High Reving
04-05-2003, 05:47 PM
#21
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Fresno/Chico
Posts: 3,427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: High Reving
Let me use some auto math, if I may, just to keep the debate going:
62 cubic inches in 1.0 liters
SO
6.0 X 62 = 372 cid
372 (cid) X 6000 (rpm) = 2,232,000
4.8 X 62 = 297.6 cdi
297.6 (cdi) X 7500 (rpm) = 2,232,00
The smaller 4.8 at a higher RPM is mover the same amount of air as the 6.0 at a lower RPM
62 cubic inches in 1.0 liters
SO
6.0 X 62 = 372 cid
372 (cid) X 6000 (rpm) = 2,232,000
4.8 X 62 = 297.6 cdi
297.6 (cdi) X 7500 (rpm) = 2,232,00
The smaller 4.8 at a higher RPM is mover the same amount of air as the 6.0 at a lower RPM
04-05-2003, 06:41 PM
#22
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Fresno/Chico
Posts: 3,427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: High Reving
P.S. I know that the 6.0 is rounded up to a 6.0 its cdi is actually 364
( 364 X 6000 = 2,184,000 )
So when using this ^ number the 4.8 is moving MORE air, I took the liberty of rounging up to keep the answer the same in the above post.
( 364 X 6000 = 2,184,000 )
So when using this ^ number the 4.8 is moving MORE air, I took the liberty of rounging up to keep the answer the same in the above post.
04-05-2003, 07:32 PM
#23
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: CLARKSVILLE,TN
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: High Reving
I once owned a 1965 chevy pickup with that old school 327 (actually a 350 block with 307 crank) and it was such a slug. Even after I put a stall in it, it ran a 10.11 in the 1/8th. Anyway I sold the truck to a friend who built up a 350 and threw in it and I couldn't believe the difference, I mean this thing would roast the tires and haul serious ***.
Those 69 Z's with the 302's were great for what they were designed for, running a road coarse. But remeber the OTHER Camaros built for dragging such as the copo's and the Yenco's. They all had big engines with monster torque.
A wise man once said, "Horsepower sells engines but torque wins races". <img border="0" alt="[judgement]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_judge.gif" />
Those 69 Z's with the 302's were great for what they were designed for, running a road coarse. But remeber the OTHER Camaros built for dragging such as the copo's and the Yenco's. They all had big engines with monster torque.
A wise man once said, "Horsepower sells engines but torque wins races". <img border="0" alt="[judgement]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_judge.gif" />
04-05-2003, 10:01 PM
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: High Reving
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by JWRENCH:
<strong> A wise man once said, "Horsepower sells engines but torque wins races". <img border="0" alt="[judgement]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_judge.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">are u a Ford fan, cuz i got ford freinds that always say that. ive never seen it prove itself once, the car with more hp always wins... especialy in a street race when traction is such an issue. just take the chevy 5.3 and the ford 5.4 for example. 5.3 would kill it. end of conversation. i never want to here that wise man saying again <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
<strong> A wise man once said, "Horsepower sells engines but torque wins races". <img border="0" alt="[judgement]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_judge.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">are u a Ford fan, cuz i got ford freinds that always say that. ive never seen it prove itself once, the car with more hp always wins... especialy in a street race when traction is such an issue. just take the chevy 5.3 and the ford 5.4 for example. 5.3 would kill it. end of conversation. i never want to here that wise man saying again <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
04-05-2003, 10:48 PM
#25
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Azle/Saginaw, Tx
Posts: 5,581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: High Reving
golden velvet, that hole thing about moving more air means nothing. it is simple, very simple...a 6.0 at 6,000 rpm and a 4.8 at 7,500 rpm aren't a fair competition...the 6.0 will blow the 4.8 away. DISPLACMENT is key when making OPTIMUM horsepower. there is nothing wrong with the 4.8 it's a great motor...but with equal mods with a 4.8 and a 6.0 being given and the 4.8 getting the extra 1,500 rpm to spin, the 6.0 will still make more power due to the bigger stroke and bore. that's just how it is. take that 4.8, throw in a tr220 cam and some good springs...a set of ported 5.3 heads and some long tubes and a 3600-4000 stall and some 4.10s and you'll have a beast....then spray the hell out of it. that should suffice until you decide to build a bigger cube motor.
Matt
Matt
04-06-2003, 05:47 PM
#26
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Fresno/Chico
Posts: 3,427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: High Reving
Dont get me wrong slowverado Im all about the BIG motor, I just like the bench-racing debate. It would be far cheaper (and easier) to get power out of a big motor. I will swap in a 5.7 when the warenty runs out.
Never the less: My evil-exgirlfriends supercharged honda made just shy of 300HP on race gas, and would run with a 300HP F-body.
1.6 Liters of 300HP = 5.7 liters of 300HP
Now there are some other facts that made the very small Honda motor run with the big F-body (like the weight difference, frontal area, and all that good stuff) So its not a fair comparison, however the point is valid
300HP IS 300HP
Never the less: My evil-exgirlfriends supercharged honda made just shy of 300HP on race gas, and would run with a 300HP F-body.
1.6 Liters of 300HP = 5.7 liters of 300HP
Now there are some other facts that made the very small Honda motor run with the big F-body (like the weight difference, frontal area, and all that good stuff) So its not a fair comparison, however the point is valid
300HP IS 300HP
04-06-2003, 09:21 PM
#27
TECH Junkie
Re: High Reving
You guys compairing the 4.8 to 302 Z28 motor don't understand that the Z28 motor was built to 302CID to meet the rules to race the TransAm racing series.When the rules changed they went to 350CID and a higher hp and tq rating.I guess I'm showing my age,but smaller and higher revimg are only better when there's not another option.Torque is the key and bigger displacement means more torque output.
04-07-2003, 12:36 AM
#28
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: High Reving
ok but lets think about this what if we do throw in the turbo then we dont' have to worry about the torque not to mention the fact that no one has done this yet and it would be very interesting and also by doing this you dont shift as much on the track or you could run bigger gear so i might just do this if someone wants to swap cranks with me i'll do it but i also need a 6.0 block anyone want to trade?
marc
marc
04-07-2003, 11:42 AM
#29
Tech Fanatic
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 795
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: High Reving
my statement about the camaro 302 was simply to point out that a high reving chevy v8 has been used for racing applications.
You state "....smaller and higher revimg are only better when there's not another option." I have a feeling that some of the people on this forum that have 4.8's do not want to swap out there engines to a larger cube engine. This may be one reason why a high reving 4.8 topic was discussed.
anyway just my 3 1/2 cents. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />
You state "....smaller and higher revimg are only better when there's not another option." I have a feeling that some of the people on this forum that have 4.8's do not want to swap out there engines to a larger cube engine. This may be one reason why a high reving 4.8 topic was discussed.
anyway just my 3 1/2 cents. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />
04-07-2003, 01:23 PM
#30
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: High Reving
matt what happened to the iron block is better theory? lol sorry i'm keeping the aluminum block i know it is better plus it is lighter than the iron block
marc
marc