Pennock's Fiero Forum
  General Fiero Chat
  Engine size vs. power (Page 3)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Email This Page to Someone! | Printable Version

This topic is 6 pages long:  1   2   3   4   5   6 
Previous Page | Next Page
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Engine size vs. power by 85fieroguy
Started on: 09-20-2015 12:58 PM
Replies: 206 (1978 views)
Last post by: dobey on 10-02-2015 10:03 PM
dobey
Member
Posts: 11572
From:
Registered: Sep 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 371
User Banned

Report this Post09-23-2015 05:43 PM Click Here to See the Profile for dobeySend a Private Message to dobeyEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by 2.5:

After this we should talk torque converters and gears


Sports cars don't have torque converters.
IP: Logged
engine man
Member
Posts: 5246
From: Lebanon NH
Registered: Mar 2006


Feedback score: (5)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post09-23-2015 06:18 PM Click Here to See the Profile for engine manClick Here to Email engine manSend a Private Message to engine manEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
sorry for sounding condescending but i hate to see wrong info so every one who wants to build a great engine get the info from the pros ask them question and listen to what they say read there books watch there videos but i have found that TV show leave allot out and magazine don't always get it right
IP: Logged
olejoedad
Member
Posts: 14417
From: Clarendon Twp., MI
Registered: May 2004


Feedback score: (5)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 192
Rate this member

Report this Post09-23-2015 06:36 PM Click Here to See the Profile for olejoedadClick Here to Email olejoedadSend a Private Message to olejoedadEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Anyone remember the Car & Driver road test comparison between the Ferrari and the turbocharged 4.3L Typhoon?
Guess who won?
IP: Logged
dobey
Member
Posts: 11572
From:
Registered: Sep 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 371
User Banned

Report this Post09-23-2015 06:45 PM Click Here to See the Profile for dobeySend a Private Message to dobeyEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by engine man:

sorry for sounding condescending but i hate to see wrong info so every one who wants to build a great engine get the info from the pros ask them question and listen to what they say read there books watch there videos but i have found that TV show leave allot out and magazine don't always get it right


And look at the 3800 turbo cars on this very forum making 900 HP, hitting 9s in the 1/4 mile, and using stock bottom end and stock unported cylinder heads.

Yes, CFM is important, but so are a lot of other things, and simply concentrating on CFM will lead you to a land of diminishing returns. And yes, there are limits that certain engines may overcome and thus necessitate larger ports that flow more. Comparing the needs of a top fuel engine, to the needs of a typical gasoline engine, is just way off base. The air/fuel ratio on a top fuel engine is about 1.7:1, and the blower is compressing the mixture so much that it's an almost solid mass being pushed into the cylinder. It runs at almost the point of hydrolocking, and ignition happens from compression and the heat in the heads, after about 2 seconds at full throttle. The physics for such a mixture are very different from the 14.7:1 stoichiometric AFR value for standard gasoline engines.

Yes, 2 HP / CFM is a generalization of what you can expect if you can actually use all the CFM and spin high enough RPM to make that HP. But there's a lot more involved, if you want to talk about real world results.
IP: Logged
engine man
Member
Posts: 5246
From: Lebanon NH
Registered: Mar 2006


Feedback score: (5)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post09-23-2015 07:23 PM Click Here to See the Profile for engine manClick Here to Email engine manSend a Private Message to engine manEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
2 hp per cfm is V8 engine not 4 cylinder or 6 cylinder or 12 cylinder as you have to do the math to see how much for you number of cylinders your engine has as for th 900 hp 3800 who has that because there is no proof that any one running a stock unported headed 3800 is making that type of power maybe 700 at really high boost . let me try with an example for a boosted engine let say you have a 400hp NA V8 with 200 cfm heads now you boost it to 14.8 psi so in theory the power should double right now lets take the same engine and just change the heads to 250 cfm intakes now it should in theory make 500 hp NA and if you boost it to the same 14.8 it in theory should now have 1000 HP but of course you could boost the first engine to a higher boost to make up for the lack of cylinder head flow but you will also have added heat to the intake charge with higher boost so it is harder to fight detonation and you have a less dense intake charge

[This message has been edited by engine man (edited 09-23-2015).]

IP: Logged
Silvertown
Member
Posts: 440
From: Las vegas
Registered: Sep 2015


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

User Banned

Report this Post09-23-2015 09:12 PM Click Here to See the Profile for SilvertownClick Here to Email SilvertownSend a Private Message to SilvertownEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by dobey:


Back in the day as in 1999. Just because Pontiac the company doesn't exist any more, and wasn't making their own V8 production engines for the last N years, doesn't mean the platform itself is dead. If it did, this forum wouldn't be here, because, you know, Pontiac's dead.

