340 Vs 360

-
Ill give you the answer. You’d know this if you had any experience in anything other than arguing.

Five 3/8 bolts will NOT hold the shafts down under load unless you run hydraulic cams or really small SFT stuff.

It boggles my mind that you're really arguing that Five 3/8 bolts holding down a rocker shaft isn't rigid, but one single 7/16 stud threaded into an aluminium cylinder head is.

Top fuel hemis hold their rocker gear with 3/8-16 x 1.75" bolts.
Ten of them per cylinder head. Or 5 per shaft.

Five 3/8 bolts per shaft are good enough for an 11,000hp top fueler, so they're good enough for me.

You're welcome to have a preference for one individual 7/16" stud per valve spring. Go nuts.

The five 5/16 bolts on passenger car heads will barely take a .600 net lift SFT. You can see the witness marks saddles.

I‘d post a video of what happens on a BBC chevy when the bolts can’t hold the rockers but it won’t help you understand ****.
I'd rather you show me a shaft rocker system being inadequate since that is the thing on which we don't agree.

I can fully believe a bbc rocker stud would **** itself.
I know exactly how a valve spring works and you inferring that picking up an engine with four 5/16 bolts is as much stress and strain on the fasteners a rocker shaft bolts shows your limited experience and foolish ignorance.

Back on ignore.

That isn't what I was intending to communicate.
I think you know this.
The point was that multiple fasteners working together can be much more effective than larger ones working individually.

A 5/16 stud is pretty weak. But 4 of them is much stronger than a single 7/16 stud.

You wouldn't lift an engine with one 7/16" stud would you?

The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.

Which is why a top fuel hemi can have ten 3/8" bolts successfully holding down it's rocker gear and run valve springs with 500lbs on the seat, 1500lb open pressure and making 11,000hp.

Show me any stud rocker system that can take that kind of abuse and work as intended?

Again, something tells me you'll just ignore this question and shout your opinions and continue name-calling.

I've actually been nothing but respectful and polite to you, just saying.

But when you're wrong, you seem to tantrum, and I doubt it goes unnoticed by most here.
 
Last edited:
LOL, I get it now. On ignore you go. Another wanker.
I legitimately have no idea why this comment about me intending to respond to some comments i missed after I finish work somehow bothered you to the point of name-calling

You weren't even tagged or quoted.
It wasn't directed at you specifically.

This is a huge over-reaction.
You probably should be a bit embarrassed.
 
Well, he don’t give a crap. That’s why he freely insults so quickly.
Sometimes without merit. In this thread he’s given a dicey comment to me a few times and hasn’t answered any of my questions from the earlier pages.

Whatever…. IDGAF
 
More likely to rip the threads out of the aluminum than kill the bolts themselves. Tensile stength of ONE 5/16 grade 5 fastener is more than sufficient to lift most engines and there are 4 of them. The bolts are in stretch, a rocker stud has forces applied differently.

Pro tip... NEVER use bolts to attach the lift plate on an aluminum intake. :)
Agree 100%

My point wasn't to suggest that an engine lift plate does the same/comparable job as a rocker stud.

Just to point out to Rat Bastid that 4 small fasteners in unison are often more effective than 1 larger fastener working on it's own.

Which is why five 3/8" bolts holding down a rocker shaft sustem would be more rigid against valve spring pressures than eight separate 7/16" rocker studs.

It's much easier to deflect/bend the single stud.

I could go all caveman and ****-up a 7/16" stud with a mash hammer pretty easily, or break it's mounting boss clean off.
but trying to a break/relocate/flex a fully torqued down rocker shaft, that would take some doing.
 
Agree 100%

My point wasn't to suggest that an engine lift plate does the same/comparable job as a rocker stud.

Just to point out to Rat Bastid that 4 small fasteners in unison are often more effective than 1 larger fastener working on it's own.

Which is why five 3/8" bolts holding down a rocker shaft sustem would be more rigid against valve spring pressures than eight separate 7/16" rocker studs.

It's much easier to deflect/bend the single stud.

I could go all caveman and ****-up a 7/16" stud with a mash hammer pretty easily, or break it's mounting boss clean off.
but trying to a break/relocate/flex a fully torqued down rocker shaft, that would take some doing.
The Rat only comes here to continually try to shaw up his ego by praying on the ill informed. As soon as you question his credibility, that's when the name calling etc starts.
It's nothing new, he's acted this way for years.
Small Man syndrome.
 
