One thing leads to another... mean 318?

[rumblefish360]

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.

Edited your threads then?
No worries....

 

[RustyRatRod]

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

It turned into a train wreck. I apologize for my part. I should have paid closer attention to the topic at hand and did not.

 

[273]

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

It's what happens when you leave children unattended lol

273/318 threads almost always end up being a big debate.

 

[/6 Matt]

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

Make another thread or don't, just keep us updated. I've been watching this one to see a 318 build not a shitshow.

FWIW I vote that you build the piss out of a 318. I desperately want to but im busy playing with 6's

 

[pishta]

No comment on my #51 post..."all things being equal, 'cept stroke?" Thought a player would swat that down easily. Build the teen like a 340 and run it. 22cid short and a 20% smaller piston area. I think the 360 valve size would be better for velocity.

 

[273]

This Youtube video just came up on my feed, it comes up with contradicting results, but interesting none the less.

It's very similar Chevy 302 vs 327 vs 350 Dyno results, and 4.8l vs 5.3l results, there's a 6.0l but it's cam and heads are different than the other two. 350 has a slightly milder cam but everything else is the same.

302, 357 hp @ 6700, 333 lb-ft @ 4400, 1.18 hp per cid, 1.1 lb-ft per cid, 585 cfm
327, 356 hp @ 6100, 369 lb-ft @ 4100, 1.08 hp per cid, 1.13 lb-ft per cid, 577 cfm
350, 354 hp @ 5400, 391 lb-ft @ 4000, 1.01 hp per cid, 1.12 lb-ft per cid, 547 cfm

4.8l, 336 hp @ 5600, 345 lb-ft @ 4700, 1.14 hp per cid, 1.17 lb-ft per cid, 475 cfm
5.3l, 353 hp @ 5200, 384 lb-ft @ 4300, 1.09 hp per cid, 1.18 lb-ft per cid, 489 cfm

With the 302 vs 327 vs 350 goes along with what I'm saying for similar top end hp is gonna be about the same hp and peak hp rpm and the powerband is gonna be proportional to engine size. The 302 vs 327 match that theory but 350 falls a little flat, should be more like 5700-5800 not 5400 it is but it does have a smaller cam and the hp curve is super flat though out 5100-5900 rpm, to me any minor timing or carb adjustments peak could be moved anywhere between the two.

Obviously torque is different overall but per cid it's fairly narrow. But if you geared these engines to where your right in the sweet spot for each, about plus 500-700 rpm per mph as you go from 350 to 327 to 302, you can see the 327 would be at higher hp level then the 350 and the 302 be above both through out most or all the powerband going down the track, would of been nice if he overlap the hp curves. So anyways with these examples I'd say 302 would best track car and 350 best street car. Either way very similar performance from similar parts but very different displacements.

As of what to make of the 4.8l vs 5.3l results I'd say 17 hp isn't the biggest difference tha'ts a 0.05 per cid difference, you could make the argument it's from stroke to me I'd guess more from heads and cam preferring the 5.3l.

 

[rumblefish360]

How does stroke increase HP ??

Bore only can increase hp cause it allows more air flow, nothing to do with increased displacement.

It has everything to do withincreased dispalcement.

Would a identical built 340/360 have the same cylinder pressure ??

No, near moot point though. This point of argument can be adjusted.

and if they did stock bore, 4.04" vs 4", the 340 piston would have more surface area so it would have more force driving the piston down,

True only at the piston point.

if both where stroked to give each the same displacement the 4.04" bore would have slightly less stroke multiplying the slightly higher force,

Incorrect. There is no multiplication via the piston.

which should theoretically equal out. But since they don't have same displacements 340 vs 360 and at similar VE% the 360 will have less force on the piston but have lot more multiplying "stroke" on that force,

Incorrect. The extended stroke brings in more air and fuel than the shorter stroke given the otherwise equally parts. In this case, the cam timing events.
The lasrger bore doesn't equal out or better it.

ie.. more displacement more torque. Not cause of stroke cause of overall displacement. But that is obviously just torque, so yes an increase of stroke on any given bore is gonna increase displacement ie.. torque but keeping everything else equal is gonna decrease powerband rpm, which should put you at similar hp output.

