One thing leads to another... mean 318?

[pishta]

So...I said all that to say that stroke doesn’t increase horsepower. It can’t. Not with the same induction. When it counts, RPM is King.

Slanties included? Different mule but same induction and bore....? Tried to get same year specs for cam profiles. I always heard same head same MAX RPM (flow rate cap) but different RPM levels. Flow will eventually stop. (Rod ratio does change in this set)

170 1967-1969 8.5 to 1 115 @ 4400 155 @ 2400
198 1970-1971 8.4 to 1 125 @ 4400 180 @ 2000
225 1964-1971 8.4 to 1 145 @ 4000 215 @ 2400

 

[RustyRatRod]

So...I said all that to say that stroke doesn’t increase horsepower. It can’t. Not with the same induction.

MILLIONS of 318s and 360s were sold with the same induction. MILLIONS of 350 and 400 small Chevys were sold with the same induction. MILLIONS of 402 and 454 Chevys were sold with the same induction. MILLIONS of 351M and 400 Fords were sold with the same induction. In each and every case, the longer stroke counter part was more powerful. With the same EXACT induction.

 

[nm9stheham]

Im aware of piston speeds and side loading and am not in the camp of high revving strokers. Also would like to see the notches in the 3.91 bore cylinders to clear the rod nuts. I had to nip my 4.00 bores to clear the stock rods on a 4.00 stroke crank...Iirc the cap bolts are smaller on an aftermarket forged rod. There is a point bore size wise where a 4" stroker crank is not going to fit, 318 is probably not one of them but a 273?

FWIW, Pista, I've fit up a 4" crank in a 273 and it'll take some very small bore notches. And yes, the cap bolts for the SCAT I-beam rods (and very probably the Eagles) makes the notches smaller. I am prety much done with that set up except for the valve to bore clearance. The LA-X heads would have been the best for those small bores but now the don't make them. Here is with a SCAT I-beam.

 

[rumblefish360]

I didn’t call you any names, but if you want, we can go there. While I have no desire, is your call. I’m not to found or shooting fish in a barrel.

For someone to change his mind on a subject, the other has to make a compelling or at least any argument, you yet to do either, not like you have to, but there's no reason to change my mind cause no one has said anything resembling a point.
And name calling what are you Five, I'm suppose to change my mind cause you don't agree, there is others on here do, talking with you is pointless, like you accuse me of, your mind seems made up.

 

[rumblefish360]

I get that and have said exactly that multiple times so far and agree with what you have just said besides the condescending end part. Yes adding stroke or any means of displacement is gonna increase torque to a given combination.

But here's where i seem to differ from you guys, "RPM" to me rpm is on par with Torque, and yes adding displacement is gonna add torque but it's gonna come at the cost of RPM.

So more torque by adding displacement and lowering rpm powerband doesn't necessarily mean more power "hp". Is this last statement wrong ?
This has been my whole point.

Potentially so. You keep pointing to a longer Stroke as a rpm limiting factor which it is not really as hurtful as you make it out to be. Having seen 4 inch armed stroker’s spin to 7500 and better tells me that your statements fall short of the actual facts which you claim can’t happen. You really need to do your homework!

as time goes on with your comments, you seem to be getting a better and better grasp of how things work. However, I fear for some reason that you may have your head stuck on the online calculators too much. While they are an excellent tool, they are not the end-all, or the last say of what will actually transpire. This is why I said earlier, I can’t wait to you hit lotto so you can put into action all of your theories. Why would I say that? Because you’re going to find out that you’re not correct.

 

[rumblefish360]

No he is not but you are in the way you present the issue which is not in the same way he does.

Or let’s put it this way... answer me this!

How can a 273 engine make more power than a 318/340/360/408/ etc... when all are equipped for maximum return?

That’s the angle he played and Adamantly stood on. Now he’s slowly and 20 and twisting his point of you in the direction of the argument to come to his favor.
Then once you agree with the statement, he says, see I was right!

I was going to stay out of this but...273 is 100% correct. Horsepower IS airflow and piston area and RPM. Horsepower is work across time. The same cylinder pressure on a longer stroke crank doesn’t make more horsepower. But the same cylinder pressure on a bigger bore makes more horsepower. Every time.

That’s why in CID/weight cars and classes with a maximum displacement rule (Pro Stock for example or ASScar when Chrysler got back into it could run a larger bore and shorter stroke and wax GM’s *** all day long so ASScar made a max bore rule of 4.185 for the GM garbage to compete...remember this was with a 358 CID rule...which means Chrysler used a bigger bore, shorter stroke and more RPM which is all more horsepower) you see the bores as big as you can get them and them adjust the stroke and rod ratio for RPM, induction, port cross section etc.