The powerband is fix so larger engine the more potential power between 2500-6500 why they do per cubic it's competition of who build the most efficient engine basically lbs-ft per cid across 2500-6500 rpm don't think smaller is really an advantage.

They are scoring by adding horsepower plus torque and dividing by cubic inches at multiple rpm data points from 2500-6500rpm, then determining an average and multiplying it by 1000.

The "divided by cubic inches" part puts a larger engine at a disadvantage if it can't make equal hp/ci at or near 6500rpm compared to that of to a smaller one. Even if it's more powerful in raw numbers.

To elaborate on this, Let's look at data points at both ends of the scale for a moment.

At 2500 rpm That 371ci made 401ft/lb and 191hp
Giving a calculated score =1.5956
This is one rpm data point to be used for the "average power"

With a 4" stroke, that engine becomes 414ci and is 11.59% larger in displacement, so would have to make 11.59% more the torque and horsepower at a given rpm to achieve the same score.

This is achievable at 2500rpm.
A similarly build 414ci could probably make be made to output 11.59% more torque and horsepower at 2500 rpm.
This would be 447.5ft/lb and 213hp.
Because at this rpm it's not a huge challenge to fill the cylinders, not at either the larger or smaller displacement.

(447ft/lb + 213hp) / 414ci = score of 1.595 points
(401ft/lb + 201hp) / 371ci = score of 1.595 points
Both achievable at 2500rpm..

But at 6500rpm the situation changes.
It's a lot more challenging to get enough airflow to fill the cylinders at this rpm.

The 371 made 403ft/lb and 498hp at 6500rpm.

So (403ft/lb + 498hp) / 371ci = score of 2.4285 points.

The 414ci version would have to make 449.7 and 555.7hp @ 6500RPM to get the same score.
(449.7ft/lb + 555.7hp) / 414ci = score of 2.4285

That's just not gonna happen through the same heads.
The 414 stroker might make more average power than the 371 from 2500-6500rpm. But not when you add the "per cubic inch" part to the equation.


I don't think it's guaranteed that 414 would done better but even if it did the point was that the more dial in the more everything is designed to work together for particular combo the better the results, that's only at 1.33 lbs-ft per cid.
In this competition, a 414 version of the same engine definitely wouldn't have been competitive, but i think it would have made more power.

even if it squeaked out 25 extra peak hp.. which would be an excellent result from a stroker crank through the same heads. It would have nosedived the power per cubic inch.

On this engine I'd be happy with 12 additional peak hp from the 414ci stroker, but the average power from 2000-5500 would be considerably more than the 371 due to the additional torque/power in the mid-range, and would make for a faster car than the 371 if geared accordingly.

My original point was the engine that gets the highest score in an engine masters competition isn't necessarily the engine that will make your car the fastest. And I stand by that.

Because horsepower per cubic inch doesn't mean anything in the real world of making things move.

With off the shelf parts each gonna favor different combo's eg.. they don't make a line heads for each displacement and various bore stroke rod ratios at different powerbands for each etc..

For sure, certain parts will favor certain combo's.
But I've not seen any scenario where increasing displacement didn't increase the average power and torque output.
Even if only a small amount.
 
Last edited:
They are scoring by adding horsepower plus torque and dividing by cubic inches at multiple rpm data points from 2500-6500rpm, then determining an average and multiplying it by 1000.

The "divided by cubic inches" part puts a larger engine at a disadvantage if it can't make equal hp/ci at or near 6500rpm compared to that of to a smaller one. Even if it's more powerful in raw numbers.

To elaborate on this, Let's look at data points at both ends of the scale for a moment.

At 2500 rpm That 371ci made 401ft/lb and 191hp
Giving a calculated score =1.5956
This is one rpm data point to be used for the "average power"

With a 4" stroke, that engine becomes 414ci and is 11.59% larger in displacement, so would have to make 11.59% more the torque and horsepower at a given rpm to achieve the same score.