Slightly confusing. Two engines of the same displacement, 1 short stroke big bore, the other, small bore big stroke, should equal torque and HP. But it doesn't. It's close though.

So how does stroke in it's self increase hp ?

Answered below.

The larger the stroke over the OE stroke, the larger the displacement. The longer stroke takes in more air and fuel. Thus increasing the explosiveness within the cylinder. This creates more torque and HP.

Therefore, your statement of “Bore only increases HP” is false. Increasing ether will increase displacement and torque to equal HP.

For your theory to be true the engine with the increased stroke you have make peak power at a similar rpm as the non stroked engine eg... 360 vs 408.

Not true. The longer stroke engine normally, not always, makes peak power earlier.

Say for my 360 create engine is suppose to dyno around 400 hp at 5400 rpm, if stroked it to a 402 keeping everything else the same.

It would have peak hp at a lower rpm?
How much lower 400-600 rpms lower ?
more/less ?

Speaking theoretically....
Q1, = yes
Q2, = an excellent question I can not answer. To many variables and unknowns to take a shotin the dark at.
Q3, =less

If say it's around 4835 rpm (Why 4835? Cant we just use round numbvers? WTF? Is this your exact engine?)
peak hp for the 408 both would have the same cid to rpm would be proportional for both engines and both would have similar power give or take the exact effect on those combos.

Having trouble following this. LAck of punctuation and gramma.

Not saying it would play out where power is always gonna be identical. True stroke is gonna add displacement there for each power stroke is gonna have more fuel and air there for more torque, But torque is just basically a snap shot of that power stroke, hp is all those power strokes added up.

Somewhat true. You could find out the power of a single stroke. Just because it is a V8 doesn't mean your limited in that area. The power derived from one power stroke will still create HP.

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.

Do your just due home work and find out! I'm not here to convince or school you with scientific reports and data with fact sheet and spread sheets.

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

Thus adding HP. More torque is mpore HP.

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.

Cost of RPM where? More cam? You just moved the curve upwards. Added stroke? You added low rpm power.

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.

Yes it is wrong. More torque will allways equal more HP.

 

[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!

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.

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..

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.

But it all relates to stroke and bore size. Take a good look at the displacements nd the power they put out across the board.

 

[rumblefish360]

This Youtube video just came up on my feed, it comes up with contradicting results, but interesting none the less.

It's very similar Chevy 302 vs 327 vs 350 Dyno results, and 4.8l vs 5.3l results, there's a 6.0l but it's cam and heads are different than the other two. 350 has a slightly milder cam but everything else is the same.

302, 357 hp @ 6700, 333 lb-ft @ 4400, 1.18 hp per cid, 1.1 lb-ft per cid, 585 cfm
327, 356 hp @ 6100, 369 lb-ft @ 4100, 1.08 hp per cid, 1.13 lb-ft per cid, 577 cfm
350, 354 hp @ 5400, 391 lb-ft @ 4000, 1.01 hp per cid, 1.12 lb-ft per cid, 547 cfm

4.8l, 336 hp @ 5600, 345 lb-ft @ 4700, 1.14 hp per cid, 1.17 lb-ft per cid, 475 cfm
5.3l, 353 hp @ 5200, 384 lb-ft @ 4300, 1.09 hp per cid, 1.18 lb-ft per cid, 489 cfm

With the 302 vs 327 vs 350 goes along with what I'm saying for similar top end hp is gonna be about the same hp and peak hp rpm and the powerband is gonna be proportional to engine size. The 302 vs 327 match that theory but 350 falls a little flat, should be more like 5700-5800 not 5400 it is but it does have a smaller cam and the hp curve is super flat though out 5100-5900 rpm, to me any minor timing or carb adjustments peak could be moved anywhere between the two.

Obviously torque is different overall but per cid it's fairly narrow. But if you geared these engines to where your right in the sweet spot for each, about plus 500-700 rpm per mph as you go from 350 to 327 to 302, you can see the 327 would be at higher hp level then the 350 and the 302 be above both through out most or all the powerband going down the track, would of been nice if he overlap the hp curves. So anyways with these examples I'd say 302 would best track car and 350 best street car. Either way very similar performance from similar parts but very different displacements.

