Car Craft Little Bro 5.3
08-31-2004, 09:24 PM
#21
On The Tree
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Yelo
Actually, Horsepower is Torque times RPM divided by 5252....if your torque sucks (relatively speaking) but your RPM's are way up there you'll still make good HP. This is the reason why longer duration cams make power higher up and diesels will NEVER have killer horsepower (1500ft-lbs and 500hp is pretty common).
If you look at ANY dyno graph the place where HP and TQ meet is at 5252rpms....which is why you will NEVER see a diesel dyno graph with crossing lines
If you look at ANY dyno graph the place where HP and TQ meet is at 5252rpms....which is why you will NEVER see a diesel dyno graph with crossing lines
08-31-2004, 10:37 PM
#23
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Arizona Bay
Posts: 4,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read that article too, and I thought that engine was a turd, for a few reasons: 1. Stock 5.3 heads won't flow for **** at .631" of lift. 2. The engine didn't get back ALL the torque it lost until 4200rpm. 3. They lost 57ft-lbs at 2200, 50ft-lbs at 2400 and 31ft-lbs at 2600. 4. This engine will just suck in a heavy SSR. 5. Did I mention it lost a **** ton of torque?!?
Hey, I'm all for given up a little torque to get a lot of top end, but come on. They keep using the term "truck" throughout the article. Well if that's what they're putting this in, then have fun. Maybe porting the snot out of those heads will make them flow better, but damn.
They didn't even mention how many inches of vacuum the GT-1 cam pulled. You can kiss your power brakes goodbye. I would just love to hear that damn thing trying to idle with 242* duration.
I usually love Car Craft articles. I've only had beef with a few in the past, but this one really pissed me off. CC preaches that it's not all about peak hp and tq fiqures, its area under the curve. If anyone from CC is reading this: practice what you preach! It's called Car Craft, so maybe they should stick to cars. So if your reading this CC, and you want help, let me know, I'll be graduating in May.
Hey, I'm all for given up a little torque to get a lot of top end, but come on. They keep using the term "truck" throughout the article. Well if that's what they're putting this in, then have fun. Maybe porting the snot out of those heads will make them flow better, but damn.
They didn't even mention how many inches of vacuum the GT-1 cam pulled. You can kiss your power brakes goodbye. I would just love to hear that damn thing trying to idle with 242* duration.
I usually love Car Craft articles. I've only had beef with a few in the past, but this one really pissed me off. CC preaches that it's not all about peak hp and tq fiqures, its area under the curve. If anyone from CC is reading this: practice what you preach! It's called Car Craft, so maybe they should stick to cars. So if your reading this CC, and you want help, let me know, I'll be graduating in May.
08-31-2004, 11:13 PM
#24
On The Tree
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=vanillagorilla]
They didn't even mention how many inches of vacuum the GT-1 cam pulled. You can kiss your power brakes goodbye. I would just love to hear that damn thing trying to idle with 242* duration.
QUOTE]
not me i have a stock vacuum pump on my brakes lol
They didn't even mention how many inches of vacuum the GT-1 cam pulled. You can kiss your power brakes goodbye. I would just love to hear that damn thing trying to idle with 242* duration.
QUOTE]
not me i have a stock vacuum pump on my brakes lol
09-01-2004, 05:15 AM
#25
Launching!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hefdaddy007
actually torque and rpm is hp
Torque * RPM
Horsepower = ------------
5252
Torque * RPM
Horsepower = ------------
5252
As for the weak torque, I'd just get a stall converter. Problem solved. I mean roughly $1700-2000 (cam, headers, stall) for 100 hp and an awsome launch isn't that bad. It seems like thats what alot of much more expensive superchargers do.
Of course I am in a rather light, and pretty gutted truck with 4.10 gears, so I don't worry about torque. What do I need torque for? I already burn out bad.
09-01-2004, 05:51 AM
#26
TECH Addict
Thread Starter
iTrader: (18)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Northeast, NJ
Posts: 2,373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't remember the article saying anything about fly cutting the pistons for either cam or wether it was run with accessories. I'll post up the complete dyno charts when I get home. I'll admit that I did just read the article and quickly scanned the charts.
What I do wish they would do is keep this engine and start stabbing every cam in the book in it and test them. I'd love for them to put it in a truck and test it, but at Car Craft, that will never happen.
What I do wish they would do is keep this engine and start stabbing every cam in the book in it and test them. I'd love for them to put it in a truck and test it, but at Car Craft, that will never happen.
09-01-2004, 07:37 AM
#27
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Newport News, Va
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tdrumm
I don't remember the article saying anything about fly cutting the pistons for either cam or wether it was run with accessories. I'll post up the complete dyno charts when I get home. I'll admit that I did just read the article and quickly scanned the charts.
What I do wish they would do is keep this engine and start stabbing every cam in the book in it and test them. I'd love for them to put it in a truck and test it, but at Car Craft, that will never happen.
What I do wish they would do is keep this engine and start stabbing every cam in the book in it and test them. I'd love for them to put it in a truck and test it, but at Car Craft, that will never happen.
09-01-2004, 11:51 AM
#29
On The Tree
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bloomfield, NJ
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the article they just did the cam swap. Nothing was done internally. Stock pushrods and rockers just changed the springs. I posted something about this a few weeks ago in the internal section. The major problem is the extreme loss of low end. I mean great numbers and all but come on.. in my 6000lb truck lossing 50ft lbs at the crank would absolutley kill my milage and movement. Even with a high stall the truck would be a dog.
Thats why I gave up on doing the CC build up. I am just going with a tuned PCM for now and calling it a day. trying to get 6000lbs to move without a turbo or S/C is just pissing in the wind if you ask me.
Thats why I gave up on doing the CC build up. I am just going with a tuned PCM for now and calling it a day. trying to get 6000lbs to move without a turbo or S/C is just pissing in the wind if you ask me.
09-01-2004, 12:36 PM
#30
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Arizona Bay
Posts: 4,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bonedog
According to the article they just did the cam swap. Nothing was done internally. Stock pushrods and rockers just changed the springs. I posted something about this a few weeks ago in the internal section. The major problem is the extreme loss of low end. I mean great numbers and all but come on.. in my 6000lb truck lossing 50ft lbs at the crank would absolutley kill my milage and movement. Even with a high stall the truck would be a dog.
Thats why I gave up on doing the CC build up. I am just going with a tuned PCM for now and calling it a day. trying to get 6000lbs to move without a turbo or S/C is just pissing in the wind if you ask me.
Thats why I gave up on doing the CC build up. I am just going with a tuned PCM for now and calling it a day. trying to get 6000lbs to move without a turbo or S/C is just pissing in the wind if you ask me.