This is achievable at 2500rpm.
A similarly build 414ci could probably make be made to output 11.59% more torque and horsepower at 2500 rpm.
This would be 447.5ft/lb and 213hp.
Because at this rpm it's not a huge challenge to fill the cylinders, not at either the larger or smaller displacement.

(447ft/lb + 213hp) / 414ci = score of 1.595 points
(401ft/lb + 201hp) / 371ci = score of 1.595 points
Both achievable at 2500rpm..

But at 6500rpm the situation changes.
It's a lot more challenging to get enough airflow to fill the cylinders at this rpm.

The 371 made 403ft/lb and 498hp at 6500rpm.

So (403ft/lb + 498hp) / 371ci = score of 2.4285 points.

The 414ci version would have to make 449.7 and 555.7hp @ 6500RPM to get the same score.
(449.7ft/lb + 555.7hp) / 414ci = score of 2.4285

That's just not gonna happen through the same heads.
Why would they use the same heads, the ones I seen win were stroker 400 fords and stroker modern hemis. It's probably cheaper to build smaller since you have to build less overall power but nothing stopping larger engines to make same overall hp per cid.
The 414 stroker might make more average power than the 371 from 2500-6500rpm. But not when you add the "per cubic inch" part to the equation.



In this competition, a 414 version of the same engine definitely wouldn't have been competitive, but i think it would have made more power.
Our conversation wasn't about this competition
even if it squeaked out 25 extra peak hp.. which would be an excellent result from a stroker crank through the same heads. It would have nosedived the power per cubic inch.

On this engine I'd be happy with 12 additional peak hp from the 414ci stroker, but the average power from 2000-5500 would be considerably more than the 371 due to the additional torque/power in the mid-range, and would make for a faster car than the 371 if geared accordingly.
It may make more but who knows, a 414 already makes these power numbers with similar parts why parts messaged to get great power out a 371 gonna work better than they normal do for the 414.
My original point was the engine that gets the highest score in an engine masters competition isn't necessarily the engine that will make your car the fastest. And I stand by that.

Because horsepower per cubic inch doesn't mean anything in the real world of making things move.



For sure, certain parts will favor certain combo's.
But I've not seen any scenario where increasing displacement didn't increase the average power and torque output.
Even if only a small amount.
Do you factor gearing in cause a 371 and 414 will be operating at different powerbands. You got to basically line up peak hp numbers then compare hp curves, that's how it would be on the track.
 
Well, he don’t give a crap. That’s why he freely insults so quickly.
Sometimes without merit. In this thread he’s given a dicey comment to me a few times and hasn’t answered any of my questions from the earlier pages.

Whatever…. IDGAF


Ask the questions. I’ll answer them.

One issue is as I answer a question for you, the peanut gallery will chime in and run their mouths. Then I end up going back and forth and it fucks up the answers.

Its called trolling and you know who they are. But it’s allowed here for the special kids.

Ask them again or PM me.
 
@Rat Bastid - Ehhhhh, when it comes up again.

No worries. In the future, I’ll ask for clarity or on something I have no clue about. It’ll not be a bate question.
(Like some others think I do on purpose.)

Going back to what you were saying earlier, I’ll give you this on one of your assumptions on me and that answer is still the same but clearer.

No, have not built a race engine the way you describe it.
Hung around race tracks and friends long enough to certainly know what a race engine is. I hesitate to say the words as they maybe taken, friends of mine have run rail cars and it’s always been a pleasure to be in the garage helping them work on it but! That’s their ball of wax and I’m just passing a wrench or torquing something down on the other side of their engine. Or some other chore etc….

My Grand Father in law and I have had some great conversations when he experimented with the nitro methane in the ‘50’s. His time at Chrysler working on the turbo 4cyl engine with Shelby & why he liked Fords better. He was locally know for his excellent ability to make the Chrysler HEMI work great.

I miss that man. Perhaps one day…..

So no I haven’t built your version of a race engine but then again, IMO, a Hyundai accent can be a race car and if the owner is so inclined to make the best of that engine with his magic wrench’s, well, I hate to say it but that’s a race car with a race engine.

Any one here that bracket races has built there engine specifications up for that purpose….. that’s a race engine.

If you’re going heads up and money is involved, the way you’re talking about how it gets screwed together and how it should rpm etc…. Sure, absolutely, race engine. Max house on fire screaming rpm is the way to go. No doubt.

