quench vs no quench?

Mopar Performance Issues

  1. moper

    moper Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    15,853
    Likes Received:
    2062
    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Location:
    eastern CT
    Local Time:
    10:31 PM
    Good link.

    Torque is an empirical value: a singular data point you can measure. Horsepower is a calculated value for a series of those data points over a period of time. It's not empirical - you have to calculate it rather than measure it.
     
  2. RustyRatRod

    RustyRatRod I was born on a Monday. Not last Monday. FABO Gold Member

    Messages:
    79,507
    Likes Received:
    57982
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    Local Time:
    5:31 PM
    I'll take a crack at it. The way I see it, quench has one basic purpose. And it's really not to make additional power over a non quench engine. The purpose of quench is to allow an engine to have a higher compression ratio based on the fuel that's available.

    So the way the OP asked the question, the two engines will make about the same power, because the non quench engine is allowed to have fuel so that it does not detonate.

    Both engines have 10:1 compression in the OP's example, but are allowed fuel to where neither will detonate. So the non quench engine probably has 98 or so octane....assuming of course they have iron heads.

    I know a flat top motor may make a little more power because of good flame propagation and all that fancy talk, but that's splittin hairs.

    IMO, the two engines given the parameters the OP described will make very similar power. Of course, I could be wrong.....and if I am I wanna learn why.
     
  3. moturbopar

    moturbopar Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    15
    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Location:
    mesa az
    Local Time:
    3:31 PM
    Yes exactly what I'm asking and wondering about! Thanks! I'm not expecting huge number differences between the two, but since the quench head would most likely need less timing because of the better flame travel would less power be robbed compared to the non quench engine that requires more timing. Since the cylinder fires before the quenched chamber does that extra couple degrees use up some of the torque? Does it have a damper effect, since it has to push through that extra couple degrees to complete the explosion?
     
  4. RustyRatRod

    RustyRatRod I was born on a Monday. Not last Monday. FABO Gold Member

    Messages:
    79,507
    Likes Received:
    57982
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    Local Time:
    5:31 PM
    Less power where? Less timing usually equates to more power up top. More timing usually equates to more power down lower. Usually, but not always and again, the differences are really splitting hairs, IMO. Maybe Jim will chime in and school us on it. I hope so.
     
  5. madscientist

    madscientist Banned

    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    6
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2014
    Location:
    Washington
    Local Time:
    2:31 PM
    Best ya got?

    How 'bout posting something useful?
     
  6. madscientist

    madscientist Banned

    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    6
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2014
    Location:
    Washington
    Local Time:
    2:31 PM
    Here you go, if you really are a "realist" or just a poser. I'll keep it as simple as I can, as i understand that some of you can't deal well with truth.

    Torque is twisting force. HP is time. What do you look at on your time slip? E-lapsed T-ime right? So HP is how much WORK you can do over a measured TIME. It's really simple.

    Here's another for Jerry's crowd. Torque is the twisting force it takes to turn a door knob. HP is how QUICK you turn it.

    What about comparing two different combinations?

    I engine makes about 425 HP and makes 810 or so lbs-ft of torque. And lets say (because you are all realists right?) it's in a 3600 car w/lb driver (don't hate the driver cuz he's fat) and lets say 3000 rpm converter (can you really mash the taters) 27 inch tall tires, a measured engine speed of 5700 rpms (on the dyno..not using your ass to guess on shift points) and a 3.73 gear. What do you have for performance? Say 11.50's or so about 115 MPH.

    Take take the SAME car, everything the same, except you made 650 HP and 450 lbs-ft of torque? Uh-oh batman...I hate when the math makes myths look stupid. You are not at 10 teens or so at about a buck 30 for MPH. Since you lost the stupid long stroke, you can turn this motor 6500 rpm's, using the same tire and a 4.10 gear. you are now using the axle ratio to move the car.

    No matter how you slice it, HP is KING. Make all the torque you want, the TIME SLIP says HP wins.

    And, since school is in, what does Harold Bettes say about torque vs. HP? He says: "The phrase "I would rather have more torque than horsepower"...IS OFTEN-HEARD AND MISGUIDED. Emphasis mine. Quoted from "Engine Airflow" page 4. Look it up. On page 8 he says, and I quote, Commit this one to memory. There is an old saying "there is no replacement for displacement", and although that is NOVEL, it is not necessarily the TRUTH". Emphasis mine.

    I could continue to quote from others, but what else do you need?


    CLASS....................DISMISSED.


















    Now go learn some truth and stop spreading myths. :eek:ops::wack::cheers::banghead:
     
  7. magnumdart

    magnumdart There is a bad moon on the rise.

    Messages:
    3,784
    Likes Received:
    1318
    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2006
    Location:
    Rogers, Arkansas
    Local Time:
    4:31 PM
    I always figure hp=rpm x torque. So a time thing. How fast can you spin all that force.
     
  8. RustyRatRod

    RustyRatRod I was born on a Monday. Not last Monday. FABO Gold Member

    Messages:
    79,507
    Likes Received:
    57982
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    Local Time:
    5:31 PM
    If yall wanna continue the dick size contest about HP and torque, can one of you please make another thread for it? That's getting this one off on a tangent. There's some people that may actually wanna learn what you experts already know.
     
