Engines with lack bottom end power?

-
What's torque? I have none-My all original 67 Dart 270, 273 2 bbl, came with 2.93 rear gears and D78-14 tires. In the slow quest to change to the big bolt pattern, I got the 7 1/4 rear swapped for a 8 1/4 with 2.71 gears and put 225-70-15 tires. Talk about a dog, I don't think I've ever been able to spin the tires, (they last longer that way) :lol: . The upside, I can run 90 mph on the Interstate all day long and get 20-21 mpg's. I do plan on a 4 bbl swap. I've refrained from doing any modifications, beyond making it more safe to drive. It still has the original single exhaust and the valve covers had never been off the engine prior to me putting on new valve cover gaskets.

IMG_1059.JPG


IMG_1065.JPG


IMG_1060.JPG


IMG_1061.JPG
 
well
lets look at the numbers
a D78-14 is about 24.8 tall
A 225/70-15 is about 27.4
This represents a change in torque multiplication to .905
the 2.93s compared to the 2.71s is a loss to 0.925
So together, the loss is .905 x .925= a loss to ~84%
lets look at the change in rpm.
With the first combo, your hiway rpm should have been around 65=2564 at zero slip, perhaps a lil more with an auto.
In the second combo, 65=2161@zero slip
Now if your engine makes say 200ftlbs@WOT,in this range, this is a maximum of
98 horsepower@2564 but only 82 hp at 2161 Yeah so even without the change in TM(torque Multiplication), yur gonna feel this 16% loss.
Lets run that thru the previous gearing numbers, to get on-road Torque numbers;
With the small-tire/2.91s, it looks like 200 x 2.91 x 24/24.8 =563 ftlbs
With the big-tires/2.71s, it looks like 200 x 2.71 x 24/27.4 =475 ftlbs
thus the loss of TM comes to 563 less 475= 88 ftlbs. which is a loss of 88/563=15.6%
Thus overall, your new combo, at WOT, may feel like it has ; 2.91 less 15.6%= 2.46s compared to the small tire combo. But the Horsepower loss is also gonna show up
Of course at any particular cruising speed, the throttle will not be WOT, but instead, the big-tire combo may in fact be a little further open than it was with the small-tire combo. Yet the fuel economy may improve due to the lowering of the rpm, by some 400rpm.
But don't be fooled; your engine has not lost power, the roadspeed at which it occurs has just been changed. Sometimes this can be a good thing, like say for passing.. Or like at what speed, top of Second gear occurs, or even First.
 
Last edited:
Before I would start changing your specific engine, I would put an accelerometer on the windshield, and measure/plot it's current power-curve.The Go-ProSS is a great tool, but there are much much cheaper methods.
I'm looking more for a daily driver type ride with decent power, should have 350hp that's more than enough for now and if I want more down the road big block, stroker, turbo or all :)
Whatever the power level I want to keep peak around 5000 rpm unless I change directions.
 
Engines make torque over time, and horsepower is the computed result of that.
Less firing events equates to less force transferred to the crank does it not? So the quality of those firing events becomes critical in the torque generated does it not?
 
Less firing events equates to less force transferred to the crank does it not? So the quality of those firing events becomes critical in the torque generated does it not?
Torque is per powerstroke, hp is basically all the powerstrokes added up over time aka rpm.
 
As to the bottom end; here's my take;
The biggest contributors to soft power at lower rpm, in a given engine, are;
1) lack of effective cylinder pressure or the
2) peak cylinder pressure not occurring at the optimum crank position
Lets talk about #1
causes of low effective cylinder pressure can be;
by design
by a late closing intake
by the induction of hot low-density air
by a too small carb,
by a loss of help from the headers, or
by too restrictive an exhaust system

Typically we measure the CCP with a compression tester. But this gives us a measurement that is only applicable at cranking speed with the hood up and usually with the air-filter house removed and the throttle set to WOT. And we crank it until no additional pressure is read.
But this number is constantly changing in a running engine!
At idle, the throttle is nearly closed. With a big cam having a late-closing intake, and the pistons all pushing just-inducted air back up into the plenum before the intake actually closes, there is no way that engine will produce the measured pressure. It will idle all day at whatever it takes to overcome internal friction. Ima guessing down to 60psi.
Now, as the rpm increases, and at WOT;
there comes a time measured in rpm, at the which, there is no longer enough time for the just-inducted mixture to back up into the intake, and so the pressure may be peaking at 100% VE.
And
there may come another time, measured in rpm, when, by inertial tuning, the engine actually inducts and traps more air than it's cubic inches and so the pressure would peak at a higher number than it's CCP, indicating a VE higher than 100% .
This condition may exist over just a few hundred rpm, at which time, the design of the engine, at rpm, will begin to lose efficiency because of the lack of time to induct air, thus the torque curve begins to fall.
The Power numbers continue to increase because of the way the formula works. But eventually as the torque continues to fall, so will the power.