Some guys are thinking bottom of the page part choices when in reality, what one needs for pushing the cross the finish line first game is not on any page for most 99% of the parts.
 
Last edited:
Why would they use the same heads
The conversation evolved fron rat bastid telling me that a lower torque higher rpm engine will always make you go faster than a higher torque lower rpm engine, even if they are equal horsepower.

Since cylinder head is the main limiting factor to horsepower, and displacement is the primary factor in making torque. we started talking about the hypotheticals of less/more displacement with a given cylinder head.
the ones I seen win were stroker 400 fords and stroker modern hemis. It's probably cheaper to build smaller since you have to build less overall power but nothing stopping larger engines to make same overall hp per cid.
Agreed, There's nothing stopping them entering with big cubes but it gets cost prohibitive.

A 414ci would need 574hp to make the same 1.388hp/ci as this 371 did. That's at the upper end of the potebtial of a small block on pump gas.

In the other hand, A 273ci mopar could be pretty competitive in this competition. It would only need to make a peak hp of 379hp to have the same peak 1.388 hp/ci.

I know which I would find easier and cheaper to built!

Our conversation wasn't about this competition
If that's the case there seems to have been a misunderstanding.
It may make more but who knows, a 414 already makes these power numbers with similar parts why parts messaged to get great power out a 371 gonna work better than they normal do for the 414.
With similar parts, yes.
I do think it would take an improved cylinder head for a 414ci make 574hp @ 6000rpm and to still be making 555hp @ 6500rom.

With these heads power would be falling off well before 6000rpm.
Do you factor gearing in cause a 371 and 414 will be operating at different powerbands. You got to basically line up peak hp numbers then compare hp curves, that's how it would be on the track.
Absolutely.
Gear ratios are super important to keep any engine operating within it's powerband.
 
The conversation evolved fron rat bastid telling me that a lower torque higher rpm engine will always make you go faster than a higher torque lower rpm engine, even if they are equal horsepower.

Since cylinder head is the main limiting factor to horsepower, and displacement is the primary factor in making torque. we started talking about the hypotheticals of less/more displacement with a given cylinder head.

Agreed, There's nothing stopping them entering with big cubes but it gets cost prohibitive.

A 414ci would need 574hp to make the same 1.388hp/ci as this 371 did. That's at the upper end of the potebtial of a small block on pump gas.

In the other hand, A 273ci mopar could be pretty competitive in this competition. It would only need to make a peak hp of 379hp to have the same peak 1.388 hp/ci


I know which I would find easier and cheaper to built!
Definitely
If that's the case there seems to have been a misunderstanding.
It's ok
With similar parts, yes.
I do think it would take an improved cylinder head for a 414ci make 574hp @ 6000rpm and to still be making 555hp @ 6500rom.

With these heads power would be falling off well before 6000rpm.

Absolutely.
Gear ratios are super important to keep any engine operating within it's powerband.
Here's a shootout of muscle car chevy small blocks basically identical except the 350 has a different cam, they basically make the same peak power, but you compare power curves lined up at peak hp the under the power curves are lot closer.

Especially if you compare the curves from stall to shift points.


 
Last edited:
@Rat Bastid - Ehhhhh, when it comes up again.

No worries. In the future, I’ll ask for clarity or on something I have no clue about. It’ll not be a bate question.
(Like some others think I do on purpose.)

Going back to what you were saying earlier, I’ll give you this on one of your assumptions on me and that answer is still the same but clearer.

No, have not built a race engine the way you describe it.
Hung around race tracks and friends long enough to certainly know what a race engine is. I hesitate to say the words as they maybe taken, friends of mine have run rail cars and it’s always been a pleasure to be in the garage helping them work on it but! That’s their ball of wax and I’m just passing a wrench or torquing something down on the other side of their engine. Or some other chore etc….

My Grand Father in law and I have had some great conversations when he experimented with the nitro methane in the ‘50’s. His time at Chrysler working on the turbo 4cyl engine with Shelby & why he liked Fords better. He was locally know for his excellent ability to make the Chrysler HEMI work great.

I miss that man. Perhaps one day…..

