeper so the powerbands would be more inline even then the 410 looks like it's slightly stronger in the power curve. Would you spend the thousands to get it or would you just port the W2 cam etc.. ?

Depends

Don't act like different displacement having similar power are gonna have a different powerbands. Like that's a wacky idea yes I gave a 500 rpm but this one engine has a 300 rpm spread.

Oh I’m not acting like or trying to sell an untruth here and even more so since I posted videos proving you wrong wrong and wrong. BUT…

Thanks for admitting your wrong and have no idea what your talking about. Even more so since you gave the spread on a build with no other information than displacement.

Once again, you assume to much and apon making the assumption, shown yourself as wrong ….. again.
I like how you keep shooting yourself in the foot and then stuffing it in your own mouth. Excellent job!
Bravo!!!!

I'd prefer if you stayed out of all Convo's you just name call.
Never asked ya once to talk with me, I try to avoid you much as possible your one of the main reason I don't come around much for last year or so.

Well, then I’d say the following;

1: Don’t speak until you know what your talking about. In example, predicting the power curves and spreads of 2 engines without knowing anything about the said engine except displacement.

2: Take a wider stance on the answer. You said they would act in a certain way. How can this be so when all you know are the displacement of the two engines?

Now IF you had said, the TEND TO…..

3: Stop coming off as a arrogant know it all.

4: Stop twisting words and curving the direction of the actual question and trend of the thread.

5: Grow a thicker skin.

6: Heed your own words, warnings and abide by them. If you did t want to talk with me, don’t answer me or quote me.

When you put yourself out there on a public forum, the public responds. If you don’t like the response, address it or ignore it. Don’t cry about it.

I’ve put myself out there and been called on it.
In example!!!!!
Rat Bastard has publicly said I did wrong here, I’m wrong there, I’m mistaken there. When he does, or anyone else, I try to take it with a grain of salt and ask or look for why.

I even started a post because I couldn’t figure out two things. One, I was way to tired to realize I was way to tired and should have given up and called it a day on reading the instructions on …. #2 Trying to figure out my MSD distributor, the Pro Billet Digital E-curve unit.

Man-O-Man!!!! The next time I open it all up and the thread with it, I was just beside myself and I could only think one thing, that was a righteousness way to embarrass yourself!

Bit I’ll tell you what! Several members came to my aid right quick and a bit had a few private messages that I know where joking with me but then again, that’s how I take them because they could have been ripping me a new one. And deservedly so. I give myself “Dumbfuck” for that one. But it’s still up for all to search and see. As well as hopefully laugh at!!!

There’s more than a few of us “Salty Ol’frackers” here but you don’t see me crying a river! I realize when Rat Bastard corrects me, suggests something or just plain ol’rips me a new one (dang your good at that you Ol’bastard!) I didn’t run away. I didn’t put him on ignore. I did take it.

And I’m sure I’ll get it again! By him or someone else.
Sorry to hurt your snowflake feelings 273.
I’ll try not to save yourself from looking like an asshat anymore. OK? Happy? LMAO!

Sorry I called you names. Do so come around and read up and realize a few things. I get schooled daily here. I hit members up with questions.
So stick around and get schooled. Do so wonder why before you reply.

 

[rumblefish360]

The thing I commented on was the MP 383 vs the Chevy 383. You mentioned the 360 vs the 408. Notice the torque curves on the 383/383 engines. I guessed opposite on the curves. It was actually a 383 vs 406. Steve D bored the 383 out some. IMO, the MoPar lost except in early torque production. I loved the shoot out.

The longer stroke is more volume of air & fuel this delivering more power in the intake charge. It’s not in the stroke itself but what the stroke brings into the cylinder. Valve shrouding is an issue but normally I think it’s over rated.

A large bore or a short stroke and it’s frictional losses.
I have pondered that and find it hard to measure such a thing in my head. The longer stroke dragging rings for more distance or a lot more ring dragging around for short trips. Second choice is mine. But what are the differences in total area of the rings in question and how much movement on what displacements are we talking about.

What was thanksgiving hilarious post earlier…..

OH yes! 2 inch bore & 6 inch stroke….
LMAO!
I’ll have to have run later on the Wallace CID calc and come up with some wacko B&S combo.

But I’m with ya. A lot depends on the build target right?!?! Oh! And how much sci nice the combo gets.
How fine of an engine it is or will become.

To bad this **** ain’t free so we can all drink beer and make cool to wacko combos all year for fun.

