Engines with lack bottom end power?

-
273,
You are a thinker & that is good.

If you are going to compare low end tq, the 'oomph' factor, between engines, two other factors have to be considered: car weight & drive train [ gearing ].

It is useless to compare one engine's tq to another if these factors are different. It becomes an apples to oranges comparison. With auto trans cars, the c'ter stall needs to be factored in. Quoted stall speeds are just that. A larger engine that has more tq at/near the stall speed will cause the c'ter to have a higher stall speed.
Agree
So many variables to take into account if you are going to make a real comparison.
What's getting me is take the 5.9l magnums crate 300 hp vs 380 hp for eg..
They both make about 380tq at 2500 rpm obviously above that the 380hp has a better power curve. and under 2500 rpm I doubt they vary to far from each other and even with stock stall and part throttle wouldn't spend a lot of time down there in normal acceleration while driving.

So since both these engines make similar low end power why would the 300hp be ok with stock stall and highway gears and the 380hp needs more gear and stall, why I have to cruise in 2nd around town with my 380hp crate, most would say low end torque but since they have similar power down low lead me to believe it ain't a torque/power issue but a cam spec issue.

And the more I look the more it seems like most built engines make good enough low end power.
 
why would the 300hp be ok with stock stall and highway gears and the 380hp needs more gear and stall, why I have to cruise in 2nd around town with my 380hp crate, most would say low end torque but since they have similar power down low lead me to believe it ain't a torque/power issue but a cam spec issue.

It's not a matter of needing the higher stall and gear for the 380hp. It's that to make use of the power available, having them makes it accessible. If you can't get anymore than the 300hp out of the engine until you're already committing a felony, some of the value in that extra 80hp is likely diminished.
High output builds want RPM. A higher stall and gearing lets the engine operate where it's making that power.
Or to answer your question with a question: why buy the 380hp engine and never rev it past the point of equality of the 300hp build? Which is effectively what would happen with stock gears/tirese/converter with the 380hp engine.
 
It's not a matter of needing the higher stall and gear for the 380hp. It's that to make use of the power available, having them makes it accessible. If you can't get anymore than the 300hp out of the engine until you're already committing a felony, some of the value in that extra 80hp is likely diminished.
That's why I bought a china air gap and smaller cam, Richard Holdener got 350 hp 5000 rpm with similar combo more than enough for at the moment since I'm more interested it being a daily driver type ride for now.
High output builds want RPM. A higher stall and gearing lets the engine operate where it's making that power.
Or to answer your question with a question: why buy the 380hp engine and never rev it past the point of equality of the 300hp build? Which is effectively what would happen with stock gears/tirese/converter with the 380hp engine.
But technically the 300hp and 380hp makes same power at 2500 rpm and the 380hp makes more power at every rpm point above so even if you never rev past 5000 rpm or spend vary little time there and or above you'd still have more average power, by power curve alone says there's nothing gained for running lesser 300hp crate.
 
But technically the 300hp and 380hp makes same power at 2500 rpm and the 380hp makes more power at every rpm point above so even if you never rev past 5000 rpm or spend vary little time there and or above you'd still have more average power, by power curve alone says there's nothing gained for running lesser 300hp crate.

Or if you never rev over 3k (obviously I'd never advocate for this, but some folks do), there would be so little difference as to be a wash.
The recommendation for more gear and converter though still makes more sense when considering the idea is to get the engine into the power band sooner (stall) and keep the engine in the higher rev range to be able to tap into it (gear). I highly doubt that the 380hp would suddenly become a 'dog' without the stall and gear, but having it will make it feel more like money well spent.
At least, that's how I'd interpret the situation.
 
Or if you never rev over 3k (obviously I'd never advocate for this, but some folks do), there would be so little difference as to be a wash.
agree
The recommendation for more gear and converter though still makes more sense when considering the idea is to get the engine into the power band sooner (stall) and keep the engine in the higher rev range to be able to tap into it (gear).
100% if I was to run as is
I highly doubt that the 380hp would suddenly become a 'dog' without the stall and gear, but having it will make it feel more like money well spent.
At least, that's how I'd interpret the situation.
Definitely not a dog but not all it can be :) but you do need to get above 35 mph in 1st before you start to feel it's true power. It don't like 3rd under 35 mph though, I leave it in 2nd around town, obviously a set of gears would fix these issues, probably a set of 3.91, turn 5500 rpm @ 110 mph.
 
