quench vs no quench?

-
The fact is that to make horsepower, you have to start with torque. Dynos measure torque.The more torque that you have,the more horsepower you have. Hp is nothing more than the result that falls out of an equation.Hp might as well be have been invented as mousepower or elephantpower. Its just a convenient descriptor used to describe torque through a specified time period,using terms that we as humans can relate to.
-And another thing;Nobody builds NA automotive engines with 2:1 ratios between hp and tq, or tq to hp.Thats ludicrous.I understand, the poor guy is trying to make a point using exageration. But really with a given size of na engine,when you build it to increase "hp", you are just moving the torque up the rpm band, to produce more of it during a given time period.We call it an increase of hp; but in reality, you could just as easily call it an increase of torque-through-time. Its just terminology, based on TORQUE.
-Its like building a house.You start with a foundation(torque). Small house(hp), small foundation. Big house,big foundation.
-You can base an arguement using scientific terms, and lose sight of common sense.
 
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.

From what I understand, that is correct.

Mr Mad.

Question: When dyno testing and engine how do they determine the HP number??
 
A "quench" engine creates combustion chamber turbulence at TDC which makes more power.

Mr. Mad says you won't find it in 99.9% of engines produced, it's just too hard for OEM to mass produce with that close of tolerances.

That's why performance minded people have been spending the time and money to blueprint their engines to get that gain in power.

My answer to the original poster is YES it would make more power.
 
A "quench" engine creates combustion chamber turbulence at TDC which makes more power.

Mr. Mad says you won't find it in 99.9% of engines produced, it's just too hard for OEM to mass produce with that close of tolerances.

That's why performance minded people have been spending the time and money to blueprint their engines to get that gain in power.

My answer to the original poster is YES it would make more power.

quench is to keep detonation down, period.this all brigs up an old drawing showing where the term horsepower supposedly originated, all before any of our time. it showed what kind of weight could be moved by a horse! one (average) horse can do so much. me thinks horses don`t have any torque !! nyone remember this ?
 
From what I understand, that is correct.

Mr Mad.

Question: When dyno testing and engine how do they determine the HP number??

How do think HP is determined? Just like all the jokers say, it is a mathematical calculation. But all that is IRRELEVANT to the discussion.

All you idiots should be running diesels. They make huge TQ compared to HP. What I'm trying to get you think headed guys to consider is this: if torque is your do-all, be-all, end-all you are WRONG at best. Most you you don't think past the end of your noses.

Let me say this one more time, then I'm done trying to have a conversation with guys who would argue with a sign post (or put me on the dreaded "IGNORE" list...stupid thing really).

Did an engine for a guy back in 2006 (or so). In typical moron customer fashion (most customers don't know the HALF of what they think they know, but the interwebs have made them experienced engine builders don't ya know?) he says "I want to make 800 ft-lbs of torque (not knowing that it's actually lb-ft...but what does semantics and FACTS have to do with anything right??) with this here engine. I, naturally say WTF for? How fast do you want the car to go? He says "very low 10's, so I don't need a license". So, I tell him "you need about 700 HP to move that pig you own (3800 lb car) to low 10's, and that will be about 1.5 HP/CI and you will end up with about 570 on TQ". He don't want that. Says it's his deal, wants that big TQ and says if it makes over 800 on TQ it will run low 10's all day long. I tell him, no it won't. With your engine geometry, it will make way more TQ than HP, and it will ET off the HP number. So I said "do you want to go low tens, or tell everybody how much TQ you have?". Says I want both. I say can't do it. Since a sucker is born every SECOND, and I KNEW he was on the interwebs and was now an experienced engine builder and all around hero, I said lets make it fun. If it makes 800+ on TQ, I say it will run what the HP says it will. You say if it makes over 800 TQ it will run low 10's. If it does what I say, you owe me a cool G extra. If it makes 800 on TQ and runs low 10's, I write $2500.00 straight off the bill. Game on.

So to save you all the reading, he got exactly what he wanted. It actually made 865 TQ and 425 HP. So the customer was squealing like a pig in poop. Installed the engine in the car for him and had it all real nice. Off to the track, the customer thinking low 10's, me telling him 11.40's in the mid teens on a good night.

Needless to say, I won the bet, took the money and told him that TQ is for posers. Yes, you need torque. But to deliberately make torque at the expense of HP is D-U-M-B.

BTW, that night, the car was in the 11.60's. He did a little chassis tuning and it's best EVER was 11.40 something. He was so sick that he sold the car (out of my shop BTW) and the carnival huckster kept telling the buyer about all the TORQUE it had!

So if you bothered to read all this, maybe, just maybe you learned something. There is not a reason in the world to build a combination that has, say 670 HP AND 700 TQ unless you think all the faster you want to go is what 670 HP will take you at your car weight. It's really that simple.

Keep on arguing and you will STILL be wrong. Not because I say so, but guys like Harold Bettes, Jim McFArland and many others say so.
 
A "quench" engine creates combustion chamber turbulence at TDC which makes more power.

Mr. Mad says you won't find it in 99.9% of engines produced, it's just too hard for OEM to mass produce with that close of tolerances.

That's why performance minded people have been spending the time and money to blueprint their engines to get that gain in power.

My answer to the original poster is YES it would make more power.

quench doesn`t make more power, it enables you to run lower octane fuel. if the factories can`t produce quench type tolerances, how do they mass produce crankshaft tolerances? piston to cyl.wall tolerances etc.?
 