Now lets go back to low-rpm.
One can only design for so much pressure before the engine will detonate itself to death. Especially as the rpm rises because of the ever-decreasing time to lift off the throttle.
Pressure translates to heat, which translates to Torque, which translates to Power. So then, if you can control the temperature in the chamber, thus avoiding detonation, then you can exploit the pressure. Or you can just keep throwing anti-knock at her until detonation stops. :(

So now, how do we control the chamber temperature?
Well;
step #1 is to;
straighten the path to the airhorn, AND induct the coldest air possible AND to keep it cold all the way to the sparkplug, AND to keep the velocity up all the way there so it has a harder time backing up into the Plenum. The more successful you are at this, the higher the effective pressure of the design, can be.
Step #2 is to
create that max effective pressure of the burning gasses, at the exact right time in the rotation of the crank, to transfer the most energy of the expanding gasses into the flywheel. As I understand this, this occurs in the window of 25 to 28 degrees AFTER TDC, regardless of rpm. So ALL your timing systems need to attempt to achieve this.
If the timing is wrong, the whole team takes a hit. If she gets into detonation, that robs power big time. If the timing is late, power just goes soft.
Another thing that happens with late timing is more heat goes into the cylinder walls, because of the position of the piston steadily dropping. Of course, the cooling system is right there so the water temp rises...... which may raise the chamber temperature, which we don't want to see.
Another thing that happens with late timing and short power duration, is that the combustion event continues into the exhaust system, which heats up the exhaust port, and pressurizes the header, which upsets the scavenging during overlap. This can be a good thing at idle, but you sure don't want this to continue after stall speed.

But if you are running log-style exhaust manifolds, you want NUNUVIT, because those hi temp still-burning gasses can back up into an adjacent cylinder on it's overlap cycle! When this happens, Late timing, the exhaust pressure is artificially increased, while the plenum pressure is very low, so then, the exhaust gasses are forced to scoot across the piston and maybe some of it gets into the intake plenum before the intake closes.
>This has several consequences;
The First is that, with the piston now close to TDC, but falling, the chamber is already full of hot inert gasses from another cylinder that came in thru the still-open exhaust valve, and
the Second is that, this occurrence delays the plenum air from getting started towards the intake valve. and
the Third is that, those hot gasses contribute to a higher initial chamber temperature, thus defeating all your attempts to keep it down.
Log manifolds with large overlaps, are a bad idea, in every way. This was Chrysler's primitive form of EGR.
the Fourth is that, with the Air/Fuel charge now being infused with inert EGR, 1) the molecules are far-spread thruout the chamber, and 2) the heat of compression is reduced, and 3) complete combustion may not occur with typical timing settings. Thus un-burned fuel molecules can enter the log-manifolds and continue burning there, aggravating an already bad situation. Eventually, with continuing rpm, this all goes away.......... unless the large volume of high-pressure gasses thus created cannot get away, in too small or restrictive, an exhaust system.
BTW
the 284/292/108 cam has 72 degrees of overlap, 28 more than the stock 340 cam, so that's a lot of street overlap; more typical is 55>60..
Chrysler must have figured out that 44* was already not good with log manifolds, and so gave 340 cars special exhaust system considerations. and that is also partly why the 340 cam was on a 114LSA.
Ok so, that's about all I got;
Happy HotRodding

EDITS;
with long-tube headers tuned for midrange, the low-rpm can be affected by what you bolt to your collectors, due to a change of the secondary scavenge signal.
A lot of of people probably feel the results of a bad tune.

Lot of the mods for high power don't like operate at low rpm and aren't favorable to part throttle transition which gears and stall help keep your car from operating in the lowest of troubling rpms. Which seems like the realm were actually talking about.

Why does it matter if torque is a major contributing factor to low speed drive ability issues is cause lots are super fearful of losing low end torque, so they end up favoring power robbing restrictive choices that kill both torque and hp.
 