As of what to make of the 4.8l vs 5.3l results I'd say 17 hp isn't the biggest difference tha'ts a 0.05 per cid difference, you could make the argument it's from stroke to me I'd guess more from heads and cam preferring the 5.3l.

AND now you have discovered what I have been saying all along!

TOLD YA SO!

 

[yellow rose]

AND now you have discovered what I have been saying all along!

TOLD YA SO!

I should be home Wednesday and I will post what Harold Bettes has said, which follows every single dyno test I’ve ever done. Torque doesn’t make HP. RPM does. Why does every single competitive engine use HP as a measure? How can a guy like Ben Strader say he doesn’t much care about peak torque because the engine operates above peak torque?

Horsepower is KING.

 

[273]

AND now you have discovered what I have been saying all along!

TOLD YA SO!

How do you come away with I told you so with that video

The 302 vs 327 vs 350 practically follow what I’ve been saying 100 % similar Top end is gonna make very similar power and bottom end, overall displacement, bore and stroke and rod ratios will decide where that power will be made “rpm” and it will be proportional to displacement.

if You find my previous statements a mumble jumble mess, this what I’ve being trying to say.

Add, with geared right they all should have similar performance.

Now the 4.8l vs 5.3l it doesn’t follow what I’ve been saying exactly, same top end wiith a difference of 17 hp (0.05 hp per cid) and engine masters did Mopar 410 vs 367 and there was a 8.5 hp (0.02 hp per cid). And engine masters did 383 Chev vs 383 Mopar both made similar peak torque and hp but the shorter stroke Mopar made way more under 4000 rpm torque, I know that’s not an apples to apples comparison but does fly in conventional wisdom of a longer stroke making more down low torque.

I’d argue other things come into play here and these Hp gains are small. But even if it is just cause of added stroke, The finial conclusion would have to be from these is, Adding stroke “displacement “ only sometimes adds hp and when it does not much. Not I told you so lol.

 

[rumblefish360]

Horsepower is KING.

And to dispute it is .......

 

[rumblefish360]

How do you come away with I told you so with that video

The 302 vs 327 vs 350 practically follow what I’ve been saying 100 % similar Top end is gonna make very similar power and bottom end, overall displacement, bore and stroke and rod ratios will decide where that power will be made “rpm” and it will be proportional to displacement.

if You find my previous statements a mumble jumble mess, this what I’ve being trying to say.

Add, with geared right they all should have similar performance.

Now the 4.8l vs 5.3l it doesn’t follow what I’ve been saying exactly, same top end wiith a difference of 17 hp (0.05 hp per cid) and engine masters did Mopar 410 vs 367 and there was a 8.5 hp (0.02 hp per cid). And engine masters did 383 Chev vs 383 Mopar both made similar peak torque and hp but the shorter stroke Mopar made way more under 4000 rpm torque, I know that’s not an apples to apples comparison but does fly in conventional wisdom of a longer stroke making more down low torque.

I’d argue other things come into play here and these Hp gains are small. But even if it is just cause of added stroke, The finial conclusion would have to be from these is, Adding stroke “displacement “ only sometimes adds hp and when it does not much. Not I told you so lol.

Did we just watch the same video you posted where the longer stroke engine made more low RPM torque thus rasing the HP level at allpoints except the very top where the longer arm always drops off? Thus proving me correct, you wrong. Across the board, more torque and HP was shown on the graphs save the top end. This is what I have been ssaying and yes, it is I told you so.

 

[rumblefish360]

I should be home Wednesday and I will post what Harold Bettes has said, which follows every single dyno test I’ve ever done. Torque doesn’t make HP. RPM does. Why does every single competitive engine use HP as a measure? How can a guy like Ben Strader say he doesn’t much care about peak torque because the engine operates above peak torque?

Yopur not on the exact same page as we are. I under stand what your saying.
As far as Ben Strader, perhaps his statmement is for the drag track only since around corners, you might want more torque than your competition to get out of the turn quicker?