Now I am just spitballing here and of course there are a lot of factors involved besides this but wouldn't port velocity have something to do with it as well. I don't know if you have done significant porting and polishing but once you open up your ports significantly, wouldn't that slow down your port velocity down low (less than 2500 rpm) and in turn make your engine feel like a little sluggish. But as you begin to go up in your rpm range and you start getting the airflow to fill out your intake runners/ports as well as get into the ideal range for a larger cam the engine should really come alive (3000rpm +?)
In this case a "stock" engine (318,360,/6) having the small stock sized ports and intake runners would in theory have higher port velocity down low to take off from stop in 3rd gear but quickly run out of air in the higher ranges of the rpm range...
I might have explained myself a little wrong but I think my concept is correct?
 
Now I am just spitballing here and of course there are a lot of factors involved besides this but wouldn't port velocity have something to do with it as well. I don't know if you have done significant porting and polishing but once you open up your ports significantly, wouldn't that slow down your port velocity down low (less than 2500 rpm) and in turn make your engine feel like a little sluggish. But as you begin to go up in your rpm range and you start getting the airflow to fill out your intake runners/ports as well as get into the ideal range for a larger cam the engine should really come alive (3000rpm +?)
In this case a "stock" engine (318,360,/6) having the small stock sized ports and intake runners would in theory have higher port velocity down low to take off from stop in 3rd gear but quickly run out of air in the higher ranges of the rpm range...
I might have explained myself a little wrong but I think my concept is correct?
I'm sure velocity comes into play but probably not with heads both have stock magnum but I do have M1 single plane compared to the 300hp crate M1 dual plane even though I'm making as much tq/hp as the M1 dual plane at 2500 rpm and more power above so seems to have no problem filling the cylinders down low, guess the M1 single plane could slow the rate of acceleration at lower rpms. There's a dyno of 5.9l short block with the 380hp crate cam topped with the older eq heads and a air gap and has very similar power curve so it seem like the M1 single plane is a decent piece at lower rpms.

Out of the 318 builds I mention a stock 2bbl with stock heads low cr and headers made 282tq @ 3000 rpm and 282tq @ 2500 and with a xe262h cam 4bbl made 335tq @ 3000 rpm now at the other extreme a fully built 477hp 318 with ported eq heads large solid cam etc.. made 355tq @ 3000 rpm and 335tq @ 2500 rpm so this engine obviously got decent velocity at low rpm to fill the cylinders.

So question is, could the velocity be good enough to make good low end torque but not good enough to accelerate through the lower rpms ?
 
Last edited:
And you just made my answer for me. It’s a combo of the smaller cam and dual plane.

I told you that you been told and the answer was already given before and yet…. You counter otherwise but yet find the above reply you left behind…. As the answer to the issue.

The info is in your head! You have seen it here before and read the magazine articles detailing this issue. It amazed me you asked but….. that’s better than not asking.
 
And you just made my answer for me. It’s a combo of the smaller cam and dual plane.

I told you that you been told and the answer was already given before and yet…. You counter otherwise but yet find the above reply you left behind…. As the answer to the issue.

The info is in your head! You have seen it here before and read the magazine articles detailing this issue. It amazed me you asked but….. that’s better than not asking.
I will disagree its the gears and the gears alone
my combo i could drive around in drive 30 mph no problem if i wanted power of couse iam pulling into 1st at 40 mph and punching it but it drove around in drive 25 30 mph no problem
340 11 to 1 243@50 507 lift 108 lsa in @106 torker 340 door stop 650 dp 727 stock stall 3.23g 27 tall tire
2.94 or 2.76 gears are not enough for that cam
I bet its a flipping rocket from a 45 mph roll
 
I saw a dyno operator (Richard Holdener IIRC) explain that the numbers taken at the very bottom of a dyno pull can't be regarded as accurate because of the way the dyno is loaded and the throttle is applied. This is why you sometimes see a dip in the curve immediately after the start of the pull and then it comes back up. Anyways... I would bet that using 273's examples of the 360 300 hp vs 380 hp ,even though the numbers may be similar at 2500 , the 380 hp would be down a fair amount at 2000 . 500 rpm can be significant when we're talking long overlap cams.
 
