to stroke or not to stroke?

-
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey where's that 318 basher. I built a 318 / 390 last year. Still waiting to finish body paint ect to run it.

390 Stroker
Ported 340 x heads
9.8:1

292S Comp Cam
1.5 Comp Magnum Rockers
Icon forged pistons
Scat I beam rods
Scat 4"crank
MSD Efi on its way...
 
rmchrgr said:
I don't think that's so true in 2015. The reason is cost. You can buy a 4" cast crank for $370, re-use your factory 6.123" rods (if you want) with lighter pistons that also cost roughly the same as a stock-stroke piston and install it all without any modifications to the main saddles or block. Why wouldn't you do that? This is a good point... and I'm not against strokers at all, I stated they are for sure an advantage in power

The only reason to not make that choice is because you are trying to prove that a non-stroker will make the same power because logic does not support it. Bogus


But, I say prove it. Build two engines EXACTLY the same and see which one makes more power.
Two engines built exactly the same should perform about the same... same heads, cubic inches, cams etc etc.... no point to what you said






So blowing up junkyard 360s is less cost effective than building a stroked bottom end? Read the first posting of this thread, the 360 held together and the stroker lost a rod...

Again, think about it from a cost standpoint. If you are building something from a bare block why choose less cubes for the same price?

Maybe if you are running a gnarly stick car and are launching at 7 grand, well maybe you don't need a stroker. Most other applications can only benefit from more volume though. Unless I have it all backwards, I dunno.
so, you did find at least one case where the stroker may not make sense.... LOL



Please explain how you equate engine displacement with consistency at the drags.
Click to expand...
Where did I say that?? WOW! I said IF IF if if IF I'm more consistant, I'll put your stroker on the trailer
 
j par said:
I think I'm really confused now ?! I thought the thread was which one is faster or quicker stroker or non stroker? am I too understand we have started seeing which one is a better bracket racer? and am I also understand that the stock stroke has conceded to be slower and more consistent?
Click to expand...
To me it's neither which is faster or a better bracket racer. It's about some with strokers (not all) for ever doubting those with less cubic inches getting the job done. We are seeing just what's around for E.T.'s on some cars around FABO. Stock stroke and stroker motors. From what I've seen listed thus far, stock stroke is kind of in the lead..... and your stroker, J par, being in about the lightest car listed is a second and half behind... :boxing: Just rib'n ya, man!!!! Again, to all: I really like the stroker motors, just sayin, I also believe small cubes can boogie boogie, and I don't call'm fish stories...
 
I meant to say build two engines, one stroked, the other not and see which makes more overall power.

Please tell me how my assertion that larger displacement will make more power if all else is equal is bogus. Again, this is physics, not opinion. Maybe I am wrong. Enlighten me.

Consistency at the drags will put any combo on the trailer. Cut a perfect light and run right on your dial you win. What does it matter what the guy next to you does? People run mimivans and win races because they are consistent, has little to do with what engine is in the car.
 
Jpar
Yes the thread took a few turns, but if you reread your first post, I think you kinda set the stage for it. Can of worms for sure.
I think you needed to be more specific. Since its your thread, you can still try to steer it in the direction you originally intended.I say try,cause................................Sometimes a thread takes on a life of its own.
 
rmchrgr said:
I don't think that's so true in 2015. The reason is cost. You can buy a 4" cast crank for $370, re-use your factory 6.123" rods (if you want) with lighter pistons that also cost roughly the same as a stock-stroke piston and install it all without any modifications to the main saddles or block. Why wouldn't you do that?

The only reason to not make that choice is because you are trying to prove that a non-stroker will make the same power because logic does not support it. Read all the old threads where guys are trying to justify building a 318 rather than a 360. You can build the 318 to the moon but do the same things to a 360 and it will always make more power. It's physics, not opinion. More air/fuel for a given volume = more power.

