to stroke or not to stroke?

-
Status
Not open for further replies.
I clean out houses for a living, my job sucks crap! so I know bullcrap when I smell it! you read his half assed explanation of how to make 850 foot pounds of torque and only 425hp? because someone gets on the internet and has a bunch of laid out writing and it sounds all good doesn't make it true or werth crap. He questioned our thinking, could I question his??. Bonjour, l'm a supermodel!! so back to it my best time is at 11.88 @ 117mph. moving forward.......?

As I expected, no credentials, and to make my earlier point you want to try to ridicule rather than state your case. LOL! How old are you? Again, you can't come up with facts to refute anything Mad has posted to convince me why he can't make 880 ft lbs of torque. Is it impossible? Nevermind don't give me a bullcrap answer. Atleast you posted your time I'll give you credit for that. You might want to call Madscientist for your next build though.

My best time at the track, Woodburn 1987, finished in 5 minutes flat with a concession girl on her break. MPH unknown?

Proctologist...Stanford Medical Center...I work with a$$h@#es all day! Arrivederci!
 
I built a 408 stroker for my 69 Barracuda a few years back and learnt a lot. Car goes well but my advice is to not build a stroker if you aren't going to put decent cylinder heads on it. I would rather have a 450hp 360 than a 450hp 408, unless you like a motor that doesn't rev as well.

I put stock no porting W2 heads on mine and really wish I had put more time into the heads, car runs out of puff too early, but on the up side has great mid range and sounds like it has a lot less cam than it has.
 
An running engine only makes power (horsepower is the most popular way to rate it). People like to point out that a dyno doesn't measure horsepower but torque. But that's not true a dyno measure torque and at what rpm which we know is horsepower. You can't have one without the other (rpm and torque) there inseparable. Horsepower is the only thing that moves and accelerates your car.

As for the OP stroke or not to stroke depends on many things, cubic inch doesn't directly make power, top end does eg. Carb, heads, intake, headers, cam, bore size etc..
I like to think engine size as a powerband selector.
A bigger engine is gonna make power in a more streetable range. For the most part you want to keep a street engine under 6500 rpm and in the 0.8-1.2 horsepower per cubic inch. If you need more rpm or more hp per cubic inch your gonna needing a larger engine.
 
GMachineDartGT said:
Personally I love my stroker. Wide flat torque curve with good street manners. Mine has around 15" hg vacuum too. See the dyno sheet.
Click to expand...
Oooops...... you posted the wrong slip..... E.T. slip please.... :)
 
J par and I had a conversation about some folks with strokers calling "fish stories" to some folks results with stock stroke motors. I say, because someone spent the money to build a stroker, it doesn't automatically make them the "king fish". I say stock stroke motors can, and do perform extremely well (but I've consistently said stroker motors work and perform), and thus the reason for this thread. We wanted to see E.T.'s, and not to say you should or shouldn't stroke your motor, but just to see results (more results than opinions).
 
krazykuda said:
To stroke a two stroke....
Click to expand...
You know, you bring up an interesting point...... a 1000 cc 4 stroke snowmobile (Yamaha) really performs (and has more torque than a 2 stroke), however, the 1000 cc 2 stroke snowmobile (Arctic Cat Thundercat) has more horse power but less torque than the Yamaha 4 stroke. Both are fast, but equally cc motors, even the smaller cc motors, the 2 stroke (high horsepower, low torque) motors usually win across the fields/lakes. :wack:
 
madscientist said:
Really? Because your point is proven incorrect by none other than HAROLD BETTES of Super Flow fame. Would you agree he's a pretty smart guy? I've met him at least 5 times I remember and talked on the phone with him probably in excess of 40 hours over the years. I know, for a FACT, he is way smarter than I am. And you are posing the opposite of what Bettes teaches. You can buy his book and read it for your self . what he says is this: if you want to see how your torque works, put you car in high gear (must have a full manual valve body or a real trans...a stick) and from a DEAD STOP mash on it. How will that torque work for you then, It will be a pig. Very few combos can run one gear and that is usually fueled by nitro,

If we are going to have this discussion, we at least to be intellectually honest. If you can't do that, I won't respond to this thread again.
Click to expand...

So Mad, dyno's measure what?
(Not a loaded question, just answer it.)
 
