I couldn't get a good read on the graph in the video but when you said it's only 8.5 hp more than the 360 those are the peak numbers. Unless I am remembering wrong. Not average numbers. When Abody wagon said it would be cheaper to build the 360 you replied "especially for a 8.5 hp difference." I thought that comparing only the peak hp difference was misrepresenting the complete difference between the two motors.
The look on a customers face when he hears a big number tells me it's because we all like big numbers.
Never said that 8.5 hp was the average, just wrote that cause figure some aren't gonna watch the video so I included their findings.
| RPM | TQ | TQ | HP | HP |
| BASE | PORTED | BASE | PORTED | |
| 3,000 | 335 | 335 | 192 | 192 |
| 3,200 | 342 | 340 | 208 | 207 |
| 3,400 | 351 | 356 | 228 | 231 |
| 3,600 | 365 | 369 | 250 | 253 |
| 3,800 | 374 | 379 | 271 | 274 |
| 4,000 | 379 | 384 | 289 | 293 |
| 4,200 | 378 | 383 | 302 | 306 |
| 4,400 | 375 | 383 | 314 | 321 |
| 4,600 | 376 | 382 | 329 | 335 |
| 4,800 | 375 | 386 | 343 | 353 |
| 5,000 | 372 | 384 | 354 | 366 |
| 5,200 | 367 | 383 | 363 | 378 |
| 5,400 | 361 | 379 | 371 | 390 |
| 5,600 | 355 | 374 | 379 | 399 |
| 5,800 | 350 | 371 | 386 | 409 |
| 6,000 | 345 | 365 | 395 | 418 |
| 6,200 | 341 | 360 | 402 | 425 |
| 6,400 | 329 | 345 | 401 | 421 |
In the example of the two motors being compared on the engine masters video, the graph shows the two motors layed over the top of each other. It's clear that the 408 is making more power everywhere with the smallest difference being at or around peak hp. If we could read the graph well enough to get the horsepower numbers for each motor in 1000 rpm increments we could calculate the average horsepower for each engine. I'm pretty sure it will show that the 408 is making quite a bit more power than the 360. This is the conclusion that all three of the host on the show came to. They even joked about it saying in this case for the money spent on each engine that it didn't make sense for them to build the 360. This was their opinion not mine. It seems like their conclusion may have rubbed you the wrong way? Maybe you came to a different conclusion about which motor made more power based on the data they provided. We all like to root for the underdog or the example that goes against the "conventional wisdom". it looks like you are trying to cherry pick numbers from this test and use numbers from a different test to minimize the difference between the 408 and 360 in the engine masters test. In my opinion the engine masters test seems pretty conclusive. I not saying that a 360 can't beat a 406 or that there isn't another test under different conditions where the 360 is making more power but I don't see it in this test.
I agree with you, but port the intake or port both intake and cylinder heads and I believe you would have two vasty different power curves although I'm not sure how those curves would compare or what they would look like exactly. I believe then the 367 would take what it wanted and the 410 would take what it really needed. What would really make a difference is different camshaft grinds specifically suited to each engine.
Yes if you read the dyno graph that way obviously the 408 wins in all but the last couple hundred rpms. But what I'm talking about is just from a performance perspective not driveability or whatever other design requirements you may have that's got nothing to do with each engines potential, those are why you would choose one over the other or even build something entirely different.
They may, but what I'm trying to say is everyone is generally unfairly comparing the two power curves say the 410 stall is 3,500 rpms and shifts at 6,000 rpm that's it's power curve being used, say the 367 stalls at 3,800 rpm and shifts at 6,300 rpms if overlap there curves from that perspective they would be a lot less different than people think.
I don't get that line of reasoning that to make this a fairer comparison the 410 needs higher hp parts, I see it as, if you wanted a 425 ish HP this is what the curves of a 410 367 323 could possibly be. Then you take your design requirements and preferences and choose what best fits you.
I bet moving around the opening and closing points for without moving up or down in duration much (level) each engine could be more optimized.
A lot would be better of with a 410 but it doesn't necessarily out perform (say in 1/4 mile) the 367 which is my point.
The problem with these comparison what's a fair way to do it ?
I get what you and others are saying, Ok let’s say we put on heads for a pump gas 410 that makes peak power at 7,000 rpm’s and pulls well to 7,500/7,700 rpm’s for good shift points, decently optimized.
Would they? I'm not sure about that. Plot it out for the 360 and the 406 used in the engine masters challenge. I think it will still favor the 406. And why wouldn't you use a 3800 rpm stall and gear and shift at 6300 with the 406?
Those rpm's are off the top of my head as an example, point being the 367 should need to operate at a higher rpm's and should be accounted for. I'm not trying to make an argument for the 367 being better but should be compare more fairly, and done that way the difference are not as night and day.
Here's easier example to show what I'm talking about, 400 vs 302 Ford. 400 Green 302 Red & Blue.
I didn't said easy or same parts, just said same heads on a 367, I'm just saying the 367 should be built to a similar standard to be fairer. Problem is like I said earlier what is a similar standard when using different parts and even if using same parts, is that fair especially if both engines need to operate at vastly different rpm's.
Hopefully at least 750 hp
If so I'd call that good for a (20%) 90 cid difference at that level making a 7.5% hp difference and at the street level 410 vs 367 a 12% making a 2% hp difference.
I'm using your example, the test done on engine masters. And your example, the rpm difference between the two motors you used as the reason they would run about the same. Now you want to use a couple of fords instead? Shouldn't we stick with the original test that you posted. If you can't make your point with that test then it might not apply to that test. I feel like your going to just keep moving the goal post. I get what your saying but I don't see it in the test you posted.
Where are you getting 2%. Are you cherry picking the point in the curve where the two motors were the closest? Doesn't look like you're using average horsepower.