So blowing up junkyard 360s is less cost effective than building a stroked bottom end? What sense does that make? Would you run a 40 year old junkyard 8:1:1 short block with factory balancing and bearing tolerances and heavy rotating parts without any prep? If so that's fine but that's not really fair here.
Click to expand...
Where I think it's especially true is that 318 stroke cranks are fairly common and usually good. Many 360 cores don't have usable cranks for their stock main size- and if you have to replace it, it costs just as much to replace it with a 4" as a 3.58". Those same 360 cores often need bored, so if you can't reuse the stock pistons and you can't reuse the stock crank- well then you have to buy used or new. Even if they don't need bored, most 360s have very low compression. If you're going to buy new, there's very little price difference (when I looked none) in cranks and little in pistons.

Strokers tend to have strong torque and make their power lower down.

AJ/FormS said:
The relationship, between Hp,car weight, and mph,was well established in the sixties and seventies,perhaps earlier.Thats one of the reasons that when asked how fast my car is, I give the the MPH number.That number instantly establishes a P/W . Whereas an ET tells how focused the project is and how much money/time you have put into it, and thats when the pi$$ing starts.
Click to expand...
It seems the MPH is a better example of what the car CAN do rather than what it has done.

Many SS cars do great compared to other vehicles with their same HP due to there not being any compromises in their build.
 
rmchrgr said:
I meant to say build two engines, one stroked, the other not and see which makes more overall power. I know what you meant to say, but two different cubic inch motors will have a different calling to cams, carbs, etc. to make the most power

Please tell me how my assertion that larger displacement will make more power if all else is equal is bogus. Again, this is physics, not opinion. Maybe I am wrong. Enlighten me. Not at all what you said. You stated that the only reason someone would build a stock stroke motor is to PROVE something..,, that, my friend, is BOGUS
Click to expand...
 
Read this entire thread and feel dumber for it. C'mon guys...how long will fairy tails with unicorns and crap like that go on? I have posted several examples of why stroke is not all that and then some. There are WAY more important parts of the equation than stroke. For me (and there are many of us out here who know the truth) torque is a by product of stroke length, port area, overlap, @.050 timing and rod ratio. I know some long haired type will post on here and try to tell us that HP is calculated from torque blah blah blah. Again, the reality is that torque is the by product of the above. To be realistic, we need some definitions to start with so we are all talking the same lingo.

I like simple best so here it goes:

Torque = twisting force.
Horsepower = time to do the twisting.
Really simple, isn't it?

So, here is an example I read probably 25 years ago that fits. Torque is the amount of WORK required to twist a doorknob (whatever the exact number is, we don't care, we just know work happened when we twisted the knob).

Horsepower is the amount of TIME it took to twist that knob. Again, we don't care what the time is we just know it took time to twist the doorknob and that time is HORSEPOWER.

If we make the knob harder to turn, it requires more TIME to turn so we used less HORSEPOWER. If the knob is still hard to turn and we turn it faster, we made more HORSEPOWER.

Simple really.

So what we are talking about is that really, horsepower is how long it took to do work. In drag racing (and horse racing and golf cart racing and about any other kind of racing) if you did the work in less TIME you had to have more HORSEPOWER. Period. That is why every power speed calculator I know of uses HORSEPOWER to calculate ET and not torque. Torque is a by product.
Real world example: Had a customer come in the shop and tell us he wanted 850 lb/ft of torque. I said what the ruck for? He said, because I want to go 10's. I said well what does the car weigh? He says 3600 with me in it. I calculated about 600 HP and that would get him about 600 lb/ft of torque (because his combo was already screwed up I couldn't dump any more torque of I would have). After hours of discussion we gave in and built him what he wanted, all the time me telling him his disappointment would be great.

Put the pig together and it made 425 HP and 880 lb/ft of torque. I told him to plan on 11.40's or so. He was pissed because he should go 10.60's by his torque numbers (I should have bet him but I don't like taking money from an already pissed customer.