When I get home I’ll take a picture of the Bettes book where he clearly states this. Any cursory visit through a rule book or most any time on the dyno proves this out clearly.

That’s why even a 3.79 stroke is even a bit much for W2 heads, especially considering how much you give up in rod ratio (yes, it matters). A Stroker with a 4 inch arm (or longer) is vastly under headed, which is why you see inverted torque and horsepower numbers. So to get the horsepower number over the torque number you either have to cam the hell out of or reduce the stroke.

So...I said all that to say that stroke doesn’t increase horsepower. It can’t. Not with the same induction. When it counts, RPM is King. RPM is a horrible task master, but it’s still King. Ask Roy Johnson. He will tell you it is. He will also tell you that the RPM limit killed the Hemi in Pro Stock. The GM guys were 500 RPM or more behind, and they cried like babies to get the rule changed, claiming cost savings. It’s Pro Stock, not cheap assed Stock.

 

[yellow rose]

MILLIONS of 318s and 360s were sold with the same induction. MILLIONS of 350 and 400 small Chevys were sold with the same induction. MILLIONS of 402 and 454 Chevys were sold with the same induction. MILLIONS of 351M and 400 Fords were sold with the same induction. In each and every case, the longer stroke counter part was more powerful. With the same EXACT induction.

Not all the heads were the same Rusty. Not even close. Cam timing was changed as well. So were the intake manifolds. You are arguing against science and the way HP is measured. Stroke doesn’t make HP.

 

[273]

No he is not but you are in the way you present the issue which is not in the same way he does.

Or let’s put it this way... answer me this!

How can a 273 engine make more power than a 318/340/360/408/ etc... when all are equipped for maximum return?

That’s the angle he played and Adamantly stood on. Now he’s slowly and 20 and twisting his point of you in the direction of the argument to come to his favor.
Then once you agree with the statement, he says, see I was right!

That's not even close to my point, you seem to be disagreeing with me on something i never said.
And my point ain't changing or evolving, far is I'm concern the argument is if added stroke in it's self creates HP,
We all know stroke will add torque to a given combo but does it also add hp? , I say no and far as I understand you say yes.

I say no cause there's no added flow being introduced to the combo ie.. heads cam carb etc.. and even though were adding torque to said combo there will be a decrease in rpm, torque x rpm/5252 = hp, so "more torque" times "less rpm" is at least somewhat gonna cancel each other.

As for name calling bringing up can't fix stupid in a comment were you talking about me is gonna come off as an insult.

 

[yellow rose]

No he is not but you are in the way you present the issue which is not in the same way he does.

Or let’s put it this way... answer me this!

How can a 273 engine make more power than a 318/340/360/408/ etc... when all are equipped for maximum return?

That’s the angle he played and Adamantly stood on. Now he’s slowly and 20 and twisting his point of you in the direction of the argument to come to his favor.
Then once you agree with the statement, he says, see I was right!

A 273 will never ever make the power of the 318 or 340 because the bore is so small. This example is a perfect of why bore size matters. The three above examples all share the same stroke, deck height and rod ratio. The bigger the bore, the more power they make because you can run a bigger intake valve and a bigger intake port and manifold.

That’s a very good example. You’ll never get the valve sizes you can get in a 273 that you can get in a 340 (2.100/1.600 if you are careful but I’d rather see a 1.500 exhaust in there) and that’s where power comes from.

When I get home I’ll pull out the Bettes book and take a picture.

 

[RustyRatRod]

Not all the heads were the same Rusty. Not even close. Cam timing was changed as well. So were the intake manifolds. You are arguing against science and the way HP is measured. Stroke doesn’t make HP.

The hell you say. I've torn down so many that were it's pathetic. I have a 400 Ford under the bench that came with the same head castings that the engine in my truck has. I have a 402 right next to it that has the same heads as my friend's 454. I've torn down 350s and 400s with the exact same 442 head castings. SAME. Give it up. You're wrong this time.

 

[RustyRatRod]

Not all the heads were the same Rusty. Not even close. Cam timing was changed as well. So were the intake manifolds. You are arguing against science and the way HP is measured. Stroke doesn’t make HP.

Stroke makes cubic inches. What does cubic inches make? I'll just wait right there.

 

[yellow rose]

That's not even close to my point, you seem to be disagreeing with me on something i never said.
And my point ain't changing or evolving, far is I'm concern the argument is if added stroke in it's self creates HP,
We all know stroke will add torque to a given combo but does it also add hp? , I say no and far as I understand you say yes.

I say no cause there's no added flow being introduced to the combo ie.. heads cam carb etc.. and even though were adding torque to said combo there will be a decrease in rpm, torque x rpm/5252 = hp, so "more torque" times "less rpm" is at least somewhat gonna cancel each other.