Indeed it is. When there's less how important is the quality of each one of those events?
There isn't, you basically want every powerstroke to be optimal in the intended rpm range especially the ones you're gonna spend most time in. Of course compromises always come into play.
 
I got roller 210/220 .500 112 something like that pretty similar the the one Richard Holdener got 350hp out of a 5.9l his was something like, 212/218 ,480 114.

Didn't have too many choices when I bought it
Ok, I think right here is part of the problem. Let's look at thiis cam in terms of advertised duration. Assuming it's a hydraulic roller, the acceleration ramps of those can be pretty stinking long. Typically it might be 53* less at advertised than at .050 and that would make her a 210+53=263 advertised.
Lets call it a 262/272/112, cuz that is a common size.
Now lets install it at split overlap, and compute the rest of the events.
I get 43* of overlap, so lets give 22 to the intake side and 23 to the exhaust side making the Installed centerline to be, 109*. Therefore 360+22=382 total degrees assigned to intake plus compression. And we know that the intake is 262, so that leaves 382 less 262=110 for compression, and that makes the Ica to be; 180 less 110=70 effing degrees.
on the exhaust side the total available is 360+23=383, and 272 is exhaust, leaving 383 -272=111 for power extraction. So lets put it all together:
262int/110comp/111power/272exh/43overlap/ Ica of 70*

Ok next let's install it into a 5.9M and see what happens to the pressure.
At 9.2Scr with the 70* Ica, the pressure is predicted (by the Wallace Calculator) to be 135psi at 600ft elevation. And the V/P is predicted to be 108, which is pretty doggy.
Let's boost the Scr:
first to 9.7, with no other changes, the pressure is predicted to rise to 145psi and the V/P to 115 which is still in the lazy dog arena.
Let's try 10.2; the pressure goes to 155psi, with a V/P of 123. Ok now, at 123V/P, it is feeling like a stock 5.2M
Let's try 10.7; and I get 165psi at a V/P of 131, oh man, still too lazy for me.
>Let's go back to 9.2Scr and mess with the Ica. First lets review from above; 9.2 is 135psi, V/P of 108.
Let's advance the cam to get an Ica of 67*. Ok, the Wallace predicts, still at 600ft elevation, 140psi@ V/P of 115. Let's advance the Ica again, to 63*; I get 146psi, V/P of 123 ; This is back to 5.2M territory. And finally, at 60* Ica, we get 150psi @130V/P

Ok then, neither changing the Ica, nor bumping the Scr is getting us anything good.
So Lets grab a different roller, a fast rate of lift on a 107 Lsa.
I chose a 258/264/107; with 48* ramps, this is the same [email protected] but the exhaust is now [email protected] and the overlap is boosted to 47*(from 43*). This will make or should make, a lil more power than the 210/220 cam.
At split overlap, the Installed centerline will be 106, which makes the Ica to be 55 measly degrees.
Alrightee lets work the Wallace!
Immediately, still at 600ft, and back at 9.2Scr, the pressure jumps to 156psi@ V/P of 141 !! Remember, the engine has NOT been changed at all, just the Ica of the cam.
Ok just for fun, lets pump the pressure to 165psi and see what Scr that will take. I get 9.6Scr and the V/P has jumped to 149 a very respectable number.

>>This entire post is about manipulating the low-rpm cylinder pressure. We went from a dog @108V/P at low-rpm; to being a roaring lion @ 149 V/P, still at sub-3600 rpm or so. And we began with a cam of 210/220/112, and ended with a cam of 210/218/107,
Finally lets recalculate the other events using this new smaller cam. I get
258 int/125 comp/119 power/264 exhaust/47* overlap/ Ica of 55*
Compare that to your 210/220;
262 int/110 comp/111 power/272 exhaust/43* overlap/ Ica of 70
so the power by the .050 numbers is gonna be the ~same; 210 versus 210. But with headers and the difference in lobe-separation angle; the extra 3* of overlap on the 107* cam will put a tiny little bump on the power curve; that is a bonus.
Now, if you have alloy heads on that 5.9, then you can pump the pressure up to 185psi or so. Going back to your 210/220/112 cam with an Ica of 70*, this will take an Scr of ..... wait for it ......... ~11.8, for a V/P of 148, hahhaha, lol . Sorry, I just found it funny how much pressure that 112* roller is giving away......

And double finally, all this talk of V/P, is for rpms less than about 3000>3600. If you have a 3600 stall, then it is senseless to talk about V/P.
But if you have a clutch, or a 2000 stall Convertor, it is almost extremely important.