273 said:
An running engine only makes power (horsepower is the most popular way to rate it). People like to point out that a dyno doesn't measure horsepower but torque. But that's not true a dyno measure torque and at what rpm which we know is horsepower. You can't have one without the other (rpm and torque) there inseparable. Horsepower is the only thing that moves and accelerates your car.

As for the OP stroke or not to stroke depends on many things, cubic inch doesn't directly make power, top end does eg. Carb, heads, intake, headers, cam, bore size etc..
I like to think engine size as a powerband selector.
A bigger engine is gonna make power in a more streetable range. For the most part you want to keep a street engine under 6500 rpm and in the 0.8-1.2 horsepower per cubic inch. If you need more rpm or more hp per cubic inch your gonna needing a larger engine.
Click to expand...
It's often more practical to look at torque since it tends to be more static- seeing that an engine makes 50 less horsepower at 1000 less RPM doesn't tell you that it will run and pull better, seeing that it makes more torque sooner does. Neither one's irrelevant and neither's unimportant. A motor with strong torque will perform better with less gear, a motor with more horsepower will run stronger up top even if it has to have more gear to get to its peak in the same time.

The two are not the same, and do not uniformly increase together throughout the rpm range. They both have separate peaks, climbs, and ranges. The rest of your post though- absolutely.

318willrun said:
J par and I had a conversation about some folks with strokers calling "fish stories" to some folks results with stock stroke motors. I say, because someone spent the money to build a stroker, it doesn't automatically make them the "king fish". I say stock stroke motors can, and do perform extremely well (but I've consistently said stroker motors work and perform), and thus the reason for this thread. We wanted to see E.T.'s, and not to say you should or shouldn't stroke your motor, but just to see results (more results than opinions).
Click to expand...
Both can run well, and many strong motors are actually small displacement. Strokers seem to really shine in that mid-range, where that high 10s-low 12s area car/truck can retain taller highway gears and have great street manners for driving whether it be everyday or only occasionally.
 
Infecteddog
Both can run well, and many strong motors are actually small displacement. Strokers seem to really shine in that mid-range, where that high 10s-low 12s area car/truck can retain taller highway gears and have great street manners for driving whether it be everyday or only occasionally.[/QUOTE]

this is about exactly how I see it. But some that build strokers feel "like a deer in headlights" when a small displacement motor out runs them, especially on the street.
 
Infecteddog said:
It's often more practical to look at torque since it tends to be more static-
Click to expand...

I total agree with that statement, it's verbally and visually easier to talk and see what's going on in an engines powerband under 5252 rpms through the torque curve. But it's important to realize that your indirectly comparing horsepower. Cause rpm numbers are always part of that comparison either directly or indirectly cause we instinctively know where most torque curve happen in the 1000-5000 range.



Infecteddog said:
seeing that an engine makes 50 less horsepower at 1000 less RPM doesn't tell you that it will run and pull better, seeing that it makes more torque sooner does.
Click to expand...

If you have two engine make the same peak power at the same rpm say 400 hp at 6000 rpm but one has a stronger and flatter torque curve it's will also have more under the curve hp that's why that engine will pull harder cause it makes more overall horsepower not cause of torque.
Cause say you have two engines with identical hp curves but one is a 1000 rpms higher. If you gear and stall them both properly they should be equal performers even though the higher rpm engine will make less torque. Cause both engine be making the same horsepower in the same parts the track.


Infecteddog said:
Neither one's irrelevant and neither's unimportant. A motor with strong torque will perform better with less gear, a motor with more horsepower will run stronger up top even if it has to have more gear to get to its peak in the same time.
Click to expand...

Theres low rpm hp engines (torque engine) and high rpm hp engines (revver engines), but at the end ofthe day it's horsepower that moves and accelerates your car not torque, but torque and rpm are forever link together as hp can't be separated. When you talk about the dynoed torque all your measuring is an engines ability to take a certain lbs-ft load at a certain rpm which is a mesure of the amount of work being done which is horsepower.
 
txstang84 said:
...I'd actually like to know the build profile on an engine that made 425hp and over 800lb/ft of torque...cuz that **** just sounds ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Geezus, I had to go back a few pages because I skipped to ramrod or bumble dip or whoever called me a liar.


If you want to make stupid torque, what would YOU do (because we all know we are ALL engine builders here...or so you claim)?