A "quench" engine creates combustion chamber turbulence at TDC which makes more power.

Mr. Mad says you won't find it in 99.9% of engines produced, it's just too hard for OEM to mass produce with that close of tolerances.

That's why performance minded people have been spending the time and money to blueprint their engines to get that gain in power.

My answer to the original poster is YES it would make more power.

Dude, did I say you won't find quench in 99.9% of engines built? Did I say that? Nope. What I said was (go back and check it out...preferably BEFORE you post an error) 99.9% of engines won't find ANY power (guess I should say torque because we all KNOW torque is king :wack:) if you already have .060 quench or less. Just WON'T happen. So don't fret a bunch and spend a big wad of cash trying to tighten up quench if it is already REASONABLE. Can't have the piston .140 down the hole and think that's ok either. You will clean up emissions a bit, but as far as finding power, you are picking the pepper out of the fly poop.


Better luck next time.
 
You are correct Bob, reducing detonation is due to complete combustion chamber fill and mixture created by the turbulence.

More complete combustion will make more power.

Most of the Small Block Mopar blocks I have measured have had substantial four corner block height differences, not acceptable for a .040" piston to head clearance.

They didn't have to be accurate with pistons in the hole or large open chamber heads.
 
Mr Mad,

at what rpm does your 650 hp engine make enough torque to rotate your transmission ?
10,000, 20,000 , 30,000..........
 
Mr Mad,

at what rpm does your 650 hp engine make enough torque to rotate your transmission ?
10,000, 20,000 , 30,000..........

What?

You need to pose a real question. Or we can keep going like this, where you learn nothing.

Whatever you want.
 
How do think HP is determined? Just like all the jokers say, it is a mathematical calculation. But all that is IRRELEVANT to the discussion.

All you idiots should be running diesels.

If you were a little less condescending, it might be easier to take you seriously.

And you still didn't answer my question.
 
I wouldn't expect an answer or proper discussion, most of Mr.Mad's 27 posts have been to disagree then argue any point made.

Seems like a very angry person.

Too bad, he sounds smart and may have something to offer.
 
If you were a little less condescending, it might be easier to take you seriously.

And you still didn't answer my question.

Ask me a proper question, not at what rpm does 650 hp rotate my trans.

I'm condescending because for 35 years I have heard the SAME crap that was wrong then. And it's still wrong now. Simple, isn't it.


Quench is not the do all, end of the world, for 99.9% of everyone out there. Most guys build TQ at the expense of HP. It was wrong in 1979. It is wrong today.

If you come to me and tell me I have .075 quench and 10:1 on pump gas, and you want it at .040, What will it get you? More compression than you want. Or, I have to open the chambers and put your pistons in the mill to reduce compression back to where you can deal with it. For what? So you can say you have .040 quench? Stepping over donuts to pick up dog turds.

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.


The sky is blue. Argue that for a while.
 
This thread went to hell right out of the gate.
I didn't learn much about utilizing the quench combustion chamber
that Ma Mopar was kind enough to give us.
But its good to know their are no mechanical limits to HP.
Mad I think you should head on over to one of the twin turbo, air bearing rotory sites
and stir them up with talk of burning peroxide to get your carbon fiber go kart
into orbit before the eighth mile trap. Were trying to talk about our stoned age
diesel like mopars here.
 
How is an F1 engine going to perform in a heavy car and a 3 speed auto trans with 4.10 gears? Since only HP matters.

Build an engine for the purpose.

I know of many low HP cars that run ET's MUCH better than the HP would suggest. One metric on the timeslip will give an estimate of HP and it IS NOT Elapsed time.

Back to the "Condescending Variety Show" .

The train wreck in this thread gets worse as it prioceeds.
 
To try and get some more info toward the topic in the title of this thread
I seen a awhile back in hot rod magazine where Steve Dulcich (spelling)
covered the ins and outs of the chamber design.
I don't know how to add the link.
Someone else may help out on this. I will try to dig it up again.
 
Used to call the old chebby six a stump puller. Don't know what kind of head it had on it...rectangular I think.
 
What did you do? stop the dyno pull at 3500 rpm? If you built a engine that made 865 ft lbs of torque, and it only made 425 hp, I would say you should stop building engines.:wack:
 
What did you do? stop the dyno pull at 3500 rpm? If you built a engine that made 865 ft lbs of torque, and it only made 425 hp, I would say you should stop building engines.:wack:

It had a custom solid roller. But it only RPM'd to about 5800. He got JUST EXACTLY what he wanted. Bore too small, stroke too long, rod too short, a compromised intake port area. All equals a stump puller. But the idiot didn't want that. He wanted to run low 10's.


Stick to tinker toys and you'll be better off.
 
Here is a good one that references Mopar.

http://www.beckracing.com/page05.htm

So I read until he said once quench goes past .060 you will get devastating detonation, then I quit.

So all that matter is quench? Spark plug location is just as important as quench. Think about it. The conventional 23* chevy head needed at a MINIMUM 40* timing total (the 400's need up to 46) with it's close quench, closed chamber head.

Yet the 340, with is non quench (what a misnomer) head only needed 35* total, and was no where near as detonation prone as the Chevy.

Damn people, ever get into the real world? To the OP, get your quench to .080 or less and the compression ratio correct (to match cam and fuel) and R-E-L-A-X. You won't find 5 HP or 1* less timing if you put the quench at .035.


Geeze already.
 
-
Back
Top