(Edit/spelling)

 

[273]

Did we just watch the same video you posted where the longer stroke engine made more low RPM torque thus rasing the HP level at allpoints except the very top where the longer arm always drops off? Thus proving me correct, you wrong. Across the board, more torque and HP was shown on the graphs save the top end. This is what I have been ssaying and yes, it is I told you so.

It all makes more sense now, your talking under hp curve and I'm talking about peak hp. Not that i don't value under hp curve but at street level it's gonna very a lot and depending on how well people design and build their engine.
Most on here have a very vague goal. like low 12's 13's 14's etc.. and for the most part a 250-450 hp engine no matter if a 273 to 440 and even some /6 are capable.

On Max performance especially highly competitive big dollar racing, bore stroke rod ratios are gonna come into play but for the rest of us it's debatable, for me that stuff matters and I think It's one of the thing that separate Chrysler engines from the other brands, but each to their own in that regard.

As of those videos proving me wrong, your not accounting for gearing,

I picked 4.30, 3.91 and 3.73 which will put them at peak hp at 125 mph, plus will show hp at 100 mph, and 75 mph, I know you would need a fairly light car for 350 hp to get to 125 mph, but the ratio between each gear set would be similar if you pick peak hp with a top end of 100, 105, 110 etc.. mph.

302 with 4.30:1
75 mph = 4,013 rpm 250 hp
100 mph = 5,351 rpm 327 hp
125 mph = 6,688 rpm 355 hp

327 with 3.91:1
75 mph = 3,649 rpm 250 hp
100 mph = 4,866 rpm 330 hp
125 mph = 6,082 rpm 355 hp

350 with 3.73:1
75 mph = 3,481 rpm 255 hp
100 mph = 4,641 rpm 333 hp
125 mph = 5,800 rpm 350 hp

If geared right they each are putting down about the same hp at the same mph, Gear the great equalizer.
My point of always saying "If your willing to gear it build it, if not go with a larger displacement"

Of course most people would be happier with the 350/3.73 combo on the streets than the 302/4.30 but that's individual taste nothing to do with performance. Now for the guy that picks 302/3.73 he should find solace in his compromises

 

[rumblefish360]

Your the only one accounting for gearing trying to broadened the argument.
Since you know that a smaller engine is weaker in torque, you do other things accordingly to adjust for the goal. This is a no brainer! Why even bring it up? It’s ridiculous!!!!!! Moronic!!! Has no place in the talk. It’s so insane, it’s freakin mental!!!!

Bring it up is in my eyes just a way to wiggle out of your loss and twist the topic into a more favorable position for yourself to do what? Save face? WTF is wrong with you?

Oh wait! I already answered that!

YOUR MENTAL!!!!

Dude! YOU proved yourself wrong!
Not me!

Holy Jez!!!!!!!

 

[273]

Your the only one accounting for gearing trying to broadened the argument.
Since you know that a smaller engine is weaker in torque, you do other things accordingly to adjust for the goal. This is a no brainer! Why even bring it up? It’s ridiculous!!!!!! Moronic!!! Has no place in the talk. It’s so insane, it’s freakin mental!!!!

Bring it up is in my eyes just a way to wiggle out of your loss and twist the topic into a more favorable position for yourself to do what? Save face? WTF is wrong with you?

Oh wait! I already answered that!

YOUR MENTAL!!!!

Dude! YOU proved yourself wrong!
Not me!

Holy Jez!!!!!!!

If you don't understand how gearing works and it's effects on the total packed and relates to the hp and torque output to the wheels, then there little hope of you understanding.
And I know you kind of understand cause on another thread you just stated a 318 will need to step up gearing to perform. If you just want to compare dyno numbers then yes your right, more displacement makes more overall torque, don't think anyone would even debate that and no one was. To me it's whats happening at the tire to the ground that's of more importance, I guess that's just me.

