quench vs no quench?

-
Well if you read that far then you read the part that says, reduces detonation and increases power, like so many other published articles.
 
Coronet 500 said:
Well if you read that far then you read the part that says, reduces detonation and increases power, like so many other published articles.
Click to expand...


So, let's be clear here. You want me, the OP and everyone who reads this to think if you go from .040 quench to .060 quench I can expect dramatic loss of power, horrible, piston breaking detonation and toxic greenhouse gas emissions to bring on global warning?

Get real dude. Under .080 and don't sweat it. Under .100 is even doable, if the compression is correct.


GAWD already. Get to realville soon.
 
Everything I've read says if you drop the piston down below .040 you loose
the performance benefit of the chambers shape.
 
I'm not one for over stating or exaggerating to make a point. Any amount of more power is still more power.
 
Alright. Ive been pondering on Mads assertions, sifted through the information,and have formed some conclusions.
-If/when you consider his world,he makes a strong case.If you need to build an engine to a certain set of parameters to be competitive in a certain class,and you have the empirical evidence to show that a target hp will do it; then its easier to visualize on a hp curve,the target to build to.Why is that? Because the hp curve amplifies the torque curve in the target area, making visualization easier.So you build the engine using parts and machining techniques that have been empirically proven to work in the past, putting your own spin on the package.Then when you put it on the dyno and the resulting curve matches your target,then youre ready to drop it into the chassis and go racing/tuning/maybe winning.
-Backing up to the dyno for a moment, which generates the the hp graph from the measured torque numbers; you can compare the graphs to similarly built engines and see how the curves have been pulled up in the target areas.However its easier to interpret the results on the hp curve.Why is that? Because of the way in which the equation works.As the rpm in the equation rises the torque gets amplified and the resulting hp curve rises and focuses, making visualization so much easier.Whereas the torque curve is falling.
-So while my previous post stands,Im willing to accept Mads point,despite his rather abrasive way of making it.
-Now, for us streeters; hp at mega rpm is not one of our targets. The bulk of our driving is spent at much more mundane rpms and getting through the lower rpms is a constant obstacle.This requires different parameters in the build.We need to accelerate 3200 plus pounds in a hurry through usually 1 or 2 gears.Thats it.
-Oh wait; it has to idle well,tip-in well,have a strong area under the curve,get reasonable gas-mileage, start cold, start hot,start every time,last a few years,maybe drive through the seasons,not break the budget, yadayada....
-No we are not looking at the amplifying part of the curve.We are instead looking to fill out the curve from when the tc stalls to some sane rpm in the sub-7000 range.We are looking to pump up the torque curve. Now, visualization is better on the torque curve.
-Different curves for different folks.Valid arguments for both.IMHO.
-Now,to Mad I say;you and I travel in very different circles and we will never be drinking buddies.One thing we have in common though is the pursuit of truth.Im sorry that I initially did not have a very good opinion of you.Soldier on.
 
AJ/FormS said:
Alright. Ive been pondering on Mads assertions, sifted through the information,and have formed some conclusions.
-If/when you consider his world,he makes a strong case.If you need to build an engine to a certain set of parameters to be competitive in a certain class,and you have the empirical evidence to show that a target hp will do it; then its easier to visualize on a hp curve,the target to build to.Why is that? Because the hp curve amplifies the torque curve in the target area, making visualization easier.So you build the engine using parts and machining techniques that have been empirically proven to work in the past, putting your own spin on the package.Then when you put it on the dyno and the resulting curve matches your target,then youre ready to drop it into the chassis and go racing/tuning/maybe winning.
-Backing up to the dyno for a moment, which generates the the hp graph from the measured torque numbers; you can compare the graphs to similarly built engines and see how the curves have been pulled up in the target areas.However its easier to interpret the results on the hp curve.Why is that? Because of the way in which the equation works.As the rpm in the equation rises the torque gets amplified and the resulting hp curve rises and focuses, making visualization so much easier.Whereas the torque curve is falling.
-So while my previous post stands,Im willing to accept Mads point,despite his rather abrasive way of making it.
-Now, for us streeters; hp at mega rpm is not one of our targets. The bulk of our driving is spent at much more mundane rpms and getting through the lower rpms is a constant obstacle.This requires different parameters in the build.We need to accelerate 3200 plus pounds in a hurry through usually 1 or 2 gears.Thats it.
-Oh wait; it has to idle well,tip-in well,have a strong area under the curve,get reasonable gas-mileage, start cold, start hot,start every time,last a few years,maybe drive through the seasons,not break the budget, yadayada....
-No we are not looking at the amplifying part of the curve.We are instead looking to fill out the curve from when the tc stalls to some sane rpm in the sub-7000 range.We are looking to pump up the torque curve. Now, visualization is better on the torque curve.
-Different curves for different folks.Valid arguments for both.IMHO.
-Now,to Mad I say;you and I travel in very different circles and we will never be drinking buddies.One thing we have in common though is the pursuit of truth.Im sorry that I initially did not have a very good opinion of you.Soldier on.
Click to expand...
:violent1::wack:
this beats any thing I`ve ever seen, going to go w/ rrr on this
 