So no I haven’t built your version of a race engine but then again, IMO, a Hyundai accent can be a race car and if the owner is so inclined to make the best of that engine with his magic wrench’s, well, I hate to say it but that’s a race car with a race engine.

Any one here that bracket races has built there engine specifications up for that purpose….. that’s a race engine.

If you’re going heads up and money is involved, the way you’re talking about how it gets screwed together and how it should rpm etc…. Sure, absolutely, race engine. Max house on fire screaming rpm is the way to go. No doubt.

Some guys are thinking bottom of the page part choices when in reality, what one needs for pushing the cross the finish line first game is not on any page for most 99% of the parts.

I agree. One BIG issue is in the last 20-25 years the line between street/strip and race has not only gotten blurry, it has been expanded.

What was once considered a race piece today can easily be considered a street/strip engine.

And with that you get the wide range of opinions on what works and what doesn’t.

I spend an incredible amount of time just trying to keep up with current and future machining techniques and procedures. It’s fascinating to study metrology (just starting to seriously work on this stuff…I’d love to find someone with 4-6 sheets of Fuji paper laying around that I could buy from them), tribology (advancing at a pretty fast rate), tooling and fixturing (any way you can grab and hold the work piece more ridged and efficiently the better the part) and things like that. That just doesn’t interest some people.

If you aren’t at least trying to keep up on stuff like this it makes it hard to see how the old rule is .001 clearance per inch of diameter has become far less rigid. You can use .0009 or even .0008/inch of diameter IF your machining is close enough and you use the correct oil.

Its things like that that add up and make what was once unstreetable now very streetable.

It also makes some people apoplectic that their paradigms get knocked down a bit or run over and demolished totally.

As an example (this is MY opinion but it’s based on FACTS and TESTING) if your engine builder is still using honing techniques from the early 2000’s the finish isn’t what it could be. And that means instead of running a current steel top ring you are stuck using a ductile iron top with a moly face. That’s giving up power (and here again is a FACT that one guy on here will argue to the death) and it affects the tune up on your carb. That’s right. Ring seal affects booster signal and booster signal is a big deal with a carb.

I‘d rather quit (I have before and will do it again) than to build engines like I did 20 years ago. Or even 5 years ago.
 
The conversation evolved fron rat bastid telling me that a lower torque higher rpm engine will always make you go faster than a higher torque lower rpm engine, even if they are equal horsepower.

Since cylinder head is the main limiting factor to horsepower, and displacement is the primary factor in making torque. we started talking about the hypotheticals of less/more displacement with a given cylinder head.

Agreed, There's nothing stopping them entering with big cubes but it gets cost prohibitive.

A 414ci would need 574hp to make the same 1.388hp/ci as this 371 did. That's at the upper end of the potebtial of a small block on pump gas.

In the other hand, A 273ci mopar could be pretty competitive in this competition. It would only need to make a peak hp of 379hp to have the same peak 1.388 hp/ci.

I know which I would find easier and cheaper to built!


If that's the case there seems to have been a misunderstanding.

With similar parts, yes.
I do think it would take an improved cylinder head for a 414ci make 574hp @ 6000rpm and to still be making 555hp @ 6500rom.

With these heads power would be falling off well before 6000rpm.

Absolutely.
Gear ratios are super important to keep any engine operating within it's powerband.

Paragraph 1 is exactly correct. It’s like you have never been at the track and done any testing.

You can two exact engines with the same power (say 500) and the one with the lower BSFC will be quicker and faster every time.

Ive said this before so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt so I’ll say it again.

A water brake dyno has limitations. If you don’t know those limitations and UNDERSTAND them you won’t ever grasp the concept of two engines making the same power at the same RPM having two different ET/MPH.

The same goes for RPM.

Figure out what the limitations are and it will start making sense.

Or continue on ignorant of what a dyno is and what it does.
 
How one misses ring seal and carb signal is a mystery to me. But….. there’s always aaaaaa vacuum pump…..

:lol:
 
Its called trolling and you know who they are. But it’s allowed here for the special kids.
Let he, who is without sin cast the first stone.
It's laughable, to hear you complain about trolling.
You've had your fun over the years trolling me when it suited you.
I guess it's just a case of dishing it out, but not being able to take it.
 