And you just made my answer for me. It’s a combo of the smaller cam and dual plane.

I told you that you been told and the answer was already given before and yet…. You counter otherwise but yet find the above reply you left behind…. As the answer to the issue.

The info is in your head! You have seen it here before and read the magazine articles detailing this issue. It amazed me you asked but….. that’s better than not asking.
My question has nothing to do my cars gearing stall etc..

I was looking over 318 builds for another thread, the guy was really worried about bottom end torque, conventional wisdom on here bigger cams heads etc.. gonna kill low end torque especially with a 318 and make a soft gutless dog of a car even with gears and stall daily driving will be a hassle etc... That's told over and over again.

So I was looking over the dyno numbers of 7 318 builds one stock 2bbl and one is a 282hp and 5 from 400hp to 477hp, other than the stock 2bbl none of them made terrible low torque numbers even as low as 2500 rpm. The 425 hp and 477 hp actually made the best low end number, Same with the crate 380hp ties the 300hp at 2500 rpm and beat every point above. This seems to contradict conventional wisdom, is why I'm asking and trying figure out the reason, if that doesn't interest you that's fine you don't have to play.
 
I saw a dyno operator (Richard Holdener IIRC) explain that the numbers taken at the very bottom of a dyno pull can't be regarded as accurate because of the way the dyno is loaded and the throttle is applied. This is why you sometimes see a dip in the curve immediately after the start of the pull and then it comes back up.
I've heard him talk and you can see on some graphs a 10 ish tq uptake at the beginning of the run
Anyways... I would bet that using 273's examples of the 360 300 hp vs 380 hp ,even though the numbers may be similar at 2500 , the 380 hp would be down a fair amount at 2000 . 500 rpm can be significant when we're talking long overlap cams.
It's possible but I have a hard time believing it drops of like a waterfall, could see the 380hp loss of torque at a higher rate but think they both are 380 tq at 2500 rpm which is a fairly high amount of torque and it's pretty easy to fill the cylinders at low rpm and even a stock stall should even get you to 2000 + rpm without much effort negating for the engine to make much 2000 and less rpm.

But yes could be a/the contributing factor especially part throttle cruising.
 
Last edited:
Agree

What's getting me is take the 5.9l magnums crate 300 hp vs 380 hp for eg..
They both make about 380tq at 2500 rpm obviously above that the 380hp has a better power curve. and under 2500 rpm I doubt they vary to far from each other and even with stock stall and part throttle wouldn't spend a lot of time down there in normal acceleration while driving.

So since both these engines make similar low end power why would the 300hp be ok with stock stall and highway gears and the 380hp needs more gear and stall, why I have to cruise in 2nd around town with my 380hp crate, most would say low end torque but since they have similar power down low lead me to believe it ain't a torque/power issue but a cam spec issue.

And the more I look the more it seems like most built engines make good enough low end power.
I think the assumption you are making about the 300 and 380 magnum crate engines having the same torque curve is wrong.

Big difference in the two cams in these engines, so likely a bigger spread in the low end torque curve than you are thinking.
 
I think the assumption you are making about the 300 and 380 magnum crate engines having the same torque curve is wrong.

Big difference in the two cams in these engines, so likely a bigger spread in the low end torque curve than you are thinking.
i looked at the dyno number a bunch of times, the 300hp been dyno'd a few times over years, Richard Holdener re dyno not to long ago as well as a scrapyard 5.9l and the 380hp been also dyno'd a few times.
 