It makes a ton of sense to me - piston area goes up with the square of the radius of the bore, but torque goes up linearly with the increase in throw. But rod angle takes some away from the throw increase, larger bores have few drawbacks other than production cost and sometimes piston weight.

Longer bores help to increase compression due to the larger swept area, and the longer stroke can help build more intake charge momentum and change some of the resonant tuning as a result. But otherwise, the longer stroke just causes the piston to move faster (and farther) at a given rpm, which isn't always good. Flame fronts only go so fast, and friction forces are cumulative. Not to mention that trying to flow more air into the cylinder, but with valves hemmed in by the bore is often a losing proposition.

A short stroke, large bore motor will probably always out power a long stroke motor (of the same displacement). Not to mention that short strokes can shorten the intake path, make it more direct to the carb bores, and fit larger valves. Makes for a potent combo.

I think most strokers gain their torque (and thus hp) from the longer arm and not necessarily the increased volume. The air charge can only expand so much before it becomes a diminishing return. There's a 13% difference in stroke going from 3.58 to 4.0", but the rod angle (73 vs just under 71) is about a 5% change, so maybe a final torque/power gain of 7-10% over a stock stroke, but that same 13% increase in stroke is 13% faster peak piston speed and travel distance, so more friction. Friction is a function of normal force, and not area, so a larger bore pays no friction penalty.

There's got to be a reason most modern production engines are close to the same stroke length and rarely over about 3.75 (for a gasoline powerplant).

 

[rumblefish360]

OK, I’m back out…. Don’t quite me 273 or you’ll be a hipocrite or some spelling like that….
OH ****, my bad, I just tried to save you from yourself there. I’m an asshole for helping, I’m sorry snowflake….

Oh ****! Did it again. I’m sorry I called you a snow flake when it’s your feelings that are melting… my bad again, I’m an asshat on top of a burping *** hole that eat lots of refried beans and drank beer… with broccoli…… and Brussels sprout…. And something else really bad.

You just continue to talk about me, behind my back is OK, my feelings won’t melt, I promise…. Bad mouth me, twist my words, it’s OK. I know there’s a need to vindicate yourself.

Oh ****… was that gas lighting, oh dang… my bad, now I’m not just an asshole, not just a bad smoke stack farting machine that eat & drank poorly the night before but now I’m an “Expensive Asshole that demolished the asshat that was on top!”

Hey look! I’m really sorry for defaming you once again and assuming you’ll be upset and have the need to prove yourself again…. And again…. And again…

Just ignore this post, carry on, have fun….

IF that’s OK to say or suggest to you with out you selling up in tears crying a River complaining about me…again, because I was right….. again…. ****

****
****!
Was that last paragraph bad to print?

****
****
****

I’m batting a thousand here for the apologies… dang!

OK! Final apology!

Cut and paste to print the below section for taping up on your wall for all to see.

I’m sorry to be a really bad bad man Mr. 273.

Is that OK?

 

[Phreakish]

A lot depends on the build target right?!?! Oh! And how much sci nice the combo gets.
How fine of an engine it is or will become.

To bad this **** ain’t free so we can all drink beer and make cool to wacko combos all year for fun.

Exactly! Purpose and target are all a huge part of the consideration. There's no blanket statements that cover any of this stuff perfectly. Bore, stroke, connecting rod angles (driven by rod length), intake tract length, headers, packaging - it all matters.

And yeah, that would be amazing. There's lots of combos I'd love to play with, even if I wouldn't want to drive them

I did kind of conflate the 383v383 and a 360v408 - I was just trying to illustrate with familiar figures.

Given the choice, I think that more bore tends to be better - but that's not always in the cards, and more cubic inches is rarely a bad thing so strokers do have their place.

As others have mentioned though: a stock stroke can still be wicked fast, faster than most people manage to go with a stroker.

 

[rumblefish360]

Sorry people, but I hope you had a good laugh.

Im out….

The OP got his answer earlier.

 

[rumblefish360]

Freakin A brother! Freakin - A!

Exactly! Purpose and target are all a huge part of the consideration. There's no blanket statements that cover any of this stuff perfectly. Bore, stroke, connecting rod angles (driven by rod length), intake tract length, headers, packaging - it all matters.

And yeah, that would be amazing. There's lots of combos I'd love to play with, even if I wouldn't want to drive them

I did kind of conflate the 383v383 and a 360v408 - I was just trying to illustrate with familiar figures.

Given the choice, I think that more bore tends to be better - but that's not always in the cards, and more cubic inches is rarely a bad thing so strokers do have their place.

As others have mentioned though: a stock stroke can still be wicked fast, faster than most people manage to go with a stroker.