As for name calling bringing up can't fix stupid in a comment were you talking about me is gonna come off as an insult.

To add to this...horsepower is work across time. Water brake dyno’s are a shitty way to measure HP. The best way is to accelerate a known load. This is an inertia dyno. I almost had one, but a shyster crook screwed me out of it. When I take my engine to the dyno, it will be an inertia dyno. As long as the computer controls the acceleration rate of the engine, you’ll never get the full picture of how HP and torque function.

 

[273]

As for comparing old stock engines, anything before 72 power numbers are pretty much meaning less, as for smog engines there only a 100hp difference between a 77 /6 and a 440 with an almost doubling of displacement, plus bigger engines were sold at higher prices so there's an incentive to distinguish them by slightly different hp ratings. Looked up 351M vs 400 and there was like 10 hp difference, funny thing 351m were making peak hp at 3400 rpm and 400 at 3800 almost like they stop at those rpm to get desired power rating.

 

[yellow rose]

Stroke makes cubic inches. What does cubic inches make? I'll just wait right there.

You’ll be waiting a long time Rusty because I’ve laid it out as simple as possible. Don’t take my word for it. I’ll post up what Harold Bettes put in print. Anyone who builds engines and doesn’t buy the marketing hype will tell you Harold is 100% correct.

Displacement does NOT make horsepower. That’s a magazine lie. Again, I’ve laid out what makes horsepower and it ain’t stroke/displacement.

Let me ask you this Rusty. In the unlimited dollar world of Pro Stock (or ASScar because it’s essentially the same issue) where the ONLY limit on displacement is displacement, why are they running the biggest bore they can squeeze onto a 4.900 bore center and then adjusting the stroke for final displacement? They ain’t stupid. Best last known by me geometry was a 4.700 bore with a 3.600 stroke for 499 inches. That’s a bore to stroke ratio of 1.3 and a 340 is only 1.22 as an example. A typical 408 has a B/S ratio of 1.0075 which is damn near square.

Do you think the PS guys are morons? Do you think they don’t understand the relationship between horsepower, stroke and RPM? I’m betting they do.

If stroke was a world beater, why doesn’t Pro Stock drop down to a 4.500 bore and a 3.900 stroke and rotate the earth with it? Because it would be a pig. A slug. Nothing in the rules says they can’t reduce the bore and increase the stroke and will all the trophy’s and take all the money. But they don’t. Are they stupid, or do they understand something you don’t? I would never have them balls to call any Pro Stock engine builder stupid. But that is essentially what the over stroke proponents are saying.

One last example. I forget the year, but it’s easy to find it if you want to know. Bob Glidden showed up at Woodburn the week before the Seattle nationals with a not yet legal 5 speed to do some testing. Since it was a NHRA sanctioned track, he had to unhook the 5th gear lever. It was a liberty gear box.

I was on the starting line for the 2 runs he tested it. I’m sure WJ and several others were doing the same. Anyway, his 60 foot times and incrementals told him the 5 speed would be quicker, even with the engine program they had at that time. Even though everybody and their mother said the 5 speed would be slower. Silly people.

I said that to go here. Who was the LAST PS team to switch to the 5 speed? I know, because I almost got into a fist fight in Seattle a year or so later with the crew chief on the car over it and his idiocy.

Remember yet? It was the stooges at Wayne County and the Dodge Boys. Standing in the pits they said the 4 speed was quicker because they made more TORQUE! I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. I pointed out a PS car is so far above peak torque on gear changes that what little extra torque they made was useless. It was no wonder they had to cheat.

So the crew chief came over and tried to convince me otherwise. I quickly pointed out they hadn’t won **** in awhile and they were going backwards fast. And it turned into a **** show from there.

I’ve laid out more examples than I should have. It shouldn’t take that much.

Believe what you want, but stroke doesn’t make horsepower.

 

[273]

Or let’s put it this way... answer me this!

How can a 273 engine make more power than a 318/340/360/408/ etc... when all are equipped for maximum return?

This isn't me changing my point of view but in that question they all won't make the same power, take the two extremes displacements 273 vs 408 at the same piston speed of 4000 fpm, so 273 would be at 7250 rpm and a 408 would at 6000 rpm.
Could build for higher piston speeds but ratios will be the same between the two engines. So a 273 would displace 573 cfm of air at 7250 rpm at 100% VE and a 408 would displace 708 cfm. When taking things to the max, smaller bore can't spin high enough over come the larger bore but compare a .030 over 360, so 365 at 4000 fpm would be at 6704 rpm and would displace 708 cfm's on pare with the 408. At that point now you would have to argue fictional hp loss rod ratio benefits etc..