I saw a dyno operator (Richard Holdener IIRC) explain that the numbers taken at the very bottom of a dyno pull can't be regarded as accurate because of the way the dyno is loaded and the throttle is applied. This is why you sometimes see a dip in the curve immediately after the start of the pull and then it comes back up. Anyways... I would bet that using 273's examples of the 360 300 hp vs 380 hp ,even though the numbers may be similar at 2500 , the 380 hp would be down a fair amount at 2000 . 500 rpm can be significant when we're talking long overlap cams.
here's a dyno of a stock la 360 low cr 2bbl making about 325tq @ 2000 rpm vs all the mods making about 380tq @ 2500 rpm, torque is based on displacement there should be a floor how low it can go. I know this is a different engine with milder cams but I think it useful to see what happens down low.

vid should start at 9:23
 
IMO the 800 CFM carb is limiting the low Torque, HP. Very low vacuum across the venturies...And might need more initial timing...
 
if it's a amount of Torque issue how much low end torque from 1500-3000 rpm do you need before you have soft lazy dog etc.. car ?

A stock 2BBL 360 dyno's about 325rq @ 2000 & 2500 rpm 340tq @ 3000 rpm
A stock 2bbl 318 dyno's about 287tq from 2000 to 3000 rpm
obviously 170-273 would make less, probably 150-250 tq.

So a well built 318 should be able to at least do 2bbi 360 low end torque numbers
a well built 360 seem to be 375-400 tq @ 2500-3000 rpm.

What would be the torque line from 1500-3000 rpm?

and does that mean you can't build a strong running /6-273 ?
Which we know there are strong running small displacement engines.

And if there's a torque amount line you could surpassed it by building a large enough displacement engine which we know helps but there's also built big block that are weak down low even though there making more torque than most small blocks.
 
Last edited:
i looked at the dyno number a bunch of times, the 300hp been dyno'd a few times over years, Richard Holdener re dyno not to long ago as well as a scrapyard 5.9l and the 380hp been also dyno'd a few times.
Problem is that dyno test usually start at 3,000rpm, a few at 2,500, so there is not much info about torque below those rpms.
 
Problem is that dyno test usually start at 3,000rpm, a few at 2,500, so there is not much info about torque below those rpms.
True, so far I haven't found any under 2000 rpm dyno results, so yes it's at best guesstimation from what info we have at 2000/2500/3000 rpm. But in a race or even a good part throttle take off from a standstill like a traffic light you spend almost zero time under 2000 rpm.

And even for normal driving under 2000 rpm say were probably taking 250-350 lbs-ft for the average V8 at around 1500 rpms is 71-100 hp every 100 lbs-ft equals 29 hp, 14.5hp per 50 lbs-ft. Not a huge range in hp and not much hp needed down there, normal a slant 6 makes more than enough for typical driving probably at 100-200 lbs-ft, 29-58hp.

Not saying it has no effect but to me it's doesn't seem a lack of bottom end torque is the issue in itself
Part of it is relative power.
Making stock torque levels will never really feel powerful. It feels "soft" because 2k more rpm and suddenly you're pinned in the seat.
Except maybe in the way Phreakish pointed out basically the more top end power the greater the gap in power will be from the lowest rpm power since there's little you can to increase it substantially making it seem relatively weak.
 
Last edited:
As to the bottom end; here's my take;
The biggest contributors to soft power at lower rpm, in a given engine, are;
1) lack of effective cylinder pressure or the
2) peak cylinder pressure not occurring at the optimum crank position
Lets talk about #1
causes of low effective cylinder pressure can be;
by design
by a late closing intake
by the induction of hot low-density air
by a too small carb,
by a loss of help from the headers, or
by too restrictive an exhaust system

Typically we measure the CCP with a compression tester. But this gives us a measurement that is only applicable at cranking speed with the hood up and usually with the air-filter house removed and the throttle set to WOT. And we crank it until no additional pressure is read.
But this number is constantly changing in a running engine!
At idle, the throttle is nearly closed. With a big cam having a late-closing intake, and the pistons all pushing just-inducted air back up into the plenum before the intake actually closes, there is no way that engine will produce the measured pressure. It will idle all day at whatever it takes to overcome internal friction. Ima guessing down to 60psi.
Now, as the rpm increases, and at WOT;
there comes a time measured in rpm, at the which, there is no longer enough time for the just-inducted mixture to back up into the intake, and so the pressure may be peaking at 100% VE.
And
there may come another time, measured in rpm, when, by inertial tuning, the engine actually inducts and traps more air than it's cubic inches and so the pressure would peak at a higher number than it's CCP, indicating a VE higher than 100% .
This condition may exist over just a few hundred rpm, at which time, the design of the engine, at rpm, will begin to lose efficiency because of the lack of time to induct air, thus the torque curve begins to fall.
The Power numbers continue to increase because of the way the formula works. But eventually as the torque continues to fall, so will the power.