First, I would start with a piss poor combo to begin with. NOT like a 340, but something with an already long stroke relatively small bore. It helps if it's a GM product because those engineers had to design for a totally different market than Dodge did (just using scenarios here). And, because it's a cheap *** deal and the car will have an OEM sticker price 25% above other cars in the same market, you have got to use a CAST crank for 98.9% of the engines produced. Since the crank is a cast piece of crap, you have to have BIG main bearings (think 360 here...instead of designing a forged crank that would work with the already big enough 340 main bearing...they made the bearing bigger to increase main/rod overlap) and big main bearing HATE RPM. CRAP...we are heading for issues now. Now we have a real, functional red line of about 5800 RPM (thinking GM here) because after that, the crank WILL flex, the bearings WILL fail and you WILL kick a bone out) now we have to compromise cam timing issues. All bad.

Now, looking at the small bores (and we all KNOW that bore size is HP right???? If you don't, you are arguing with Harold Bettes, Jim McFarland and many others) we are HP limited because we can't fit very big valves into that small bore. Air speed goes through the roof, so to compensate, you grind everywhere to slow the air down, but it's still too fast. So, you moev the LSA to try and help. The small bore/long stroke has killed RPM, airflow and HP but it will still make torque.

So, in a nutshell, that's how it's done.

I build strokers all the time. It's how the customer want's it. Not because it's better, but because the media has done it's job selling you crap you don't need for HP you don't make.

If you want more details, send 30k cash to my paypal account and I'll build you 880 TQ and 425 HP.

Then you will have all the flow numbers, dyno sheets, cam card, piston specs....all of. For 30 large.

Pay up or shut up.
 
crackedback said:
HP in a vacuum, as if it's the only thing that matters, will make you a loser in many situations.

Slap an 18000-20000 rpm f1 engine in a 3500# car with a street converter and 3.55's, 28" tires... Yeah it makes 800hp, it won't accelerate for crap until way up in the band. Meanwhile the lower HP, more torque, 6K rpm grunter is going to run away from it out to the 1/8 mile point. Now put 8:1 rear gears, 8 speed trans and 14K rpm converter, suddenly the F1 engine will work better... but only HP matters. :)

What do the gear and trans ratios do? They multiply something, what is it? LOL

HP is a derivative of observed torque. Without TQ, you don't have HP.

Any build decisions should be based upon the desired goals.
Click to expand...


QUOTE "HP is a derivative of observed torque. Without TQ, you don't have HP."


EXACTLY. Well almost. You are close but yet so far away. Let me get you there.


HP is derived from torque...that is correct. So, you can have HP with less torque or you can have HP with more torque and that was the whole point of my post. HP is what counts because when you get a time slip it is broken down by TIME. That is T-I-M-E- for those who read a little slower.


If you have a long stroke, crap rod/stroke ratio and small bore, and then limit RPM by any number of ways, you will skew the numbers on the torque side (torque is higher than it should be) at the expense of HP. If you go the other way, with a shorter stroke, higher rod/stroke ratio and a big bore so you can get bigger valves in the port and make the port right, and then put the RPM's where you think they should be (depends on weight/gearing/tire diameter/clutch settings or converter stall) and the HP will be up and the TQ number will go down.

It's all simple math, except you keyboard warriors never add in TIME. TIME. TIME.

If you do the work faster you did it with HP. It's that simple.
 
rumblefish360 said:
Mad Sci just didn't address one thing, one very small thing

The added torque of the long arm helps get the car moving faster off the line.
This is why strokers are well liked.

2 engines, displacement the same, HP at the big end the same.
The long arm gets off the line easier and quicker. More torque also equals more HP.

You all are getting carried away. Have a nice day fellas and don't forget to breath deeply before typing. ;)

Some say I'm going fishing, I say I'm going wrenching. ;)
Click to expand...


Let me address that right now as you just don't get it.

If your TQ monster stroker king is so good, ditch your transmission and leave in high gear, because the TQ does all the work right? Might as well go direct drive differential as well, you don't need those gears with TQ either do you?


It's just plain STUPID what some people pass off as technology. All you guys who use a head design from the EARLY 1960's, which was developed for 273 CID, with an operating range of 2200-2500 RPM and a redline of maybe, MAYBE 5800 rpm, then add 55-60% MORE displacement, lose rod/stroke ratio and run the RPM's up to day 6500, which is about (roughly) 10% more, and think you are kicking *** are plain fooled. Your transmissions and rear diffs give you away.

So, let me say this about that: If you are hell bent on a stroker here are my guidelines. Take them for what I am charging you for them.