  9. mopower440

    mopower440 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    797
    Likes Received:
    141
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2014
    Location:
    TN.
    Local Time:
    4:31 PM
    I kinda thought you needed them both. 1,000 horsepower with 0 torque would be kinda useless in the 1/4 mile, but maybe good on the salt flats...?
     
  10. mopower440

    mopower440 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    797
    Likes Received:
    141
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2014
    Location:
    TN.
    Local Time:
    4:31 PM
    Back in our dominating dirt track days, we ran this challenger pictured, 440, 4-speed. We had to weigh 300 pounds more than the small block cars. The only mopars were ours and 2 others that also ran BIG BLOCKS and weighed more. The other 20 cars in the class were small block chevies, some were even 400 small blocks, and being small blocks, they didnt have the weight penalty we did. The majority of the small block cars were making more HP than our 440, but we made more torque, and guess who won more races in the area than any of them? WE DID, and the few we didnt, the other 2 mopars, with high torque big blocks did! You could watch it work, we would totally dominate them in the corners and pulling out of the corners and before they started catching up, we were in the corner again! SO, You need torque in racing..unless its a 10 mile race..
    [​IMG]

    Here is a link to our videos if you have an hour or so to watch some good dirt racing being dominated with mopars!
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAMUDV23Ezc"]Mopar Dirt racing, Harper Brothers Racing, Duck river speedway! - YouTube[/ame]
     
  11. magnumdart

    magnumdart There is a bad moon on the rise.

    Messages:
    3,784
    Likes Received:
    1318
    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2006
    Location:
    Rogers, Arkansas
    Local Time:
    4:31 PM
    So back to post one. I have been watching this for one reason. I have a 1974 440-4 engine. I also have in my possession almost every head made for the 383 and 440 in the last 50 years or so, including a set of closed chamber heads I was running on a '66 383 that performed well. On a stock engine would I notice any difference in performance between the closed chamber or say a 906 or similar head? I' m leaning towards the closed chamber head as long as I can be sure the pistons won't slam into them.
     
  12. fishmens67

    fishmens67 FABO Gold Member FABO Gold Member

    Messages:
    11,025
    Likes Received:
    10836
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2012
    Location:
    idaho
    Local Time:
    4:31 PM
    horsepower = torque x rpm divided by 5252. twist it all you like mad science man, but it don't get any easier than that. without torque you have no horsepower.
    I don't play into the internet hide behind a keyboard scene, so I'll save the tough guy talk.
    poser? lmao if you only knew.
    carry on fellas, I'm sorry for the hicup
     
  13. Coronet 500

    Coronet 500 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    93
    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Location:
    Ontario Canada
    Local Time:
    5:31 PM
    Next time I build an engine where my car drives WOT a 1/4 mile at a time going to the store, I'll do it like madscientist suggests.

    Thanks for the class in reality.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • ssba

      ssba Well-Known Member

      Messages:
      2,271
      Likes Received:
      363
      Joined:
      Dec 29, 2009
      Location:
      rensselaer in
      Local Time:
      4:31 PM
      Like most of you I've been watching this and been waiting for someone to address the quench
      VS no quench question.
      I am no engine or head guru but it was always my understanding that using a quench
      style combustion chamber could be used to speed up the burn of the fuel mixture.
      This was supposed to allow for more compression without detonation for a particular
      octane. The cooler the intake charge the better. I do know the engine should be built
      around this design. All high performance engines should be well planned.
      I don't think the question is if it is a better design but more how much better for your particular engine.
      I wish I had one built using the quench chamber to give you this answer but I don't.
      The next engine I build will. Hope someone who has one up and running can give all
      of us their take.
       
    • AJ/FormS

      AJ/FormS 68 B'cuda fb, Form S clone ... 367/A833/3.55s

      Messages:
      21,773
      Likes Received:
      9027
      Joined:
      Jan 19, 2014
      Location:
      South-Central Manitoba,Canada, 900ftelevation
      Local Time:
      4:31 PM
      I run a 366sbm@ 10.7c/r with al heads, KB-107s and .035 quench,mostly street. No biggy. I run it on E-87.It doesnt seem to care if the power timing is 32 to 36.I cant tell the difference. For 125000 miles. Some of them at WOT. well, maybe lots of them.Well, not whole miles;Its not a Nascar engine. But you know; Slamming through the gears, til you run out of revs.
      -For a while I dropped the quench to about .016, which upped the c/r to 11.1. Man, that thing barked at .016.
      -Either way, it never knocked with full timing and that E-10 .
      -Just saying.
       
    • madscientist

      madscientist Banned

      Messages:
      167
      Likes Received:
      6
      Joined:
      Sep 29, 2014
      Location:
      Washington
      Local Time:
      2:31 PM
      Hey hero, just pointed out the FACTS, the TRUTH.

      Again, look at the scenario I posted. It's really that simple.
      And if some dude with a dirt car won a bunch of races because he had more torque...that's a joke. More than likely it was his set up.

