stroker vs. non-stroker (here we go again!?)
- Thread starter j par
- Start date
-
fnaramore
POWEEERRRRRR
Yeah I'm really just rounding off to an over-square vs. under-square engine there. I take it more as same displacement engine but getting there through stroking or boring. If it's just stroking or nothing at all, then yeah valves won't change; but how is it even a real question at the point, why not stroke? Lol
fnaramore
POWEEERRRRRR
I'm not saying it's critical "oh no my engine can't rev above 5000 cause it's stroked" kind of thing, but get that stroke long enough it's going to start having effect. As for the second part, yes valves are as much as part of the breathing as... about the whole engine. So a big valve can be ruined be other bad parts as much as a drivetrain can be ruined with a bad tranny or rear-end. If we are going that deep into hypotheticals, a good stroker can be ruined by a bad crank... just in case that wasnt considered
txstang84
Well-Known Member
Regardless of what was or wasn't [hypothetically] considered, you made an assertion that a longer stroke engine cannot rev as high...I replied that your statement is simply inaccurate. I never paraphrased what you said.
The effects of stroke length in regard to RPM are rod ratio piston speed and dynamic CR...the RPM limits imposed by an increased stroke--all else being equal--would be a lowered peak power RPM...but that still doesn't mean the engine cannot *reach* the same RPM as a shorter stroke engine...hypothetically speaking.
You're making hyperbole of what I said when it comes to the valve size bit. If improving flow that greatly were simply a matter of hogging out the seats for bigger valves, the first and only thing people would do with a set of J heads would be to drop in some 2.08s/1.65s...it's not that simple, and that's the point I was driving home. You can indeed do that, but the ports will still stall out long before .500" lift on the top end, and it wouldn't do a great deal to improve the low/mid lift numbers which is where the all that "under the curve" bit comes from. Peak flow is nice, but if you can't boost the low/mid lift numbers, the peak doesn't help much--especially if the top end of lift is stalling out the port.
The effects of stroke length in regard to RPM are rod ratio piston speed and dynamic CR...the RPM limits imposed by an increased stroke--all else being equal--would be a lowered peak power RPM...but that still doesn't mean the engine cannot *reach* the same RPM as a shorter stroke engine...hypothetically speaking.
You're making hyperbole of what I said when it comes to the valve size bit. If improving flow that greatly were simply a matter of hogging out the seats for bigger valves, the first and only thing people would do with a set of J heads would be to drop in some 2.08s/1.65s...it's not that simple, and that's the point I was driving home. You can indeed do that, but the ports will still stall out long before .500" lift on the top end, and it wouldn't do a great deal to improve the low/mid lift numbers which is where the all that "under the curve" bit comes from. Peak flow is nice, but if you can't boost the low/mid lift numbers, the peak doesn't help much--especially if the top end of lift is stalling out the port.
ir3333
Well-Known Member
i have seen the long stroke/short stroke rev argument many times.As you say the long stroke will have an effect on how quickly an engine can rev.The further the piston has to travel the longer it will take for one revolution...it's just physics.
dont need no stinking time slips...I got video...
couple of mild stock stroke 360....10.5 compression...flat tappet cams...
dart ran 10.31....duster ran 10.69 in this video but have another video with the 10.65.....Pretty sure the Duster in Bakersfield now would run 10.50s...or faster...as it has run 10.78 out here in Vegas...
So step up to the plate......I read about big HP numbers from Dynos....but never seen any time slips....
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrjHE76EknE"]bakerboth 01 01 - YouTube[/ame]
Stock stroke 10.31 :cheers:
(by the way, i'm not against strokers, just when stroker owners call "fish" stories to stock stroke motors getting it done)
If you stroke too much...
fnaramore
POWEEERRRRRR
Let me start off with that I wasn't trying to come off as hostile or anything, I just enjoy making hyperboles out if your statements lol. It is simple physics though. Your piston is traveling a greater distance, therefore it takes more time; which in turn lowers peak torque rpm, which means less worthwhile high rpms which could be considered lowering the rpms. Use it could (hypothetical) reach these rpms, but to what point?
