PRH
Well-Known Member
So, what’s missing for that 300cfm figure to be more useful?
500hp & 600hp Bench Racing thread
- Thread starter 273
- Start date
-
As of the least thread I tried very hard to help in….
Best follow your first thoughts on it. I left them behind and quoted along with his problem of constantly moving goal posts.
That’s the point? The point of NOT answering his question?
PRH is most probably the clearest and most qualified person to answer YOUR questions but you give him crap.
I don’t blame him one bit for saying “I’m out.” and even more so after the fiasco you created on the other thread.
How many ported aluminum headed engines make power around 6500 rpm ain't making at least 550 hp, if he said bigger carb and headers it would of been higher guess.
There it is again....I played along in the other thread because I was sure I'd learn something after a comment or two made by others. That wasn't really the case. Everytime we actually get down to it you say something like above. Something about changing timing events and port shape to make the smaller engine make the same power. Thats changing the whole game.
Is this all for discussions sake? Is there actually an answer that you have lined out in your head? Are you feeling as if you are of superior intellect and have a better answer than what you are receiving? I'm not trying to be derogatory or disrespectful in any way I just can't understand. You've kinda answered your own questions here and there throughout these threads. Help us understand why you can not understand.
PRH
Well-Known Member
Not really where I was going.
The “300cfm” is useless info without the test pressure.
More test pressure = more flow.
The reason the cubes have the potential to make more power using the “same” top end as a smaller cube build is....... the bigger cubes create a larger pressure drop, resulting in more air being consumed.
Mix in the appropriate amount of fuel with the added air........make more power.
For most of the typical stuff people build, this is how it usually shakes out.
Well....... for me at least.
The “300cfm” is useless info without the test pressure.
More test pressure = more flow.
The reason the cubes have the potential to make more power using the “same” top end as a smaller cube build is....... the bigger cubes create a larger pressure drop, resulting in more air being consumed.
Mix in the appropriate amount of fuel with the added air........make more power.
For most of the typical stuff people build, this is how it usually shakes out.
Well....... for me at least.
Last edited:
It’s a shame what this website is becoming. If you guys worked on your crap in the shop instead of constantly trying to show your book knowledge you could probably make a 10.50 pass on the track. I swear a few of you guys do this on purpose.
And an attempt to actually contribute here...I bet a TrickFlow topped 360 at 11-1 would be pretty close to 500 without getting too wild with the camshaft.
Yes he could of been talking about 2.2l or who knows what
Shot me for making a guess, yes it could less or a lot more, but if it's a combo he's running I imagine I'm in the ballpark.
PRH
Well-Known Member
Depending on the starting point of the larger engine, you may have to start over with a smaller combo...... and you may never get there.
If you have a 500” pro stock engine, and wanted to equal that power n/a with 100 less cubes in a similar architecture ....... you’d be breaking new ground.
If you have a 500” pro stock engine, and wanted to equal that power n/a with 100 less cubes in a similar architecture ....... you’d be breaking new ground.
Changing displacement is s huge change, is keeping thing else the same is that a fair comparison.
Take gearing eg.. say I build a 400 hp 273 and you build a 400 hp 440 would it be a fair comparison to have both run 2800 stall & 3.23 gears yes with that restriction the 2800 stall & 3.23 gears would be more optimal for the 440 but if both geared and stalled right it should be a close match on the track, wouldn't that be the same for everything else.
My conception of how this all works seem to go against the grain only say 10% seem to be on my page, I am willing to change my mind but I need more than cause we say so, majority rules etc..
If you asked me explain how 408 makes more torque than a 365 I could answer in one sentence, why isn't there a sentence to explain why a 365 can't make as much power as a 408 with same/similar parts funny thing is the answer I mainly get is the torque answer.
PRH
Well-Known Member
I answered the question on how....... you just don’t/won’t accept it.
And I knew you wouldn’t.
Carry on.
And I knew you wouldn’t.
Carry on.
I don't mind your participation but your not being force to read and react to these threads
Phreakish
Well-Known Member
You simply ignore every statement that explains it.
Expansion, expansion, expansion. More air, expanded, will always equal more power. That's the one sentance. More air = more work, and HP is work.
The ONLY time that more CID doesn't make more power is when you cripple the induction somehow, and you keep picking examples with crap heads to 'disprove' the sentance above.
You are talking about 43 less cubes. Your problem is your thought seems to be that similar top ends should make similar power on a 408 or 365. When someone starts to explain why they don't you ramble on about how the smaller motor shoulda coulda woulda if the ports were different and the cam timing is changed. That's not a comparison. Define the parameters that you feel should differ between the two engines to make them make the same or similar power and maybe someone can agree or disagree from there. This is a go nowhere endeavor until you acknowledge that you are in it for the debate/entertainment rather than the education.
Nor are you forced to converse with me, but I don’t mind the conversation between us.I don't mind your participation but your not being force to read and react to these threads
Your just ignoring the words being said to you and doing so by some of the countries best. AND I don’t mean the countries “INTERNET BEST” ether.
You keep asking for proof and it has been bluntly explained by several people several times.
I was laughing out loud at some of this thread when my fusions 13 YO asked what I was laughing so hard at.
I just went to late one and flung the phone at him. I said read if you can. He is not into cars but by the end, he was laughing at you asking me what’s wrong with this guy?
You said earlier that you have spent a number of years (40 IIRC) poring over information and you don’t get it.
I don’t know what to say about that or the 13 YO that got it on the first read on a topic he has no knowledge of.
I am amazed.
Really I'm not, but yes these threads for the most part didn't go anywhere, but Bewy gave me something to chew on his air's density comment so I got something out of it.
-