To answer Mr. Mad, dramatic, horrible or toxic....NO. Calm down.

If someone is to rebuild an engine while decking the block and installing new pistons, simply selecting the correct compression height and with proper measuring and correct gasket thickness the desired piston to head clearance can be achieved with no additional cost.

This is not to compare different piston to head clearances, this is to build an engine correctly and gain any benefits from quench (squish) that is commonly known to work.

This is what most performance engine builders do in the real world, or realsville as you call it.
 
Coronet 500 said:
I'm not one for over stating or exaggerating to make a point. Any amount of more power is still more power.
Click to expand...

Well good for you.

Go spend hundreds, if not thousands to gain .020 in quench and get 2 HP, if you're lucky.

Dumb stuff here.

Anything under .080 quench is good enough for 99% of you, and your ability to tune. For the OTHER 1%, if you are at .060 or less you ARE golden.

Tick Tock Tick Tock Tick Tock
 
Coronet 500 said:
To answer Mr. Mad, dramatic, horrible or toxic....NO. Calm down.

If someone is to rebuild an engine while decking the block and installing new pistons, simply selecting the correct compression height and with proper measuring and correct gasket thickness the desired piston to head clearance can be achieved with no additional cost.

This is not to compare different piston to head clearances, this is to build an engine correctly and gain any benefits from quench (squish) that is commonly known to work.

This is what most performance engine builders do in the real world, or realsville as you call it.
Click to expand...

Right. And the OP, in his hypothetical world is asking about quench when going from the ground up. Duh.


To induce extra quench or to not correct it when building an engine is STUPID. But, and here is another BUT, to go from .080 to .040 if that is what you have, is a waste of time.

Get over it.

Horsepower is STILL the UNDISPUTED KING.

I win.

Case closed.

Over and out.

Toodahloo
 
Man, all you guys are picky, i dont give a damn which one is king, queen, or hillbilly, as long as it wins races..lol..
 
quench is a good thing. it will enhance the performance of the engine, PERIOD !
 
Man, I think there's a lot of independent variables that are being ignored or minimized for this conversation.

HP is more valuable than torque for racing. That high torque engine will be useful for a truck. Hence diesels over gassers.

There are all sorts of limitations that affect your ability to build HP and make it useful, mostly centering around budget. Dedicated heads up race car engines really should not be considered in the same frame as street or bracket engines. S/F....Ken M
 
madscience just doesnt like big blocks with all the torque. i can tell his hp vs torque thing is all about making small blocks go. he prefers the little winders that make 750hp at 8000 rpms then with 250 shot of nos then you go down the tracks 3 times and it pops lol. why bother making an engine with a lower power band that lasts several seasons?

p.s. quench is all about being able to run lower octane fuel safely without damaging rings 'n pistons. i.e. pump gas motors. it has absolutely nothing to to with HP vs Torque or HP production numbers.
 
moparlover said:
madscience just doesnt like big blocks with all the torque. i can tell his hp vs torque thing is all about making small blocks go. he prefers the little winders that make 750hp at 8000 rpms then with 250 shot of nos then you go down the tracks 3 times and it pops lol. why bother making an engine with a lower power band that lasts several seasons?

p.s. quench is all about being able to run lower octane fuel safely without damaging rings 'n pistons. i.e. pump gas motors. it has absolutely nothing to to with HP vs Torque or HP production numbers.
Click to expand...


