quench vs no quench?

-
Good link.

Torque is an empirical value: a singular data point you can measure. Horsepower is a calculated value for a series of those data points over a period of time. It's not empirical - you have to calculate it rather than measure it.
 
I'll take a crack at it. The way I see it, quench has one basic purpose. And it's really not to make additional power over a non quench engine. The purpose of quench is to allow an engine to have a higher compression ratio based on the fuel that's available.

So the way the OP asked the question, the two engines will make about the same power, because the non quench engine is allowed to have fuel so that it does not detonate.

Both engines have 10:1 compression in the OP's example, but are allowed fuel to where neither will detonate. So the non quench engine probably has 98 or so octane....assuming of course they have iron heads.

I know a flat top motor may make a little more power because of good flame propagation and all that fancy talk, but that's splittin hairs.

IMO, the two engines given the parameters the OP described will make very similar power. Of course, I could be wrong.....and if I am I wanna learn why.
 
RustyRatRod said:
I'll take a crack at it. The way I see it, quench has one basic purpose. And it's really not to make additional power over a non quench engine. The purpose of quench is to allow an engine to have a higher compression ratio based on the fuel that's available.

So the way the OP asked the question, the two engines will make about the same power, because the non quench engine is allowed to have fuel so that it does not detonate.

Both engines have 10:1 compression in the OP's example, but are allowed fuel to where neither will detonate. So the non quench engine probably has 98 or so octane....assuming of course they have iron heads.

I know a flat top motor may make a little more power because of good flame propagation and all that fancy talk, but that's splittin hairs.

IMO, the two engines given the parameters the OP described will make very similar power. Of course, I could be wrong.....and if I am I wanna learn why.
Click to expand...

Yes exactly what I'm asking and wondering about! Thanks! I'm not expecting huge number differences between the two, but since the quench head would most likely need less timing because of the better flame travel would less power be robbed compared to the non quench engine that requires more timing. Since the cylinder fires before the quenched chamber does that extra couple degrees use up some of the torque? Does it have a damper effect, since it has to push through that extra couple degrees to complete the explosion?
 
Less power where? Less timing usually equates to more power up top. More timing usually equates to more power down lower. Usually, but not always and again, the differences are really splitting hairs, IMO. Maybe Jim will chime in and school us on it. I hope so.
 
fishmens67 said:
we are waiting for a lesson. lol
Click to expand...

Here you go, if you really are a "realist" or just a poser. I'll keep it as simple as I can, as i understand that some of you can't deal well with truth.

Torque is twisting force. HP is time. What do you look at on your time slip? E-lapsed T-ime right? So HP is how much WORK you can do over a measured TIME. It's really simple.

Here's another for Jerry's crowd. Torque is the twisting force it takes to turn a door knob. HP is how QUICK you turn it.

What about comparing two different combinations?

I engine makes about 425 HP and makes 810 or so lbs-ft of torque. And lets say (because you are all realists right?) it's in a 3600 car w/lb driver (don't hate the driver cuz he's fat) and lets say 3000 rpm converter (can you really mash the taters) 27 inch tall tires, a measured engine speed of 5700 rpms (on the dyno..not using your *** to guess on shift points) and a 3.73 gear. What do you have for performance? Say 11.50's or so about 115 MPH.

Take take the SAME car, everything the same, except you made 650 HP and 450 lbs-ft of torque? Uh-oh batman...I hate when the math makes myths look stupid. You are not at 10 teens or so at about a buck 30 for MPH. Since you lost the stupid long stroke, you can turn this motor 6500 rpm's, using the same tire and a 4.10 gear. you are now using the axle ratio to move the car.

No matter how you slice it, HP is KING. Make all the torque you want, the TIME SLIP says HP wins.

And, since school is in, what does Harold Bettes say about torque vs. HP? He says: "The phrase "I would rather have more torque than horsepower"...IS OFTEN-HEARD AND MISGUIDED. Emphasis mine. Quoted from "Engine Airflow" page 4. Look it up. On page 8 he says, and I quote, Commit this one to memory. There is an old saying "there is no replacement for displacement", and although that is NOVEL, it is not necessarily the TRUTH". Emphasis mine.

I could continue to quote from others, but what else do you need?


CLASS....................DISMISSED.


















Now go learn some truth and stop spreading myths. :eek:ops::wack::cheers::banghead:
 
I always figure hp=rpm x torque. So a time thing. How fast can you spin all that force.
 
If yall wanna continue the dick size contest about HP and torque, can one of you please make another thread for it? That's getting this one off on a tangent. There's some people that may actually wanna learn what you experts already know.
 
I kinda thought you needed them both. 1,000 horsepower with 0 torque would be kinda useless in the 1/4 mile, but maybe good on the salt flats...?
 
Back in our dominating dirt track days, we ran this challenger pictured, 440, 4-speed. We had to weigh 300 pounds more than the small block cars. The only mopars were ours and 2 others that also ran BIG BLOCKS and weighed more. The other 20 cars in the class were small block chevies, some were even 400 small blocks, and being small blocks, they didnt have the weight penalty we did. The majority of the small block cars were making more HP than our 440, but we made more torque, and guess who won more races in the area than any of them? WE DID, and the few we didnt, the other 2 mopars, with high torque big blocks did! You could watch it work, we would totally dominate them in the corners and pulling out of the corners and before they started catching up, we were in the corner again! SO, You need torque in racing..unless its a 10 mile race..