ANY engine designed with production rockers, with MAX porting on the heads and intake (and I mean filler in the heads, welding up the intake and the like) no more than a 3.600 stroke with a 6.250 rod and a max RPM of 6800. Period. If you can use a T/A offset rocker and get the heads and manifold in shape, you can use a 6.123 rod or increase the RPM to a paultry 7200.

Any engine with a W-2 style head would have no more than a 3.800 stroke, a 4.100 bore MINIMUM, big valves, corrected intake. at least a 6.123 rod and about 7500-7800 RPM max. You can certainly go less.

With W-5 stuff you can do about the same, but can easily get to 8200 RPM with the right stuff. If you up the stroke to 4.000 you will need to back the RPM down below 8000. Unless you have a pair and run a tunnel ram. A bigger bore helps.

If you want W-7 info and up, I will give you an address to send cash. Gas, *** or cash, nobody rides for free.

So there you go ramblerod, have I given enough yet? Make sure your bad self ditches all your gear ratios because you have TQ.

God Bless the silly ones.
 
Gee, the formula to compute HP includes a factor related to time. DUH!!!

So who have you actually built any engine for in the past 5 years? Since you question other peoples credentials, how about yours? What was the name of your shop? Was it just dirt bike stuff? :) Who is on your long list of verifiable clients?

Just so you know, I had 9 and 10 second cars in 1984. Wasn't exactly easy back then. Made more money street racing for 3 years than I did working my regular job and not the 12.80 lunch money stuff. Been helping and doing tuning on my stuff and others for a long time.
 
crackedback said:
Gee, the formula to compute HP includes a factor related to time. DUH!!!

So who have you actually built any engine for in the past 5 years? Since you question other peoples credentials, how about yours? What was the name of your shop? Was it just dirt bike stuff? :) Who is on your long list of verifiable clients?

Just so you know, I had 9 and 10 second cars in 1984. Wasn't exactly easy back then. Made more money street racing for 3 years than I did working my regular job and not the 12.80 lunch money stuff. Been helping and doing tuning on my stuff and others for a long time.
Click to expand...

In order:


You know the time part of the equation yet you left it out. Have an agenda?

Build stuff for Bud Brown, John Smith and Ed Jones all the time. Trying to get a Carter to come in but not having any luck. I didn't question credentials at all. Someone called me out. Unless there is a written FABO rule (which I would love to see) I'm not obligated to post customer names and information.

Call Greg Anderson or Warren Johnson and see if they give up their customers and specs. Are we really going to that here on FABO?

Who cares what you did on the 1980's? I lived it and saw lots of 9 second cars that should have went 8's, and many more who spent 6 second money on 10 second cars. When I started doing this I always said I would never do that. I have kept my word.

Lastly, glad you found work as a helper on other people's stuff. I have found it's way cheaper. If your boat is floating than good for you.

Long live 1984.

Viva the mullet.

Hooray for cocain and hookers.

I like pasta.

Got cookies?

Have a swell day.
 
I was pretty sure you'd already made it crystal clear you weren't going to post any particulars, so I just kept my comment as an open-ended one. Did I expect a response? Nope...

And damn sure didn't expect a response like yours...so maybe I should craft one of my own.

(because we all know we are ALL engine builders here...or so you claim)
Click to expand...

Please show me where I said this about myself and I'll happily recant--as a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure over the past couple of decades I've been tooling on cars I've never misrepresented myself as an "engine builder"...I have built a couple dozen and by built, I mean I've taken part in the planning, parts selection, machining, assembly, and testing; but I'm almost positive I've not given myself that title. So, don't twist any words there...I said I'd seen a few builds...that's not the same, so learn to comprehend before you go spouting off like a broken sewer main.

While I personally don't have the same experience level you do, that does not in any way shape or form entitle you to come on here acting like a prick because someone questions your truly fantastic claims. There are a few engine builders on here who've put down some serious hp...and they don't seem to have an issue sharing their hp recipes (well, minus some cam specs, or just exactly what they did to make the flow numbers in the heads) or the dyno sheets...I'd like to hear their perspectives as well...and not just your apparently misplaced ire.

Pay up or shut up.
Click to expand...

Once again, just because I made an open ended curious comment doesn't mean I expect you to actually reply, especially since you'd already made it clear you wouldn't...so, this **** above just plain isn't necessary. I don't owe you a g**damned thing, nor does anyone else on this forum, so you can take that comment and shove it so far up where the sun don't shine, that you get a headache.