So, down to the track. It starts off in the 11.65 range and it was tuned to the 11.50's that night. He fought traction issues. So he spent ANOTHER grand on upgraded suspension and it went into the 11.30's and that was where it lived. He was pissed and sold the car.

If he would have LISTENED, for the SAME money I could have made way more HP with way less torque. The car would have been faster and easier to drive. Torque is a by product and has little overall impact on ET in the real world application (yes I can prove that too).

The problem is that the real hot rodder is dead. Those of us who don't mind a 3.90-4.56 gear on the street (I use 4.56's in my car) don't lose sleep over 50 lb/ft of torque or even 100. But I get berserk over 10 HP for damn sure. And I'll give up 50 lb/ft of torque at 2500 to gain 15 HP at 6800 ALL DAY LONG.

I'm also confused by this current idle speed issue. Seems like if you idle is faster than 1200 RPM some guys wet the bed. Idle is just a number. Unplug your tach and see if you can tell
the difference between a correctly set 1200rPM idle and a correctly set 1600 RPM idle. Bet you can't. So we give up midrange torque by using a wide LSA so we can lower the idle speed? That's what GM did with the old 30/30 Duntov and the first LT-1 cams. The 30/30 was on a 114 LSA and the mighty LT-1was on a ridiculous 116 LSA!!! Sure was fun using my 292 DC cam to take money from fools, suckers and chumps.

My point is this: Horsepower is KING. To dispute this is stupid.

A man much smarter than me said this words probably 30 years or more ago. It hasn't changed. I would take a 4.125 bore 3.58 stroke engine over a 4.03 4.00 engine every day of the week and ten times on Sunday when they are signing the checks. And I would use a 6.25 rod in the 3.58 stroke. Then set my cam numbers to my RPM range, and gear and tire size would follow.

Simple really.

HORSEPOWER is KING for sure.

Rant over.
 
madscientist said:
Read this entire thread and feel dumber for it. C'mon guys...how long will fairy tails with unicorns and crap like that go on? I have posted several examples of why stroke is not all that and then some. There are WAY more important parts of the equation than stroke. For me (and there are many of us out here who know the truth) torque is a by product of stroke length, port area, overlap, @.050 timing and rod ratio. I know some long haired type will post on here and try to tell us that HP is calculated from torque blah blah blah. Again, the reality is that torque is the by product of the above. To be realistic, we need some definitions to start with so we are all talking the same lingo.

I like simple best so here it goes:

Torque = twisting force.
Horsepower = time to do the twisting.
Really simple, isn't it?

So, here is an example I read probably 25 years ago that fits. Torque is the amount of WORK required to twist a doorknob (whatever the exact number is, we don't care, we just know work happened when we twisted the knob).

Horsepower is the amount of TIME it took to twist that knob. Again, we don't care what the time is we just know it took time to twist the doorknob and that time is HORSEPOWER.

If we make the knob harder to turn, it requires more TIME to turn so we used less HORSEPOWER. If the knob is still hard to turn and we turn it faster, we made more HORSEPOWER.

Simple really.

So what we are talking about is that really, horsepower is how long it took to do work. In drag racing (and horse racing and golf cart racing and about any other kind of racing) if you did the work in less TIME you had to have more HORSEPOWER. Period. That is why every power speed calculator I know of uses HORSEPOWER to calculate ET and not torque. Torque is a by product.
Real world example: Had a customer come in the shop and tell us he wanted 850 lb/ft of torque. I said what the ruck for? He said, because I want to go 10's. I said well what does the car weigh? He says 3600 with me in it. I calculated about 600 HP and that would get him about 600 lb/ft of torque (because his combo was already screwed up I couldn't dump any more torque of I would have). After hours of discussion we gave in and built him what he wanted, all the time me telling him his disappointment would be great.

Put the pig together and it made 425 HP and 880 lb/ft of torque. I told him to plan on 11.40's or so. He was pissed because he should go 10.60's by his torque numbers (I should have bet him but I don't like taking money from an already pissed customer.