As for the valves, you're not wrong what some ever. I was not trying to say that large valves are the only thing that matters. But if you take two engines, increase both to displacement x, one through boring and one through stroking, you can get larger valves in the bored engine. Is that useful in some cases? Yes. Is there a limit to what's useful? Yes. As with about ever part of the engine there is a useful amount and too much.
j par
Well-hung Member
Yes videos count ! And appreciated !!
j par
Well-hung Member
j par
Well-hung Member
If I'm the judge this post has first place so far! Lol
txstang84
Well-Known Member
No intended hostility here either...just speaking plainly. If that came off hostile, well...dunno what to tell you there. But, just like ir3333, you guys are mixing the difference between engine speed and engine acceleration. You guys are also assuming the ONLY difference between these two hypothetical engines is the stroke. IF the only difference was stroke, then perhaps the longer stroke engine wouldn't rev as quickly, and it's power peak would be at a lower RPM--that concept isn't lost on me. But the fact is, that's not what you typed in your first post. You said it wouldn't rev as high...and that's where you left it.
Cheers man...I'm outta this convo...cuz I've watched this same stupid discussion pan out on at least three or four other forums I used to frequent...and this one is no different in that regard.
Here's some food for thought though...Tell me what the fastest engines in drag racing are...
Cheers man...I'm outta this convo...cuz I've watched this same stupid discussion pan out on at least three or four other forums I used to frequent...and this one is no different in that regard.
Here's some food for thought though...Tell me what the fastest engines in drag racing are...
txstang84
Well-Known Member
Noted-what lane were you?
Not me vs YOU, but stroker E.T's and stock stroke E.T.'s, and your loosing 11.88 vs. 10.31Time slips please ! ??? YOUR OWN ! ???
lol
j par
Well-hung Member
The slow loser of course!
My goal was not to red light for the third time boy did I get that one correct!
j par
Well-hung Member
11.83 or have you been stroking too? They say it's bad for your eyesight! LolNot me vs YOU, but stroker E.T's and stock stroke E.T.'s, and your loosing 11.88 vs. 10.31
Zing-pow! Lol
j par
Well-hung Member
^^^ ya it's well known my suspension sucks = 1.76 60ft time. Please, I've seen molasses pour out of a jar faster! I've gotten a long way from the shell I brought home on a u haul trailer 14 months ago. Give me 14 more and I'll see if I can't clean that time slip up a little.
Naw, I like your project. I like the old sckool dual quads & 4 speed. I also like your mph.... means your making some power along the way.
j par
Well-hung Member
^^^ i bought this truck 3 years ago for $800. I wish i still had it to enter you friendly race. Worthless to haul a load but lots of fun to drive. I had to sell it as I had no room for a truck i couldn't make money with.
I know that my combo is not near the fastest, but for the combo I run with the class rules, it runs pretty good. I imagine it would go quite a bit quicker if I could get off the line under full power. 427 cu in. , goes through the traps around 7000-7200rpm. Should reset the record this fall. So far 10.79 w/ best mph 125.5mph
Wow! That's a lot of truck for 800 bucks. 4bbl, intake & headers and all! Speak'n of Rumblefish's cheap friendly race, I'm the only one that made a pass and it's about July... lol. Oh well, I need to get my truck back down there. I've done the upgrades about 6 weeks ago, haven't had chance to get back between the rain and me being busy busy busy.
I know that my combo is not near the fastest, but for the combo I run with the class rules, it runs pretty good. I imagine it would go quite a bit quicker if I could get off the line under full power. 427 cu in. , goes through the traps around 7000-7200rpm. Should reset the record this fall. So far 10.79 w/ best mph 125.5mph
I really like it!!! Are You Kidding Me ???? 10.79 at 125 mph with manifolds???? TQ??? Looks like a 14 second engine compartment and goes 10's. What a NICE Look'n car that will exceed anyones expectations.... Great Job on an awesome look'n car!!! :headbang:
Scampin, love ur car. Jpar and 318 will run, you guys are both funny, make this thread entertaining. I will say I am impressed with 70aarcuda and his 360's.that dude has got his cars dialed in, he would be a great guy to learn from.
-