Now lets go back to low-rpm.
One can only design for so much pressure before the engine will detonate itself to death. Especially as the rpm rises because of the ever-decreasing time to lift off the throttle.
Pressure translates to heat, which translates to Torque, which translates to Power. So then, if you can control the temperature in the chamber, thus avoiding detonation, then you can exploit the pressure. Or you can just keep throwing anti-knock at her until detonation stops. :(

So now, how do we control the chamber temperature?
Well;
step #1 is to;
straighten the path to the airhorn, AND induct the coldest air possible AND to keep it cold all the way to the sparkplug, AND to keep the velocity up all the way there so it has a harder time backing up into the Plenum. The more successful you are at this, the higher the effective pressure of the design, can be.
Step #2 is to
create that max effective pressure of the burning gasses, at the exact right time in the rotation of the crank, to transfer the most energy of the expanding gasses into the flywheel. As I understand this, this occurs in the window of 25 to 28 degrees AFTER TDC, regardless of rpm. So ALL your timing systems need to attempt to achieve this.
If the timing is wrong, the whole team takes a hit. If she gets into detonation, that robs power big time. If the timing is late, power just goes soft.
Another thing that happens with late timing is more heat goes into the cylinder walls, because of the position of the piston steadily dropping. Of course, the cooling system is right there so the water temp rises...... which may raise the chamber temperature, which we don't want to see.
Another thing that happens with late timing and short power duration, is that the combustion event continues into the exhaust system, which heats up the exhaust port, and pressurizes the header, which upsets the scavenging during overlap. This can be a good thing at idle, but you sure don't want this to continue after stall speed.

But if you are running log-style exhaust manifolds, you want NUNUVIT, because those hi temp still-burning gasses can back up into an adjacent cylinder on it's overlap cycle! When this happens, Late timing, the exhaust pressure is artificially increased, while the plenum pressure is very low, so then, the exhaust gasses are forced to scoot across the piston and maybe some of it gets into the intake plenum before the intake closes.
>This has several consequences;
The First is that, with the piston now close to TDC, but falling, the chamber is already full of hot inert gasses from another cylinder that came in thru the still-open exhaust valve, and
the Second is that, this occurrence delays the plenum air from getting started towards the intake valve. and
the Third is that, those hot gasses contribute to a higher initial chamber temperature, thus defeating all your attempts to keep it down.
Log manifolds with large overlaps, are a bad idea, in every way. This was Chrysler's primitive form of EGR.
the Fourth is that, with the Air/Fuel charge now being infused with inert EGR, 1) the molecules are far-spread thruout the chamber, and 2) the heat of compression is reduced, and 3) complete combustion may not occur with typical timing settings. Thus un-burned fuel molecules can enter the log-manifolds and continue burning there, aggravating an already bad situation. Eventually, with continuing rpm, this all goes away.......... unless the large volume of high-pressure gasses thus created cannot get away, in too small or restrictive, an exhaust system.
BTW
the 284/292/108 cam has 72 degrees of overlap, 28 more than the stock 340 cam, so that's a lot of street overlap; more typical is 55>60..
Chrysler must have figured out that 44* was already not good with log manifolds, and so gave 340 cars special exhaust system considerations. and that is also partly why the 340 cam was on a 114LSA.
Ok so, that's about all I got;
Happy HotRodding

EDITS;
with long-tube headers tuned for midrange, the low-rpm can be affected by what you bolt to your collectors, due to a change of the secondary scavenge signal.
 
Last edited:
Before I would start changing your specific engine, I would put an accelerometer on the windshield, and measure/plot it's current power-curve.The Go-ProSS is a great tool, but there are much much cheaper methods.
 
-
Back
Top