 

[rumblefish360]

That's not even close to my point, you seem to be disagreeing with me on something i never said.
And my point ain't changing or evolving, far is I'm concern the argument is if added stroke in it's self creates HP,
We all know stroke will add torque to a given combo but does it also add hp? , I say no and far as I understand you say yes.

I say no cause there's no added flow being introduced to the combo ie.. heads cam carb etc.. and even though were adding torque to said combo there will be a decrease in rpm, torque x rpm/5252 = hp, so "more torque" times "less rpm" is at least somewhat gonna cancel each other.

As for name calling bringing up can't fix stupid in a comment were you talking about me is gonna come off as an insult.

SORRY, that comment was as stated directed at direcrtly at RRR since he knows my wifeis a RN and we do chat on these. Perhaps, your guilty conscience is coming around? Just trying to throw crap on the wall to see what sticks? Acting like a troll you are.

The more torque made, the more HP is produced. Get over it already. Look at some dyno tests! Or do your own dang dyno test!

 

[rumblefish360]

A 273 will never ever make the power of the 318 or 340 because the bore is so small. This example is a perfect of why bore size matters. The three above examples all share the same stroke, deck height and rod ratio. The bigger the bore, the more power they make because you can run a bigger intake valve and a bigger intake port and manifold.

Thanks. You now agree with me and disagree with 273.

That’s a very good example. You’ll never get the valve sizes you can get in a 273 that you can get in a 340 and that’s where power comes from.

Valve sizes aside, equippe a 318 and a 360 with the 1.88/1.60 combo..... or equippe the 273/318/360 with the 1.78/1.50 combo, what does they crystal ball say then, ehhh, screw the crystals; ball, what does your head tell you!!!!

 

[rumblefish360]

This isn't me changing my point of view but in that question they all won't make the same power,

So now you agree with me thatthe 273 cannot make the same power as a larger engine even though you said it would earlier. WTF!?!?! Back pedaling now are we? Are you sure you know what your talking about?

[QUOITE]take the two extremes displacements 273 vs 408 at the same piston speed of 4000 fpm, so 273 would be at 7250 rpm and a 408 would at 6000 rpm.
Could build for higher piston speeds but ratios will be the same between the two engines. So a 273 would displace 573 cfm of air at 7250 rpm at 100% VE and a 408 would displace 708 cfm. [/QUOTE]
Is this your excuse as to why the 273 can not make more power than a 318, in which you said, could indeed make more power?!?!?!?!?!?!

[/QUOTE] When taking things to the max, smaller bore can't spin high enough over come the larger bore but compare a .030 over 360, so 365 at 4000 fpm would be at 6704 rpm and would displace 708 cfm's on pare with the 408.[/QUOTE]
Agreeing with me again that there is no way a 273 can make more power than a larger engine?
Come on now! Whgere is that Chmpion of the great and power OZ like mysterious 273 power????

At that point now you would have to argue fictional hp loss rod ratio benefits etc..

Ridiculous to bring that up in a general argument or even a technical one but for a scienecefair, you can fun with that next to the snakeoil guy on the right and the guy selling shoes on the left.

273, your turn ing yourself into a carnival act! Stop brother stop!!!!!

 

[yellow rose]

Thanks. You now agree with me and disagree with 273.


Valve sizes aside, equippe a 318 and a 360 with the 1.88/1.60 combo..... or equippe the 273/318/360 with the 1.78/1.50 combo, what does they crystal ball say then, ehhh, screw the crystals; ball, what does your head tell you!!!!

No, I’m not agreeing with you on this. If I was, I could say throw a 4 inch arm in a 273 and it would kick ***. It won’t. The BORE is too small. The stroke won’t do anything.

 

[rumblefish360]

No, I’m not agreeing with you on this. If I was, I could say throw a 4 inch arm in a 273 and it would kick ***. It won’t. The BORE is too small. The stroke won’t do anything.

You sure did agree with me. OR you can tell me how a 273 will out power a bigger 318 engine when equally equipped. How does a 273 out power a 340?

How does a long arm crank not add torque and thus HP?

 

[273]

Bumblefish360 maybe you should stop cause your embarrassing yourself.
You like to say how I'm and others are wrong, but you obviously have no clue what anyone is talking about, this conversation has never been about a 273 vs whatever, easy to think your right when you make up what the conversation is about.

 

[rumblefish360]

That’s what you said... a 273 makes more power than a 318/340...

Then you went on a tangent

 

[273]

That’s what you said... a 273 makes more power than a 318/340...

Then you went on a tangent

The only post I even mention anything about a 273 in this thread is post #65 answering your post #56, and I clearly state when taken to the max a 273 can't be spun high enough to out perform a 408.

 

[cawcislo]

Wow, what happened to my thread? Maybe I should start another. Wow.

 

[rumblefish360]

Good idea