Read about V/P here ;
 
Last edited:
Ok, I think right here is part of the problem. Let's look at thiis cam in terms of advertised duration. Assuming it's a hydraulic roller, the acceleration ramps of those can be pretty stinking long. Typically it might be 53* less at advertised than at .050 and that would make her a 210+53=263 advertised.
Lets call it a 262/272/112, cuz that is a common size.
Now lets install it at split overlap, and compute the rest of the events.
I get 43* of overlap, so lets give 22 to the intake side and 23 to the exhaust side making the Installed centerline to be, 109*. Therefore 360+22=382 total degrees assigned to intake plus compression. And we know that the intake is 262, so that leaves 382 less 262=110 for compression, and that makes the Ica to be; 180 less 110=70 effing degrees.
on the exhaust side the total available is 360+23=383, and 272 is exhaust, leaving 383 -272=111 for power extraction. So lets put it all together:
262int/110comp/111power/272exh/43overlap/ Ica of 70*

Ok next let's install it into a 5.9M and see what happens to the pressure.
At 9.2Scr with the 70* Ica, the pressure is predicted (by the Wallace Calculator) to be 135psi at 600ft elevation. And the V/P is predicted to be 108, which is pretty doggy.
Let's boost the Scr:
first to 9.7, with no other changes, the pressure is predicted to rise to 145psi and the V/P to 115 which is still in the lazy dog arena.
Let's try 10.2; the pressure goes to 155psi, with a V/P of 123. Ok now, at 123V/P, it is feeling like a stock 5.2M
Let's try 10.7; and I get 165psi at a V/P of 131, oh man, still too lazy for me.
>Let's go back to 9.2Scr and mess with the Ica. First lets review from above; 9.2 is 135psi, V/P of 108.
Let's advance the cam to get an Ica of 67*. Ok, the Wallace predicts, still at 600ft elevation, 140psi@ V/P of 115. Let's advance the Ica again, to 63*; I get 146psi, V/P of 123 ; This is back to 5.2M territory. And finally, at 60* Ica, we get 150psi @130V/P

Ok then, neither changing the Ica, nor bumping the Scr is getting us anything good.
So Lets grab a different roller, a fast rate of lift on a 107 Lsa.
I chose a 258/264/107; with 48* ramps, this is the same [email protected] but the exhaust is now [email protected] and the overlap is boosted to 47*(from 43*). This will make or should make, a lil more power than the 210/220 cam.
At split overlap, the Installed centerline will be 106, which makes the Ica to be 55 measly degrees.
Alrightee lets work the Wallace!
Immediately, still at 600ft, and back at 9.2Scr, the pressure jumps to 156psi@ V/P of 141 !! Remember, the engine has NOT been changed at all, just the Ica of the cam.
Ok just for fun, lets pump the pressure to 165psi and see what Scr that will take. I get 9.6Scr and the V/P has jumped to 149 a very respectable number.

>>This entire post is about manipulating the low-rpm cylinder pressure. We went from a dog @108V/P at low-rpm; to being a roaring lion @ 149 V/P, still at sub-3600 rpm or so. And we began with a cam of 210/220/112, and ended with a cam of 210/218/107,
Finally lets recalculate the other events using this new smaller cam. I get
258 int/125 comp/119 power/264 exhaust/47* overlap/ Ica of 55*
Compare that to your 210/220;
262 int/110 comp/111 power/272 exhaust/43* overlap/ Ica of 70
so the power by the .050 numbers is gonna be the ~same; 210 versus 210. But with headers and the difference in lobe-separation angle; the extra 3* of overlap on the 107* cam will put a tiny little bump on the power curve; that is a bonus.
Now, if you have alloy heads on that 5.9, then you can pump the pressure up to 185psi or so. Going back to your 210/220/112 cam with an Ica of 70*, this will take an Scr of ..... wait for it ......... ~11.8, for a V/P of 148, hahhaha, lol . Sorry, I just found it funny how much pressure that 112* roller is giving away......

And double finally, all this talk of V/P, is for rpms less than about 3000>3600. If you have a 3600 stall, then it is senseless to talk about V/P.
But if you have a clutch, or a 2000 stall Convertor, it is almost extremely important.