Here is a link to our videos if you have an hour or so to watch some good dirt racing being dominated with mopars!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAMUDV23Ezc"]Mopar Dirt racing, Harper Brothers Racing, Duck river speedway! - YouTube[/ame]
 
So back to post one. I have been watching this for one reason. I have a 1974 440-4 engine. I also have in my possession almost every head made for the 383 and 440 in the last 50 years or so, including a set of closed chamber heads I was running on a '66 383 that performed well. On a stock engine would I notice any difference in performance between the closed chamber or say a 906 or similar head? I' m leaning towards the closed chamber head as long as I can be sure the pistons won't slam into them.
 
horsepower = torque x rpm divided by 5252. twist it all you like mad science man, but it don't get any easier than that. without torque you have no horsepower.
I don't play into the internet hide behind a keyboard scene, so I'll save the tough guy talk.
poser? lmao if you only knew.
carry on fellas, I'm sorry for the hicup
 
Next time I build an engine where my car drives WOT a 1/4 mile at a time going to the store, I'll do it like madscientist suggests.

Thanks for the class in reality.
 
Like most of you I've been watching this and been waiting for someone to address the quench
VS no quench question.
I am no engine or head guru but it was always my understanding that using a quench
style combustion chamber could be used to speed up the burn of the fuel mixture.
This was supposed to allow for more compression without detonation for a particular
octane. The cooler the intake charge the better. I do know the engine should be built
around this design. All high performance engines should be well planned.
I don't think the question is if it is a better design but more how much better for your particular engine.
I wish I had one built using the quench chamber to give you this answer but I don't.
The next engine I build will. Hope someone who has one up and running can give all
of us their take.
 
I run a 366sbm@ 10.7c/r with al heads, KB-107s and .035 quench,mostly street. No biggy. I run it on E-87.It doesnt seem to care if the power timing is 32 to 36.I cant tell the difference. For 125000 miles. Some of them at WOT. well, maybe lots of them.Well, not whole miles;Its not a Nascar engine. But you know; Slamming through the gears, til you run out of revs.
-For a while I dropped the quench to about .016, which upped the c/r to 11.1. Man, that thing barked at .016.
-Either way, it never knocked with full timing and that E-10 .
-Just saying.
 
fishmens67 said:
horsepower = torque x rpm divided by 5252. twist it all you like mad science man, but it don't get any easier than that. without torque you have no horsepower.
I don't play into the internet hide behind a keyboard scene, so I'll save the tough guy talk.
poser? lmao if you only knew.
carry on fellas, I'm sorry for the hicup
Click to expand...

Hey hero, just pointed out the FACTS, the TRUTH.

Again, look at the scenario I posted. It's really that simple.
And if some dude with a dirt car won a bunch of races because he had more torque...that's a joke. More than likely it was his set up.

You can keep posting myths, but I am sure you aren't as smart as Harold Bettes, Jim McFarland and a host of others. I only quoted Bettes because I had it handy.

To keep on topic....quench is NOT nearly as important as guys make it. You can try and squeeze it down and cos t yourself much more in the long run.

Friggin chrysler guys and living in the stoned age.
 
mopower440 said:
I kinda thought you needed them both. 1,000 horsepower with 0 torque would be kinda useless in the 1/4 mile, but maybe good on the salt flats...?
Click to expand...

You do need both. But 425 HP with 800 lb-ft of torque will NEVER be as fast as 600 HP with 450 lb-ft of torque.

I laugh when I see dyno numbers where an engine is making 550 TQ and 415 HP. It my make you THINK you are fast but in the real world........

And FWIW...quench is OVERRATED. If it's less than .060 or so, and you're not trying to run down Jason Line for the money, spend your time and money somewhere else.
 
madscientist said:
Really?

UN-BE-LEAVE-A-ABLE the ignorant crap people post.
Click to expand...

What's unbelievable is, you coming on here like you know the world and talking as down to people as humanly possible. Can you be any more condescending?

Another A-hole for my ignore list.
 
Why thank you madscientist.

I will continue to be as ignorant as possible to you when the opportunity presents itself.
 
RustyRatRod said:
What's unbelievable is, you coming on here like you know the world and talking as down to people as humanly possible. Can you be any more condescending?

Another A-hole for my ignore list.
Click to expand...


Cool. Glad I made the "list". But the fact is, all I did was call out a foolish remark. If you think torque is the MOST important thing in the world, then have at it. Been at this a long time, and some are slow to get on the bus.

For the record, I'm not an "A-hole", just SICK TO DEATH of people repeating stupid crap and no one calling it crap.

Quench...I already answered that too. If you think you must have .040 or less, get on it. You won't find jack crap on 99.9% of the engines EVER made. Won't fix your tune up, but it may help with emissions.

Gawd already, build a big stroke, small bore engine, have all the torque you want. but the ET slips show HORSEPOWER.

Grow up.

Dam, now I'm pissed....your on my list:coffee2:
 
quench is good.

as far as preferring hp over torque, to each his own

i can tell you on my 400 cheap bb build i have 450 ft lbs from 3500 all the way to 6000

that's a nice powerband

you could make a small high revvin motor, with some good power band from 6000 to 7500 or something but you kinda need to decide what you want. not as much fun on the street. it's more for all out racing. bb thumper motors with lots of torque are fun. i guess on a motorcycle the high revs / high rpm is fun, they get there so fast because of their light weight.

i know hp wins races but that comes with high rpms and a price... you need to do the maintenance. all the winning teams spend their off time checking all the parts over. runnin 8, 9, 10 grand rpms. some disassemble the engines every week.

it's all what you want out of your car. more important than torque vs. hp by the way is rod/stroke ratio. my little 400 has a 1.88 r/s ratio. should be plenty powerful for me and last a long time. having a low rod/stroke ratio introduces harmonics at tdc that are bad, and at higher rpms it's bad squared. there is lots of theory involved
http://ftlracing.com/rsratio.htm
 
Bench racing at it's finest folks!
 
Hey..
 

Attachments

  • Train_wreck_at_Montparnasse_1895_2-300x253.jpg
    31.4 KB · Views: 254
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top