 

[James Clews]

Don 't get carried away with peak horsepower! My 410 years ago made 355 rwhp and my sons LS made 460rwhp.Mine was quicker than his. The dyno operator showed me why.
Mine made 345@ 4000rpm 355@5000rpm and 345@6000rpm. That's only 10 hp difference over two thousand revs. His LS @ 4000rpm probably only made about 280 rwhp but made its 450 @ about 7000rpm. through a certain rev range He said average HP is what it is all about not just peak HP. V8 supercar racing in Australia learnt this as When the Nissan and Mercedes engines came in the category everyone thought they would be rocket ships but were always getting beaten coming of corners even though they made more peak HP than the pushrod V8s of ford and chev. They bought new rules in and instead of a peak HP limit they designed a system were the engine were dynoed through a certain rev range and were only allowed to make a certain average HP.No good making a peak number one hundred better than everybody else but your lower revs were crap!

 

[AJ/FormS]

So how does stroke in it's self increase hp ?

Oh, I think I get it......
Are you saying withe two engines of equal displacement?

I thought we were talking about throwing a long arm into an engine and then doing a before and after.

 

[273]

Oh, I think I get it......
Are you saying withe two engines of equal displacement?

I thought we were talking about throwing a long arm into an engine and then doing a before and after.

I mean either really, that dyno of the 302 vs 327 vs 350 made practically the same hp within 3 hp of each other, engine masters done a 410 vs 367 with 8.5 hp difference, no real sign of stroke adding hp to combos.
That's less then 0.02 hp per cid gain or loss in any direction.
And torque is generally equalled out if everything is geared right.

https://www.hotrod.com/articles/stock-vs-stroked-horsepower-test-engine-masters-ep-18/

 

[mini]

I mean either really, that dyno of the 302 vs 327 vs 350 made practically the same hp within 3 hp of each other, engine masters done a 410 vs 367 with 8.5 hp difference, no real sign of stroke adding hp to combos.
That's less then 0.02 hp per cid gain or loss in any direction.
And torque is generally equalled out if everything is geared right.

https://www.hotrod.com/articles/stock-vs-stroked-horsepower-test-engine-masters-ep-18/

But the issue here was they used STOCK turd edelbrock heads. The 360 was already at or near maxing the head flow out.

 

[AJ/FormS]

the longer stroke engine made more low RPM torque thus rasing the HP level at allpoints except the very top where the longer arm always drops off?

This here is a good measuring stick between a 340 and a 360.
Having built a 360 with several different cams, but always at same pressure,and most of the time with 3.55s; I see now that the 3.58 stroke is over powering my tires and chassis no matter which cam it was running. Over the years I have become more tolerant of the 3.31 stroke engines, and next time out I think I will experiment on a 340.
As I have found out, the 360, for my application really is overkill, and I wouldn't mind a lil less torque out of the gate. I know I will be giving up power throughout the most-used part of the powerband, but that's OK, my 360 has too much anyway.
To get some top-end back, I will rethink my cam requirements, and swap to an SFT design.
I will continue to use my GVod as a splitter, and continue to use the Commando box. As for gears; I'll just throw some 3.23s back in there...... for now. lol. Why? Because 60mph=5750 in First-over, maxing out my average power in two ratios, and 65=2030 in overdrive, providing great mileage potential. IDK what I'll use all the other gears for, but I think I can figure something out.
I will continue to run the Eddies, and flat-tops and a Tight-Q. I'm gonna adjust the Scr, to make ~190psi, and as for the Solid-lifter FT cam; I think I'll run a 106 design, with fast ramps and tight lash, and a power peak at ~5200, so maybe around 230@.050; hyup I think I can make that work.
You see how I worked backwards from the gearing? For a streeter, it's all about trying to have the right gear at the right roadspeed,to be in the sweetspot of the TORQUE curve,in second gear cuz;
1) in first you will be smoking thru it anyway so you don't care about HP in first cuz even a 318 can do that. And
2) in second, you will almost never get to the power below 60 mph..... so why do you care about 450 hp at 5500, when even if you dare use 3.91s, this comes to ~75 mph with 27" tires!
With 3.91s, 60mph is ~4500, and so you should be thinking of maximizing your power at 4500!, not 5500.
So let's say that 450@5500 engine makes only 390hp at 4500, then you could build a same-sized 390Hp engine , that will have inherently more torque below the torque peak, and therefore likely make more average power below 4500, and therefore should be quicker in the zero to 60 contest.
And with those 3.91s, 30mph with 27s comes to 3750 in first, 2220 in second. This is so fun to pull up beside your neighbor doing 30 mph at 2220, and then naillng it!
Now with matching cylinder pressure, you can run a lo-stall TC!,and so.... Your rpm at 55 will be 2670@zero-slip, so say you run a 2600; yur all set!