Read about V/P here ;
[/URL][/URL][/URL]
I'm not saying this wrong, but I'm just not buying what this formulas version of what dog is, not saying my cam will be ideal and I bet the 149 v/p cam would run stronger, but the cam I got will be a dog ? It's very popular upgrade for Dakota RTs don't see any of them labeling it as a dog cam, i don't know, what this formula considers is a dog seems off or overly critical to me, I'll let you know the outcome, I do have a 2800 stall though.
 
Last edited:
Doggy is my opinion based on my experience.
all of these, below, are in stock configuration and calculated at 1000ft elevation
As the Wallace calculator has calculated;
the 225 comes in at V/P of 87
the 8.0 273 comes in at .....97
the 8.0 318LA ...........is at 113
the 8.0 360LA ...........is at 121
the 340 at a true ....9.5 is 122
the 5.2M comes in at 124>128
the 10.5 advertised 340 @139
the 5.9M is .................... 146
the 440 2bbl .................. 157
My 367 (276cam/11.0Scr) 161
my 367 (270cam/11.3Scr) 169
A 340 stroker(416) with a modest cam is around 172

Ok so, ignoring the stroker, this gives us a range of V/Ps from 87 to 169.
Let's score them into boxes, graduated from 1 to 10 with the slanty at #1. This gives us a working range in each division , of say 10units ; Ok then
#1 is 87, dead soft, is it in gear? Dad, press harder.....
#2 is 97 is this all she's got? when will we be there?
#3 is 107 Mum!, are we there yet
#4 is 117 Aw com'on, we must be close by now.....
#5 is 127 Ten more minutes, kids.
#6 is 137 this is the lower limit for me
#7 is 147 who wants to go on the waterslide?!
#8 is 157 Wheeeee, this is so much fun!
#9 is 167 Ok this is seriously way too much fun, I gotta take a break
#10 is177 IDK, haven't run it.
Remember, all of this is Low rpm torque, from idle to in the window of say 3200 to 3600. By this rpm your Power-timing should be all in, and V/P is no longer worth talking about.

As you can see, a V/P of 108 is only at #3 on this scale, half way between a 273 and a 318, which to me is unacceptable. Sorry if I offended you.
Just so you know, at one time or another, I have run ALL those V/Ps, up to 169, (which is, IMO ridiculously strong) .

But the real point I am trying to make here is how important the cylinder pressure is at low-rpm.
You wanted to know, I think I supplied the answer.
I bet the 149 v/p cam would run stronger, but the cam I got will be a dog?
I keep reminding you that V/P is a way of comparing any engine at low rpm; from a typical street stall to in the window of 3000 to 3600. Once the engine gets up on the cam V/P is no longer of any use to consider.
So yes any two sizes of engines running the same V/P , are going to provide similar performance when installed in identical cars, and operating in the "V/P applicable zone".
With a 2800 stall, you are already on the upper edge of that window, and under acceleration, you will only be in it for a very small amount of time.
Furthermore, V/P is a diminishing value. It is most applicable at lower rpms like 2000 with a 2000 stall automatic, and least applicable at 3200 with a 3200 stall, etc
Lemmee put it another way, take two same built engines with same 108V/Ps. Stall one at 1800, and watch how doggy it is to 3500. Stall the other at 3500 and see how NOT doggy it is....... cuz it never pulls in the doggy-zone.
 
Last edited:
The only issue I can think of that has not been discussed is timing and quality of ignition. Timing does impact torque, and some replacement distributors have spark scatter which will kill performance. I would tune for max advance in by 2200 RPM with probably 34° mechanical advance. If you get detonation, back off 2°. Then set vacuum advance to near 50° total at the crank and make sure there is no detonation. Change VA Diaphragm if the advance is not correct. Distributor advance degrees should be shown on the arm.
I ran 2.94:1 gears for years in my 340 Formula S and loved them for highway driving. Also got up to 24 MPG with a mild cammed 340. 2.73 gears may be even better on the highway with 70+ MPH speed limints (like in Utah, WY, etc) But around town, manybe not so much.
 