Shouldn't post thing of which you know NOTHING.

I build more BBC's than anything else.

An orange is orange. Argue that one (as some goofball said the sky was NOT blue).
 
LOL just pokin' fun at ya.

so BBC is #1 requested. is SBC #2? around where i live there is a dirt track so SBC is most built by the machine shops probably 80%

are your customers mostly drag race i'm guessing? dart blocks?
 
EchoSixMike said:
Man, I think there's a lot of independent variables that are being ignored or minimized for this conversation.

HP is more valuable than torque for racing. That high torque engine will be useful for a truck. Hence diesels over gassers.

There are all sorts of limitations that affect your ability to build HP and make it useful, mostly centering around budget. Dedicated heads up race car engines really should not be considered in the same frame as street or bracket engines. S/F....Ken M
Click to expand...

E6M hit the nail on the head. If ya'll think TQ is so wonderful, ya should be running soot pukers. But you don't. Every one SHOULD understand that when you are covering a KNOWN distance (for Jerry's kids I will spell it out: 660', 1000', 1320', 1/4 mile oval, 1/2 mile etc) it is HORSEPOWER that gets it done. That's why you have a transmission, and a ring and pinion (you could have the R&P that is 1:1 if you didn't need the HELP) and TQ converters for the gang that can't use a pop up toaster and need a slush box to get you there.

Now I know (since I'm doing this for decades) that many guys have switched to the J-U-N-K powerglide and they went faster. If you can't tune your chassis, chances are, less 1st gear will help your car. But, remember when Pro Stock was allowed to use 5 gears instead of 4? Think about who was the LAST team to switch? That's right, it was the Dodges. Why were they last? Because they didn't have the latest bore spacing block and couldn't make HORSEPOWER with the rest of the class. 5 gears would have slowed them down. They were still using smaller bores and longer strokes that anyone. They tried to make me believe (unsuccessfully for dang sure) that their flatter, longer torque curve would carry the day. It didn't.

So, to sum it up once more, if you want to go fast, figure out how much HP you need to get there and the TQ will take care of itself.

If you want to try and impress your buddies with your long stroke, low RPM soot maker, go ahead. To keep arguing makes you look stupid, as many who are way more smarter than me, have said exactly what I am saying to you now. You don't need to turn small block 8000 RPM's or crap like that.

It's all just silly. Sounds like some of you built torque monsters that don't ET like it should, and now you need to publicly defend your bad decisions.
 
Ben Drinkin said:
Actually he was right...
Click to expand...


Well then fill us in hero?

Looks blue to me. And since you've never been out there to investigate for us, do tell how you know that. Hopefully it's not one of the guys who claimed in the 60's and 70's who warned us of global cooling. That haven't been correct yet.
 
madscientist said:
Same thing with HP vs TQ. You come to me for a build the first thing I ask is how QUICK do you want to go, what's it weigh, trans you run, gear ratio and tire size. From there, you determine the HP you need. The torque will take care of itself.
Click to expand...

There it is in a nut shell..!!
I've been doing this for 40 plus years and the above statement sums it all up..
If I never hear the statement "torque monster " again it will be too soon...
 
So I guess if somebody really wants to discuss quench, they should start a thread about torque and horse power. Now I get it.

:banghead:
 
RustyRatRod said:
So I guess if somebody really wants to discuss quench, they should start a thread about torque and horse power. Now I get it.

:banghead:
Click to expand...

X2 I have tried to steer this back on track a few times.
Thanks Rob. You always know just how to put it.
 
ssba said:
X2 I have tried to steer this back on track a few times.
Thanks Rob. You always know just how to put it.
Click to expand...

I also put my .02 in about quench.

Just wanted to correct a wayward guy who was incorrect about HP vs TQ.


Do I need to repeat myself on quench for you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top