No; you can't brag about your 450 hp Fire-Breathing 1964, 383; but who cares about that, if yur hitting 60 in the low 5s.
Do you want to have fun? Or do you just wanna flash 450hp at the car-shows...

 

[273]

This here is a good measuring stick between a 340 and a 360.
Having built a 360 with several different cams, but always at same pressure,and most of the time with 3.55s; I see now that the 3.58 stroke is over powering my tires and chassis no matter which cam it was running. Over the years I have become more tolerant of the 3.31 stroke engines, and next time out I think I will experiment on a 340.
As I have found out, the 360, for my application really is overkill, and I wouldn't mind a lil less torque out of the gate. I know I will be giving up power throughout the most-used part of the powerband, but that's OK, my 360 has too much anyway.
To get some top-end back, I will rethink my cam requirements, and swap to an SFT design.
I will continue to use my GVod as a splitter, and continue to use the Commando box. As for gears; I'll just throw some 3.23s back in there...... for now. lol. Why? Because 60mph=5750 in First-over, maxing out my average power in two ratios, and 65=2030 in overdrive, providing great mileage potential. IDK what I'll use all the other gears for, but I think I can figure something out.
I will continue to run the Eddies, and flat-tops and a Tight-Q. I'm gonna adjust the Scr, to make ~190psi, and as for the Solid-lifter FT cam; I think I'll run a 106 design, with fast ramps and tight lash, and a power peak at ~5200, so maybe around 230@.050; hyup I think I can make that work.
You see how I worked backwards from the gearing? For a streeter, it's all about trying to have the right gear at the right roadspeed,to be in the sweetspot of the TORQUE curve,in second gear cuz;
1) in first you will be smoking thru it anyway so you don't care about HP in first cuz even a 318 can do that. And
2) in second, you will almost never get to the power below 60 mph..... so why do you care about 450 hp at 5500, when even if you dare use 3.91s, this comes to ~75 mph with 27" tires!
With 3.91s, 60mph is ~4500, and so you should be thinking of maximizing your power at 4500!, not 5500.
So let's say that 450@5500 engine makes only 390hp at 4500, then you could build a 390Hp engine , that will have inherently more torque below the torque peak, and therefore make more average power, below 4500, and therefore should be quicker in the zero to 60 contest.
And with those 3.91s, 30mph with 27s comes to 3750 in first, 2220 in second. Now with matching cylinder pressure, you can run a lo-stall TC!,ans so.... Your rpm at 55 will be 2670@zero-slip, so say you run a 2600; yur all set!

No; you can't brag about your 450 hp Fire-Powered 1964 383 ; but who cares about that, if yur hitting 60 in the low 5s.

On the street,
it's all about the combo

Your approach always made sense to me for most street guys that are not racing their car, and want max fun in short burst from 20-60 mph 1-2 gear stop light to stop light type play.
Street grip never gets to much thought, lot of times were building way too much low end power and car can't hook up. My 360 has no problem smoking the tires in the street, with 2.76 rear gear and it's fairly soft on power under 2000 rpm.
My Uncle use to tell me about his street racing stories, how he'd smoke a lot of big block car that would smoke him at the track but couldn't hook up in the street compared to his built 340 duster.

I like how you keep narrowing down to get your combo just right, more people should do the same and or be prepared to do so unlikely to get right first time around. Sounds like a solid plan.

 

[AJ/FormS]

So what started off as a look see may have turned into a full rebuild... but I may be leaning towards building a mean 318... we will see.