Maybe so but, per the factory literature
a 318 in 69 was rated 230hp@4400IIRC, (which is only 193 ftlbs torque) and 340 ftlbs at 2400 rpm :
whereas the 340 didn't get to 340 ftlbs until 3200, and peak power of 275@5500 translates to 356 ftlbs.
Engines do not make horsepower.
Engines make torque over time, and horsepower is the computed result of that.
340 ftlbs is the same no matter at what the rpm is measured at.
So then;
340 at 800 is 52hp
340 at 1600 is 104hp
340 at 2400 is 155hp
340 at 3200 is 207hp
340 at 4000 is 259hp
340 at 4800 is 311hp
340 at 5600 is 363hp

Loss of torque with rpm dropping, is usually a loss of efficiency. As the rpm drops, there is more and more time for the piston on the intake/compression changover, to push just-inducted fuel/air charge back up into the intake, thru the late-closing intake valve. This is why big cams idle at low vacuum.
Another thing that can happen, more so with headers, is, as the rpm comes down, there is more and more time, for, on the overlap cycle, for the headers to pull fuel-air from the plenum, straight across the piston and into the primary pipes. That's Idle/low speed fuel charge that never got burned in the chamber, therefore did not contribute to torque-production.
These things, with aggressive cams, can continue from idle to at what-ever rpm it takes ,to build peak vacuum, usually in the window of 1600>2200, or more with bigger cams.
A third factor is the duration of the power stroke.
The longer your exhaust duration is, the shorter your powerstroke has to be. The stock 318 has, IIRC, 122 degrees of power stroke, so by the time the exhaust opens, there is as good as zero energy left in the expanding gasses. But a long-period cam might have 100 or less degrees of power-stroke, so needless to say, there will be plenty of energy left in those gasses.
So then in these two examples there will be a difference of say 20 degrees of, what I call, Power-extraction. Obviously, at low to mid rpms, the more energy that you can extract, the more torque she will make.
Here's how the factory low-compression 318s can still make torque;
1) The early-closing intake traps the charge, and
2) the near total lack of overlap, traps the A/F charge in the intake, and
3) the very long extraction period puts as much of the energy as is possible, into the crank. but
4) the short intake period limits power-production.
Need to watch the David Vizard Powertec 10 Youtube video discussing cam selection and how cam companies get it wrong.
His method is the LSA is the input based on cylinder volume divided by intake valve diameter multiplied by 0.91. This is subtracted from 128 for SBC and 127 for SBF. Most parralell valve engines fit in here somewhere. For Cleveland Fords and BBC subtract from 132. Overlap is then a factor of duration. DV states that get the LSA right and you can make more power with less duration. Watch the video and judge for yourself. If you agree then, fine. If you do not agree, fine. It is your choice.
 
Doggy is my opinion based on my experience.
all of these, below, are in stock configuration and calculated at 1000ft elevation
As the Wallace calculator has calculated;
the 225 comes in at V/P of 87
the 8.0 273 comes in at .....97
the 8.0 318LA ...........is at 113
the 8.0 360LA ...........is at 121
the 340 at a true ....9.5 is 122
the 5.2M comes in at 124>128
the 10.5 advertised 340 @139
the 5.9M is .................... 146
the 440 2bbl .................. 157
My 367 (276cam/11.0Scr) 161
my 367 (270cam/11.3Scr) 169
A 340 stroker(416) with a modest cam is around 172
Question this based on ratio of cranking and scr right? How much SCR would you need to add to /6 be a stock LA small block killer to 3000-3500 rpm so better than 122.
Ok so, ignoring the stroker, this gives us a range of V/Ps from 87 to 169.
Let's score them into boxes, graduated from 1 to 10 with the slanty at #1. This gives us a working range in each division , of say 10units ; Ok then
#1 is 87, dead soft, is it in gear? Dad, press harder.....
#2 is 97 is this all she's got? when will we be there?
#3 is 107 Mum!, are we there yet
#4 is 117 Aw com'on, we must be close by now.....
#5 is 127 Ten more minutes, kids.
#6 is 137 this is the lower limit for me
#7 is 147 who wants to go on the waterslide?!
#8 is 157 Wheeeee, this is so much fun!
#9 is 167 Ok this is seriously way too much fun, I gotta take a break
#10 is177 IDK, haven't run it.
Remember, all of this is Low rpm torque, from idle to in the window of say 3200 to 3600. By this rpm your Power-timing should be all in, and V/P is no longer worth talking about.

As you can see, a V/P of 108 is only at #3 on this scale, half way between a 273 and a 318, which to me is unacceptable. Sorry if I offended you.
i'm not offended and if your right your right, that's no problem, I understand were talking 3000-3500 rpm and under and a propper still negates this. But according to your list a stock 5.9L is 146 which I got a stock 5.9l Jeep Grand Cherokee which is Jeep version of a Dakota RT and does pulls pretty hard, I just have a hard time believing that an RV cam is all a sudden make it pull slightly better than a 273, plus I've had and been in low cr 318 short blocks with 360/340 top ends with 340 camsto pretty healthy cams with stock stalls/4 gear and they weren't dogs not saying that was the best way to go.
Just so you know, at one time or another, I have run ALL those V/Ps, up to 169, (which is, IMO ridiculously strong) .