Do I have a problem with any of the nuts and bolts details you've mentioned? Not really, but damn dude--you really have a unique style of communication...
 
txstang84 said:
I was pretty sure you'd already made it crystal clear you weren't going to post any particulars, so I just kept my comment as an open-ended one. Did I expect a response? Nope...

And damn sure didn't expect a response like yours...so maybe I should craft one of my own.



Please show me where I said this about myself and I'll happily recant--as a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure over the past couple of decades I've been tooling on cars I've never misrepresented myself as an "engine builder"...I have built a couple dozen and by built, I mean I've taken part in the planning, parts selection, machining, assembly, and testing; but I'm almost positive I've not given myself that title. So, don't twist any words there...I said I'd seen a few builds...that's not the same, so learn to comprehend before you go spouting off like a broken sewer main.

While I personally don't have the same experience level you do, that does not in any way shape or form entitle you to come on here acting like a prick because someone questions your truly fantastic claims. There are a few engine builders on here who've put down some serious hp...and they don't seem to have an issue sharing their hp recipes (well, minus some cam specs, or just exactly what they did to make the flow numbers in the heads) or the dyno sheets...I'd like to hear their perspectives as well...and not just your apparently misplaced ire.



Once again, just because I made an open ended curious comment doesn't mean I expect you to actually reply, especially since you'd already made it clear you wouldn't...so, this **** above just plain isn't necessary. I don't owe you a g**damned thing, nor does anyone else on this forum, so you can take that comment and shove it so far up where the sun don't shine, that you get a headache.

Do I have a problem with any of the nuts and bolts details you've mentioned? Not really, but damn dude--you really have a unique style of communication...
Click to expand...

Let me help you out here tex, cuz you sound butt hurt.


All I did was post real world results of what happens when a customer does something very dumb. And HE paid for it. I gave enough detail that if you had half the experience you think you do, you would know I wasn't making it up. I can post fact after fact of crap that happens every day in the real world that is 100% fiction (like a stroker is always best, when usually it is NOT). I don't care who strokes what.

So for all you hard headed jackasses that think I'm making stuff up, I will tell you that it was a PONTIAC (that should be your FIRST clue) that was well OVER 500CID. I spent over 75 hours on the heads and intake alone, and some PONTIAC gurus didn't agree with what I did, to the point THEy didn't think it would make torque. I spent probably @ hours just on the phone working out the details for the cam, as I don't use SHELF junk EVER. The cam was one of the ways we got it done.

So yes it can be done.

I don't need to expose my customers to this kind of bullshit. Neither will I post engine details that YOU don't pay for.

If you don't like the way I communicate, don't respond to my posts. Evidently, texans don't like straight truth with fun mixed in. A bunch of humorless goofballs I guess..except for Chris Kyle od course.





















See what I did there tex?

Smile. You'll feel better.
 
Come on , post the specs of the pontiac diesel , not like anyone would build one , unless they used it in a tractor pull event .
 
The cam part is easy enough to understand as it's the brains of the engine, and heads being the lungs--all I was alluding to in the first place was that it sounded ridiculous...you apparently took it as a personal affront...I can't help that...to me it sounds like if anyone was butt hurt it was you. As far as the details you gave...what? That it was a GM 500"...? That says next to nothing, and like I said, I don't have your level of experience...if you knew anything about me, I've given up most of the affinity I have for building cars and engines due to my career in the USAF...if I pursued working on cars with as much zeal as I did being a Crew Chief on the B-1, I wouldn't still be in the AF...I'd have hit HYT as a SrA 9 years ago and probably been broke. So, I made choices...and yea you hit the nail on the head--I don't know **** about making as much power as you claim to make...but I also don't go out of my way to talk to people like you do.
 
318willrun said:
J par and I had a conversation about some folks with strokers calling "fish stories" to some folks results with stock stroke motors. I say, because someone spent the money to build a stroker, it doesn't automatically make them the "king fish". I say stock stroke motors can, and do perform extremely well (but I've consistently said stroker motors work and perform), and thus the reason for this thread. We wanted to see E.T.'s, and not to say you should or shouldn't stroke your motor, but just to see results (more results than opinions).
Click to expand...
x2 thank you ! ! But remember we do like worms :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
-

Back
Top