On the street,
it's all about the combo
which IMO, starts with torque to the tire contact patchs. No matter how you slice it, no matter what you call it, or how you measure it ; TORQUE to the road is what moves you out, and the more you got, the quicker it's gonna move out; That is the whole point of gears, transmissions, and Torque-convertors. Those are called TORQUE multipliers for a reason.
_______________________
Ok just for the heck of it; say you had that 455hp engine. And say it made 340 ftlbs at 2600 (168hp for those that want to know), with that tiny 3.375 arm.
At Zero mph, by the time it gets to the road ; it might have been multiplied out like this;
340x1.8(in the TC) x2.45 (in the trans) x3.55(in the rear)=5322 WOT ftlbs to the patches. NOBODY ever calls this 5322x2600/5250=2636hp

Now suppose your 383 made only 390hp at 4500, but it made 355ftlbs at 2600, and say you put 3.91s in the back. This now comes to
355x 1.8 x2.45 x3.91=6120 ftlbs@WOT
>Which combo is better? Too soon to answer, is the correct answer.

Lets look at 32mph in first gear;
With the 3.55s this is ~3630 rpm@WOT. How much torque is that 455 gonna make here? I'll guess at least 420, and I'll guess the TC is down to 1.2 ratio,so
420x1.2 x2.45 x3.55=4384 WOT ftlbs.
How about the 390?
With 3.91s, 32 will be ~4000@WOT. How much torque is this gonna be? IDK lets guess 380, and the TC also at 1.2, and so
380x 1.2 x2.45 x3.91=4368 WOT ftlbs.
>Which combo is better? Too soon to answer, is the correct answer.

What about at the 1-2 shift? This is the big deal.
With 3.55s the 455 engine will drop from 5900 to 3400, and I guess 410 ftlbs, so
410x1.1x1.45x3.55=2320 WOT ftlbs, compared to
with 3.91s the 390hp engine will fall to 2950, and I guess 375ftlbs, and
375x1.1x1.45x3.91=2340@WOT
>Which combo is better? Too soon to answer, is the correct answer.

What about crossing the finish-line at 60mph, in second gear?
the 455er is gonna be at ~4030rpm and guessing 450ftlbs, and the TC at 1.1, so
450x1.1x1.45x3.55=2548 WOT ftlbs
the 390hp engine will be at 4440, peak power so 390x5250/4440=460 ftlbs, and the TC still at 1.1,so
460x1.1x1.45x3.91=2869 WOT ftlbs; wudjalookitdat!
>Which combo is better? Too soon to answer, is the correct answer.

Here is the great Street-Machine leveler
65mph with 3.55s is 2870 at zero slip, and is 3160 with 3.91s, a difference of 290rpm
>Which combo is better?

Now keep in mind, I have no torque curves to work from; and all I got is best guesses and I freely admit it. But the point is not in the numbers exactly, but in what the gears can do for your streeter. And you don't need to be a brain surgeon to see that if you had just one more gear, an overdrive, it would open up a whole new world for both of these combos...........
But it could also introduces another possibility; a less powerful same-sized engine, now running say 4.30s,lol.
Because a streeter is gear-handicapped so badly in the zero to 60 contest, it almost doesn't matter how much power over 300/350 she has; the tires and the car are gonna be the limiting factors, depending on with what exact engine and combo you use to get there.

Here's the thing; at zero mph you don't need 5322 or 6120 ftlbs; those numbers are about double what you need to break loose the biggest street tires you can fit into your wheelwells.
Nor do you need 4300/4400 at 32 mph; At WOT, your tires are still smoking.
At the 1-2 shift, the 390 is keeping right with the 455.
But what is going on at 60 mph! The 390 has jumped ahead!
>So.................. Which combo is better?

Only you can answer that.
With the right gearing, from zero to 60, even a 318 can be a blast.It doesn't run outta steam until it has to start pushing wind. I ran a smogger teen with a 4bbl and headers..... and 4.30s, and it was a hoot!

 

[rumblefish360]

If you don't understand how gearing works and it's effects on the total packed and relates to the hp and torque output to the wheels, then there little hope of you understanding.

And I know you kind of understand cause on another thread

Oh I get gearing very well. It wasn’t part of the discussion of engine torque. Your trying to twist the Situation.