But the real point I am trying to make here is how important the cylinder pressure is at low-rpm.
You wanted to know, I think I supplied the answer.
I'm not saying it ain't important but seems to put CR above Power, Which to me there's tons of low to mid CR engine out there making decent low end power I need to further play with this idea.
I keep reminding you that V/P is a way of comparing any engine at low rpm; from a typical street stall to in the window of 3000 to 3600. Once the engine gets up on the cam V/P is no longer of any use to consider.
So yes any two sizes of engines running the same V/P , are going to provide similar performance when installed in identical cars, and operating in the "V/P applicable zone".
With a 2800 stall, you are already on the upper edge of that window, and under acceleration, you will only be in it for a very small amount of time.
Furthermore, V/P is a diminishing value. It is most applicable at lower rpms like 2000 with a 2000 stall automatic, and least applicable at 3200 with a 3200 stall, etc
Lemmee put it another way, take two same built engines with same 108V/Ps. Stall one at 1800, and watch how doggy it is to 3500. Stall the other at 3500 and see how NOT doggy it is....... cuz it never pulls in the doggy-zone.
Understand
 
Doggy is my opinion based on my experience.
all of these, below, are in stock configuration and calculated at 1000ft elevation
As the Wallace calculator has calculated;
the 225 comes in at V/P of 87
the 8.0 273 comes in at .....97
the 8.0 318LA ...........is at 113
the 8.0 360LA ...........is at 121
the 340 at a true ....9.5 is 122
the 5.2M comes in at 124>128
the 10.5 advertised 340 @139
the 5.9M is .................... 146
the 440 2bbl .................. 157
My 367 (276cam/11.0Scr) 161
my 367 (270cam/11.3Scr) 169
A 340 stroker(416) with a modest cam is around 172

Ok so, ignoring the stroker, this gives us a range of V/Ps from 87 to 169.
Let's score them into boxes, graduated from 1 to 10 with the slanty at #1. This gives us a working range in each division , of say 10units ; Ok then
#1 is 87, dead soft, is it in gear? Dad, press harder.....
#2 is 97 is this all she's got? when will we be there?
#3 is 107 Mum!, are we there yet
#4 is 117 Aw com'on, we must be close by now.....
#5 is 127 Ten more minutes, kids.
#6 is 137 this is the lower limit for me
#7 is 147 who wants to go on the waterslide?!
#8 is 157 Wheeeee, this is so much fun!
#9 is 167 Ok this is seriously way too much fun, I gotta take a break
#10 is177 IDK, haven't run it.
Remember, all of this is Low rpm torque, from idle to in the window of say 3200 to 3600. By this rpm your Power-timing should be all in, and V/P is no longer worth talking about.

As you can see, a V/P of 108 is only at #3 on this scale, half way between a 273 and a 318, which to me is unacceptable. Sorry if I offended you.
Just so you know, at one time or another, I have run ALL those V/Ps, up to 169, (which is, IMO ridiculously strong) .

But the real point I am trying to make here is how important the cylinder pressure is at low-rpm.
You wanted to know, I think I supplied the answer.

I keep reminding you that V/P is a way of comparing any engine at low rpm; from a typical street stall to in the window of 3000 to 3600. Once the engine gets up on the cam V/P is no longer of any use to consider.
So yes any two sizes of engines running the same V/P , are going to provide similar performance when installed in identical cars, and operating in the "V/P applicable zone".
With a 2800 stall, you are already on the upper edge of that window, and under acceleration, you will only be in it for a very small amount of time.
Furthermore, V/P is a diminishing value. It is most applicable at lower rpms like 2000 with a 2000 stall automatic, and least applicable at 3200 with a 3200 stall, etc
Lemmee put it another way, take two same built engines with same 108V/Ps. Stall one at 1800, and watch how doggy it is to 3500. Stall the other at 3500 and see how NOT doggy it is....... cuz it never pulls in the doggy-zone.

Here's a stock low cr 360 and hop ups
Stock 360 torque is basically flat from 2000-3500 rpm making around 320 lbs-ft, the hop ups are making 50-60 lbs-ft at 2500 rpm, doesn't show 2000 rpm but it's got to be at least the same torque but probably slightly higher. But I imagine the V/P of theses cams would be very low since a stock 360 V/P sucks, just don't see these cam upgrades being worse from 1500-3500 rpm over stock.