      You can keep posting myths, but I am sure you aren't as smart as Harold Bettes, Jim McFarland and a host of others. I only quoted Bettes because I had it handy.

      To keep on topic....quench is NOT nearly as important as guys make it. You can try and squeeze it down and cos t yourself much more in the long run.

      Friggin chrysler guys and living in the stoned age.
       
    • madscientist

      madscientist Banned

      Messages:
      167
      Likes Received:
      6
      Joined:
      Sep 29, 2014
      Location:
      Washington
      Local Time:
      2:31 PM
      You do need both. But 425 HP with 800 lb-ft of torque will NEVER be as fast as 600 HP with 450 lb-ft of torque.

      I laugh when I see dyno numbers where an engine is making 550 TQ and 415 HP. It my make you THINK you are fast but in the real world........

      And FWIW...quench is OVERRATED. If it's less than .060 or so, and you're not trying to run down Jason Line for the money, spend your time and money somewhere else.
       
    • madscientist

      madscientist Banned

      Messages:
      167
      Likes Received:
      6
      Joined:
      Sep 29, 2014
      Location:
      Washington
      Local Time:
      2:31 PM
      Really?

      UN-BE-LEAVE-A-ABLE the ignorant crap people post.
       
    • RustyRatRod

      RustyRatRod I was born on a Monday. Not last Monday. FABO Gold Member

      Messages:
      79,507
      Likes Received:
      57982
      Joined:
      Jun 7, 2010
      Location:
      Georgia
      Local Time:
      5:31 PM
      What's unbelievable is, you coming on here like you know the world and talking as down to people as humanly possible. Can you be any more condescending?

      Another A-hole for my ignore list.
       
      • Like Like x 1
      • Coronet 500

        Coronet 500 Well-Known Member

        Messages:
        434
        Likes Received:
        93
        Joined:
        Dec 24, 2011
        Location:
        Ontario Canada
        Local Time:
        5:31 PM
        Why thank you madscientist.

        I will continue to be as ignorant as possible to you when the opportunity presents itself.
         
      • madscientist

        madscientist Banned

        Messages:
        167
        Likes Received:
        6
        Joined:
        Sep 29, 2014
        Location:
        Washington
        Local Time:
        2:31 PM

        Cool. Glad I made the "list". But the fact is, all I did was call out a foolish remark. If you think torque is the MOST important thing in the world, then have at it. Been at this a long time, and some are slow to get on the bus.

        For the record, I'm not an "A-hole", just SICK TO DEATH of people repeating stupid crap and no one calling it crap.

        Quench...I already answered that too. If you think you must have .040 or less, get on it. You won't find jack crap on 99.9% of the engines EVER made. Won't fix your tune up, but it may help with emissions.

        Gawd already, build a big stroke, small bore engine, have all the torque you want. but the ET slips show HORSEPOWER.

        Grow up.

        Dam, now I'm pissed....your on my list:coffee2:
         
      • moparlover

        moparlover Well-Known Member

        Messages:
        2,617
        Likes Received:
        24
        Joined:
        Dec 17, 2011
        Location:
        hagerstown, md
        Local Time:
        5:31 PM
        quench is good.

        as far as preferring hp over torque, to each his own

        i can tell you on my 400 cheap bb build i have 450 ft lbs from 3500 all the way to 6000

        that's a nice powerband

        you could make a small high revvin motor, with some good power band from 6000 to 7500 or something but you kinda need to decide what you want. not as much fun on the street. it's more for all out racing. bb thumper motors with lots of torque are fun. i guess on a motorcycle the high revs / high rpm is fun, they get there so fast because of their light weight.

        i know hp wins races but that comes with high rpms and a price... you need to do the maintenance. all the winning teams spend their off time checking all the parts over. runnin 8, 9, 10 grand rpms. some disassemble the engines every week.

        it's all what you want out of your car. more important than torque vs. hp by the way is rod/stroke ratio. my little 400 has a 1.88 r/s ratio. should be plenty powerful for me and last a long time. having a low rod/stroke ratio introduces harmonics at tdc that are bad, and at higher rpms it's bad squared. there is lots of theory involved
        http://ftlracing.com/rsratio.htm
         
      • Heywodja

        Heywodja The Heartbeat Stops Here FABO Gold Member

        Messages:
        925
        Likes Received:
        556
        Joined:
        Aug 16, 2014
        Location:
        Texas
        Local Time:
        4:31 PM
        Bench racing at it's finest folks!
         
      • moparlover

        moparlover Well-Known Member

        Messages:
        2,617
        Likes Received:
        24
        Joined:
        Dec 17, 2011
        Location:
        hagerstown, md
        Local Time:
        5:31 PM
        lmao all we need now is to bring oil viscosity into the discussion

        yeah buddy
         
      • crackedback

        crackedback FABO Gold Member FABO Gold Member

        Messages:
        18,160
        Likes Received:
        3465
        Joined:
        Aug 7, 2005
        Location:
        92201
        Local Time:
        2:31 PM
        Hey..
         

        Attached Files:

      1. This site uses cookies to help personalize content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
        By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.