I agree. One BIG issue is in the last 20-25 years the line between street/strip and race has not only gotten blurry, it has been expanded.

What was once considered a race piece today can easily be considered a street/strip engine.
Really?
Because from my point of view the only real difference between a "street" and "race" part was what you were willing to put up with in a street car and what you were willing to spend.
The real change has come in the affordability of parts. Chinese parts. Cheap alloy heads, cheap rods and cranks, EFI controller, turbos, etc..
If you could have bought all that stuff cheap decades ago, we'd all have been using it.
 
How one misses ring seal and carb signal is a mystery to me. But….. there’s always aaaaaa vacuum pump…..

:lol:
I like how he mentioned rings, when a while back I had to school him on ring tension.
But I guess the reply was more about honing, because he once worked in a machine shop running the hot wash unit.
:lol:
 
The conversation evolved fron rat bastid telling me that a lower torque higher rpm engine will always make you go faster than a higher torque lower rpm engine, even if they are equal horsepower.

Since cylinder head is the main limiting factor to horsepower, and displacement is the primary factor in making torque. we started talking about the hypotheticals of less/more displacement with a given cylinder head.

Agreed, There's nothing stopping them entering with big cubes but it gets cost prohibitive.

A 414ci would need 574hp to make the same 1.388hp/ci as this 371 did. That's at the upper end of the potebtial of a small block on pump gas.

In the other hand, A 273ci mopar could be pretty competitive in this competition. It would only need to make a peak hp of 379hp to have the same peak 1.388 hp/ci.

I know which I would find easier and cheaper to built!


If that's the case there seems to have been a misunderstanding.

With similar parts, yes.
I do think it would take an improved cylinder head for a 414ci make 574hp @ 6000rpm and to still be making 555hp @ 6500rom.

With these heads power would be falling off well before 6000rpm.

Absolutely.
Gear ratios are super important to keep any engine operating within it's powerband.
Here's also a 737-770 hp @ 7000-7500 rpm 376 and torque would have around 600 lbs-ft +/- it's a bit vague

376 cid Mopar Engine - Engine Builder Magazine
 
Here's also a 737-770 hp @ 7000-7500 rpm 376 and torque would have around 600 lbs-ft +/- it's a bit vague

376 cid Mopar Engine - Engine Builder Magazine
As long as I can run that on local pump gas, I’m in for that.
Great heads, a little squeeze and power you will make.
That cam is so streetable as well.

I picked up (from a member here) a Bullet solid with similar intake duration but not that big lift.
 
Paragraph 1 is exactly correct. It’s like you have never been at the track and done any testing.

You can two exact engines with the same power (say 500) and the one with the lower BSFC will be quicker and faster every time.
We haven't been talking about identical engines.
We've been talking about comparing engines of different displacement, but otherwise the same.

We've been going back and forth for about 100 posts and you still haven't given an explanation as to why you think X average horsepower at a higher RPM range will move the car faster than X average horsepower at a lower RPM range.

As for BSFC If you can explain how a car becomes faster purely because of reduced fuel consumption without increasing the available horsepower, I'm all ears.

That oughta be good.
Ive said this before so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt so I’ll say it again.

A water brake dyno has limitations.
I never said anything about a water brake dyno.

We were talking about comparing how two engines of different displacement, which make the same average horsepower over different RPM ranges *in the same weight car* would perform.

naturally, with both configurations having optimized gear ratios, chassis etc.

You still haven't provided a credible explanation as to why you think the smaller displacement higher RPM version would provide a quicker ET than the larger displacement lower RPM one.

You started talking about how X horsepower @ 7200 rpm will be faster than X horsepower @ 5200 coz it has more power strokes per second.

But you seemingly want to ignore the fact that X horsepower @ 5200 rpm mathematically must be making more torque than X horsepower @ 7200rpm.
If you don’t know those limitations and UNDERSTAND them you won’t ever grasp the concept of two engines making the same power at the same RPM having two different ET/MPH.
We were specifically talking about two engines making the same horsepower at *different RPM*
Are you going senile?
The same goes for RPM.
This sentence literally makes no sense at all.
Figure out what the limitations are and it will start making sense.

Or continue on ignorant of what a dyno is and what it does.
Again, I never mentioned a dyno.
 
Last edited:
-
Back
Top