I have a feeling you want/expect to get the max from each mod, where a I feel a lots of people are happy if it burns rubber and has an overall feel of improvement even if it wasn't the best way. Especially when it comes to cams, not say your way is wrong, I think a most people would do good to follow your combo or at least the basic premise. But where I generally disagree with ya is people are generally not allowed to add even a fairly mild cam without redesigning the whole driveline which would be ideal, but most just want to jam a cam in which to a point I think is fine, your way seem like there’s no room for less than ideal.

vid starts at dyno graph

 
Last edited:
The only issue I can think of that has not been discussed is timing and quality of ignition. Timing does impact torque, and some replacement distributors have spark scatter which will kill performance. I would tune for max advance in by 2200 RPM with probably 34° mechanical advance. If you get detonation, back off 2°. Then set vacuum advance to near 50° total at the crank and make sure there is no detonation. Change VA Diaphragm if the advance is not correct. Distributor advance degrees should be shown on the arm.
I ran 2.94:1 gears for years in my 340 Formula S and loved them for highway driving. Also got up to 24 MPG with a mild cammed 340. 2.73 gears may be even better on the highway with 70+ MPH speed limints (like in Utah, WY, etc) But around town, manybe not so much.
I feel a good chunk of this got to do with tuning, what percentage out there running less than idea tune especially after mods, look how much an engine can be down on power when turning on a dyno and to further exasperated the situation the amount of people running a lack of gears and stall.
 
Tuning is important but especially if it's a carb'd application, air speed and booster signal at lower RPMs are crucial. They are directly related to how responsive an engine is under light throttle. Also when larger amounts of valve overlap come into play the tuning of the exhaust can make a huge difference in torque below the peak RPM. Lots of tests showing how collector extensions on open headers give a massive improvement in torque and the longer they get the lower the RPMs where torque is increased.

In your case, you aren't feeling the "380 lb-ft at 2500 RPM" likely because when that figure was recorded by whoever did the testing they either had the tune dialed in perfectly with a perfectly configured carb for the application or were running sequential multi-port EFI. IIRC the 380hp Magnum crate came with a single-plane intake and fairly large cam with only 9:1 static compression which is not a combo that's easy to tune for low-RPM response and performance with a carburetor. Especially if that combo is run with exhaust manifolds, there will be lots of reversion at lower RPM and low-end torque will be garbage, along with poor high-RPM torque/power due to restriction.
 
Just bore um with a drill press and run um on kerosene and they'll make gobs of bottom end torque. <rolls eyes>
 
Tuning is important but especially if it's a carb'd application, air speed and booster signal at lower RPMs are crucial. They are directly related to how responsive an engine is under light throttle. Also when larger amounts of valve overlap come into play the tuning of the exhaust can make a huge difference in torque below the peak RPM. Lots of tests showing how collector extensions on open headers give a massive improvement in torque and the longer they get the lower the RPMs where torque is increased.
I agree with everything but the effects on torque and not say your wrong just having a hard time seeing torque being the issue. Cause take the 5 built 318 282-477 hp they all make more bottom end than a stock 360, not saying a stock 360 is a power house but wouldn't be considered soft under 3000 rpm, take a fairly built 383-440 people will say they have a soft bottom end but are making similar to lot more down low torque than a strong running 360.

So is there a torque number eg.. like 350 lbs-ft around 2000-2500 rpm?, which most smaller engines would fail and most larger would pass, or at least a minimum lbs-ft per cid, I just don't think were talking bottom end torque when saying a built engine are soft down low. A built six and 543 are gonna make vastly different amounts of torque either can have a soft or strong bottom end for what they are.

Sofar to me it's mainly the cam don't like to operate down low.
 
Last edited:
Is underpowered and soft being interchanged.

To me,

An underpowered engines is a stock low power peak hp around 4000-4500 rpm with an off idle-5000 rpm useable range obviously the larger the engine more torque idle-4500 rpm so will have more hp idle-4500 rpm. These all can be considered underpowered and obviously the smaller ones will be more underpowered in comparison.

I wouldn't think of soft bottom end as underpowered more as the engine doesn't want to operate down low and struggles to transition for low rpm into it's powerband without gearing and stall etc..
 
-
Back
Top