So, down to the track. It starts off in the 11.65 range and it was tuned to the 11.50's that night. He fought traction issues. So he spent ANOTHER grand on upgraded suspension and it went into the 11.30's and that was where it lived. He was pissed and sold the car.

If he would have LISTENED, for the SAME money I could have made way more HP with way less torque. The car would have been faster and easier to drive. Torque is a by product and has little overall impact on ET in the real world application (yes I can prove that too).

The problem is that the real hot rodder is dead. Those of us who don't mind a 3.90-4.56 gear on the street (I use 4.56's in my car) don't lose sleep over 50 lb/ft of torque or even 100. But I get berserk over 10 HP for damn sure. And I'll give up 50 lb/ft of torque at 2500 to gain 15 HP at 6800 ALL DAY LONG.

I'm also confused by this current idle speed issue. Seems like if you idle is faster than 1200 RPM some guys wet the bed. Idle is just a number. Unplug your tach and see if you can tell
the difference between a correctly set 1200rPM idle and a correctly set 1600 RPM idle. Bet you can't. So we give up midrange torque by using a wide LSA so we can lower the idle speed? That's what GM did with the old 30/30 Duntov and the first LT-1 cams. The 30/30 was on a 114 LSA and the mighty LT-1was on a ridiculous 116 LSA!!! Sure was fun using my 292 DC cam to take money from fools, suckers and chumps.

My point is this: Horsepower is KING. To dispute this is stupid.

A man much smarter than me said this words probably 30 years or more ago. It hasn't changed. I would take a 4.125 bore 3.58 stroke engine over a 4.03 4.00 engine every day of the week and ten times on Sunday when they are signing the checks. And I would use a 6.25 rod in the 3.58 stroke. Then set my cam numbers to my RPM range, and gear and tire size would follow.

Simple really.

HORSEPOWER is KING for sure.

Rant over.
Click to expand...
Oh Boy!!! Oh, Boy..... Hey, I like it!!!
 
Finally,,,,,, Madscientist,,,,,, somebody said it. My message is....... Does anyone remember when the Dodge Rams first came out with diesels....??? No horsepower, no speed but could pull a train box car???? Does anyone see where I'm going with this??? And my last hint: there is a place for torque, and it's useful! And a place for horsepower, and it's useful. For anyone to state, because you have more arm on your crank, you get the win, you, you, you, have been madly deceived. If you made a 408 cubic inch from BORE, ......Shoot!!! I'm giving myself away.....
 
Thank you madscientist . Now I feel like a complete fool for putting that 4 inch crank in my motor ! NOT!! And I still want to start a thread : who's disappointed with there stroker ? Not many if any. Your example of some wack job wanting a 850 torque motor with only 425 hp is Ludacris! the one good thing about being in business for myself is that I can turn away complete morons. Hp and torque should go relatively hand in hand. please list the specs for this build your talking about so we all know what not to do and how to make it terribly unbalanced motor. And then have the nerve to sell it to somebody who apparently needed mental help not a wallet check. Unlike some will falsely accuse I don't believe a 4-inch arm guarantees anything but for a mild build it sure helps.
 
AJ/FormS said:
Jpar
Yes the thread took a few turns, but if you reread your first post, I think you kinda set the stage for it. Can of worms for sure.
I think you needed to be more specific. Since its your thread, you can still try to steer it in the direction you originally intended.I say try,cause................................Sometimes a thread takes on a life of its own.
Click to expand...

oh no it's just perfect just the way I like it lots of controversy! you never know somebody might actually learn something from this? Hopefully me!
 
j par said:
Thank you madscientist . Now I feel like a complete fool for putting that 4 inch crank in my motor ! NOT!! And I still want to start a thread : who's disappointed with there stroker ? Not many if any. Your example of some wack job wanting a 850 torque motor with only 425 hp is Ludacris! the one good thing about being in business for myself is that I can turn away complete morons. Hp and torque should go relatively hand in hand. please list the specs for this build your talking about so we all know what not to do and how to make it terribly unbalanced motor. And then have the nerve to sell it to somebody who apparently needed mental help not a wallet check. Unlike some will falsely accuse I don't believe a 4-inch arm guarantees anything but for a mild build it sure helps.
Click to expand...

