moper
Well-Known Member
IQ - As I noted - I thin kthe testing itself confirms the "peaky" nature of the torque curve. However as you posted the text rather than a graph, and the rpm window was narrow, it does look like a flat line. If this is a race car engine it can be geared and convertored to work. The power level reached when run in a purpose-built and scienced bracket car would provide some decent ETs. However with this being about low buck, low compression builds my feeling is that there are a lot og people reading it and are looking at the street car in the garage for it. The one that isn't geard or convertored, and that operates a lot more below the decent torwque level you reached. I put a graph together - sorry i'm not an Exceel lwizard but it illustrates my point I think. It's range is 2000 to 6000. I chose 2K because that's where i ask to have it start when I do it as most street cars are driving around at 45-50mph in the 22-2500 range and it's from there that one will look to pass a truck or look to floor it. In order to see the rest of the power curve I averaged 5 consecutive points in a stable area of the existing curve and used that unit to extend the rpms down. Not exactly the best but I believe it to be reasonably accurate. There are three pulls shown:
The first is "TO" & "HP". These are the graphed plot of the summit cam and 906s.
The second is "TQf"the final pull from the original post. It's the 516s, big carb, and .509.
The third is the numbers you posted in this thread. They are different. Maybe it's from a tuning pull or something because the traces are similar?
Facts are facts whether Rob understands and accepts them or not. Low static compression takes away "pop". It moves the torque peak up in rpm and rounds it off. So the real question is what does the builder (or enthusiast) consider acceptable. If this was going into a bracket car my opinion is it would not be a problem because the weight, gearing, and convertor can be maximized to take davantage of the torque without compromising anything else. If this is a recipe for a typical street E or B body it would have the same reputation the .509 enjoys already - it would feel sluggish in normal driving and the milder street convertor would be inhibiting it at the track as others have commented on other sites. Because for a street car that's 3400lbs or more that runs 3.50-something or numerically lower gears and a 2500rpm or less convertor it has a peaky torque curve.
Sorry - edited to make the graph appear properly (I hope..) Sorry - you'll have to rotate the graph I think....
The first is "TO" & "HP". These are the graphed plot of the summit cam and 906s.
The second is "TQf"the final pull from the original post. It's the 516s, big carb, and .509.
The third is the numbers you posted in this thread. They are different. Maybe it's from a tuning pull or something because the traces are similar?
Facts are facts whether Rob understands and accepts them or not. Low static compression takes away "pop". It moves the torque peak up in rpm and rounds it off. So the real question is what does the builder (or enthusiast) consider acceptable. If this was going into a bracket car my opinion is it would not be a problem because the weight, gearing, and convertor can be maximized to take davantage of the torque without compromising anything else. If this is a recipe for a typical street E or B body it would have the same reputation the .509 enjoys already - it would feel sluggish in normal driving and the milder street convertor would be inhibiting it at the track as others have commented on other sites. Because for a street car that's 3400lbs or more that runs 3.50-something or numerically lower gears and a 2500rpm or less convertor it has a peaky torque curve.
Sorry - edited to make the graph appear properly (I hope..) Sorry - you'll have to rotate the graph I think....