Nobody is disappointed with their stroker because they added cubic inches. Lots of 'em too! But IF I could turn my 360 into a 408 by bore, I would prefer that in a A-body. Rod angle really matters, and so does "if your piston is being pushed into the cylinder wall as much as it's being pushed up".. 408 by bore would be a better build than 408 by arm in a lighter car going for E.T. AND the torque would go up lots with the big bore....
 
Your example of some wack job wanting a 850 torque motor with only 425 hp is Ludacris!

I don't know, I found it entertaining and a pretty good example to his point that big torque numbers are overrated and that if the guy would have made a bigger HP number (like the engine builder wanted him to) and a smaller torque number he would have been happier. So much so that maybe he wouldn't have sold the car? The car ran like the engine builder told him it would run, but the customer thought he knew more than the engine builder. Maybe there is a lesson in there?

Obviously two engine builders can have different thoughts and use different theories on how to build motors, to me that is the hard part on who to listen to. It's easy to listen to a guy that tells you the same thing you've been reading on the internet and in your favorite magazine, but the guy that doesn't sound like everyone else might be just as good or better but he makes you uncomfortable because he isn't repeating what you've already heard. That doesn't make him wrong.

Nobody is disappointed with their stroker because they added cubic inches.

Yeah that and EVERYONE seems to have one so you're not gonna say I wish I wouldn't have done it. Most likely the car is loud and faster than anything they've ever driven, and it blows the tires off real easy with all the torque so it sounds and feels impressive. Plus it's the en vogue thing to do, and it sounds cool to say I have a 408 ci small block making 550 ft lbs of torque. It's a great conversation piece when the buddies are standing around tossin back a few barley pops and lyin to each other. I almost wonder if it's a nascar thing as well. My cousin is a nascar guy and he is always throwing out torque numbers or wanting to know torque numbers. His first question is how much torque did it make? In comparison I'm more of a drag racing fan and I ask how fast is it?
 
If this thread is going racing, I guess I'll sit back.

But if we talk street:
For a street brawler building for Hp makes no sense. Most of the time Im just cruising around looking for trouble. I might be in 2nd or even 3rd.That means Im at sub 3000rpm. And when the urge hits, I need torque to get me moving.And the race is done by top of 2nd gear.So I have got TORQUE multiplication working for me, in the transmission. I just have to get moving before the other guy.I need torque down low. If I build for hp, that requires either more cubes or more rpm. But sometimes Im lazy, I dont feel like downshifting two gears to get the rs up.So a short period cam in a high Dcr stroker would do it for me. And there is great satisfaction, when 2 of us go at it,(me in my 366) , and I hear him downshift to 1st,as I wave bye-bye, in 2nd.On the flipside I dont bother the BB guys, cause they're gonna pull the same thing on me.Then it will be me wringing out the 366, while sucking on their tailpipes.
Horsepower is needed on the track for sure.
But its just a number that falls out of an equation. An equation based on torque. Most of us are used to looking at dyno graphs and like to see the hp curve rising as high and fast as possible.Its something we can relate to. But if you take the torque curve from the same chart, ALL the exact same information is on that line.It just looks different.
When you say horsepower is king, you are really saying; ( torque x rpm)/5250 is king.He who makes the most torque,the fastest and longest,and stickes it bestest,Is likely to be the smilingest.
 
...I'd actually like to know the build profile on an engine that made 425hp and over 800lb/ft of torque...cuz that **** just sounds ridiculous.
 
txstang84 said:
...I'd actually like to know the build profile on an engine that made 425hp and over 800lb/ft of torque...cuz that **** just sounds ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Must of been a diesel.... :glasses7:
 
AJ/FormS said:
If this thread is going racing, I guess I'll sit back.

But if we talk street:
For a street brawler building for Hp makes no sense. Most of the time Im just cruising around looking for trouble. I might be in 2nd or even 3rd.That means Im at sub 3000rpm. And when the urge hits, I need torque to get me moving.And the race is done by top of 2nd gear.So I have got TORQUE multiplication working for me, in the transmission. I just have to get moving before the other guy.I need torque down low. If I build for hp, that requires either more cubes or more rpm. But sometimes Im lazy, I dont feel like downshifting two gears to get the rs up.So a short period cam in a high Dcr stroker would do it for me. And there is great satisfaction, when 2 of us go at it,(me in my 366) , and I hear him downshift to 1st,as I wave bye-bye, in 2nd.On the flipside I dont bother the BB guys, cause they're gonna pull the same thing on me.Then it will be me wringing out the 366, while sucking on their tailpipes.
Horsepower is needed on the track for sure.
But its just a number that falls out of an equation. An equation based on torque. Most of us are used to looking at dyno graphs and like to see the hp curve rising as high and fast as possible.Its something we can relate to. But if you take the torque curve from the same chart, ALL the exact same information is on that line.It just looks different.
When you say horsepower is king, you are really saying; ( torque x rpm)/5250 is king.He who makes the most torque,the fastest and longest,and stickes it bestest,Is likely to be the smilingest.
Click to expand...
Just curious, in a 1/4 mile street race, would you rather have a stock 1993 Dodge ram Diesel or a Dodge ram with a 360 magnum?? You are saying you would pick the diesel, because torque wins street races. I would pick the 360 magnum, more horse, less torque, and all you would see is tail lights :D
 
318willrun said:
Must of been a diesel.... :glasses7:
Click to expand...


...or nitrous fed? nah...that would make good power too...

stock 1993 Dodge ram Diesel or a Dodge ram with a 360 magnum??
Click to expand...

I dunno about all that man--you ever race a diesel truck? Those fuckers move when they're not towing a damn boat or a trailer.

EDIT: or at least until they run out of gear...
 
HP in a vacuum, as if it's the only thing that matters, will make you a loser in many situations.

Slap an 18000-20000 rpm f1 engine in a 3500# car with a street converter and 3.55's, 28" tires... Yeah it makes 800hp, it won't accelerate for crap until way up in the band. Meanwhile the lower HP, more torque, 6K rpm grunter is going to run away from it out to the 1/8 mile point. Now put 8:1 rear gears, 8 speed trans and 14K rpm converter, suddenly the F1 engine will work better... but only HP matters. :)

What do the gear and trans ratios do? They multiply something, what is it? LOL

HP is a derivative of observed torque. Without TQ, you don't have HP.

Any build decisions should be based upon the desired goals.
 
crackedback said:
HP in a vacuum, as if it's the only thing that matters, will make you a loser in many situations.

Slap an 18000-20000 rpm f1 engine in a 3500# car with a street converter and 3.55's, 28" tires... Yeah it makes 800hp, it won't accelerate for crap until way up in the band. Meanwhile the lower HP, more torque, 6K rpm grunter is going to run away from it out to the 1/8 mile point. Now put 8:1 rear gears, 8 speed trans and 14K rpm converter, suddenly the F1 engine will work better... but only HP matters. :)

What do the gear and trans ratios do? They multiply something, what is it? LOL

HP is a derivative of observed torque. Without TQ, you don't have HP.

Any build decisions should be based upon the desired goals.
Click to expand...

Waaaayyy too logical, Rob. This is the internet, remember? Where logic is thrown out the window. lol
 
I need torque to get me moving.And the race is done by top of 2nd gear.So I have got TORQUE multiplication working for me, in the transmission. I just have to get moving before the other guy.

Is that torque that is getting you moving or the leverage from the trans/rearend gear ratio?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
-

Back
Top