Are we talking about drag racing, street cars, or LeMans? Make up your mind. SBC does not dominate them all. Chevrolet/Cadillac have certainly been dominating their respective racing circuits, sure. There is a huge difference between the Gen IV and V engines, than what people mean when they say "SBC" though. When people say "SBC" they mean the first generation engines. When they talk about the Gen II engines, they say LT, when they talk about Gen III/IV engines, they say LS, and when they talk about Gen V engines, it's hard to know, because most people still seem to be quite confused by what they are. Some still call the Gen V engines LS engines, but they're quite different from the Gen III/IV engines.


I must be a lot older than you. When I say LT1 I'm talking about the original 1970 lt1. I'm a pontiac fan but were talking sbc here ,the chevy bb is just a sbc on steroids. Chevy used and you can read about this during the mystery motor years when chevrolet was still involved in racing, how they basically used the sbc blueprints. They had semisphivpcal heads and on and on . But that's history. They've went way past that. I know guys who still ooh and ahh over a set of camel hump heads and don't believe a set of vortecs can out flow those 2.02 valves. Ford came out with so many variations of bb in the late 60s and still couldnt hold a candle to the 1 version of bb chevys. Fast forward to the 90s. How many times has ford redesigned their small block. They went modular then went back and now their using flat plane cranks but in 5 to 10 years they'll be doing it again. Why.? Because the sbc was and still is the best engine design bar none. There's only one v8 from the 50s 60s and 70s that is still produced today by a major automaker and it wears a bowtie.

[This message has been edited by Silvertown (edited 09-23-2015).]

IP: Logged
dobey
Member
Posts: 11572
From:
Registered: Sep 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 371
User Banned

Report this Post09-23-2015 10:12 PM Click Here to See the Profile for dobeySend a Private Message to dobeyEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Silvertown:
I must be a lot older than you. When I say LT1 I'm talking about the original 1970 lt1. I'm a pontiac fan but were talking sbc here ,the chevy bb is just a sbc on steroids. Chevy used and you can read about this during the mystery motor years when chevrolet was still involved in racing, how they basically used the sbc blueprints. They had semisphivpcal heads and on and on . But that's history. They've went way past that. I know guys who still ooh and ahh over a set of camel hump heads and don't believe a set of vortecs can out flow those 2.02 valves. Ford came out with so many variations of bb in the late 60s and still couldnt hold a candle to the 1 version of bb chevys. Fast forward to the 90s. How many times has ford redesigned their small block. They went modular then went back and now their using flat plane cranks but in 5 to 10 years they'll be doing it again. Why.? Because the sbc was and still is the best engine design bar none. There's only one v8 from the 50s 60s and 70s that is still produced today by a major automaker and it wears a bowtie.


I'd hardly call the current small block the same design as the original small block.
IP: Logged
dobey
Member
Posts: 11572
From:
Registered: Sep 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 371
User Banned

Report this Post09-23-2015 10:28 PM Click Here to See the Profile for dobeySend a Private Message to dobeyEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by engine man:
2 hp per cfm is V8 engine not 4 cylinder or 6 cylinder or 12 cylinder as you have to do the math to see how much for you number of cylinders your engine has as for th 900 hp 3800 who has that because there is no proof that any one running a stock unported headed 3800 is making that type of power maybe 700 at really high boost . let me try with an example for a boosted engine let say you have a 400hp NA V8 with 200 cfm heads now you boost it to 14.8 psi so in theory the power should double right now lets take the same engine and just change the heads to 250 cfm intakes now it should in theory make 500 hp NA and if you boost it to the same 14.8 it in theory should now have 1000 HP but of course you could boost the first engine to a higher boost to make up for the lack of cylinder head flow but you will also have added heat to the intake charge with higher boost so it is harder to fight detonation and you have a less dense intake charge


You are not very good at this example thing are you? What has no proof are your examples. You're just taking arbitrary numbers with no actual merit to them. You said earlier that you need 300 CFM to make any power, regardless of engine size or number of cylinders, now you're saying the same 2 HP per CFM doesn't work as a generalization for anything other than V8s. Yes, if your heads can flow 300 peak CFM and you have all the necessary other components, you can make 600 HP N/A. With the right components and 300 CFM heads, you can make 700 HP N/A, too. But you don't need 300 CFM heads to make 600 HP with forced induction. You don't need it to make 600 HP with nitrous. There's a lot more to good head design than just flowing 300 CFM. You don't seem to understand that though.

darkhorizon and JustinBart's cars are making about 900 HP and I'm pretty sure they are on stock unported heads. And yes, they have meth injection and an intercooler, and I'm pretty sure that's on E85, not crappy low octane pump gas.

Also, just talking about peak HP is a waste of time. Area under the curve is what matters. If you want more torque, you need more displacement. If you want more HP, you need more torque at the same RPM, or more RPM with maintaining torque.
IP: Logged
Silvertown
Member
Posts: 440
From: Las vegas
Registered: Sep 2015


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

User Banned

Report this Post09-23-2015 10:43 PM Click Here to See the Profile for SilvertownClick Here to Email SilvertownSend a Private Message to SilvertownEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by dobey:


I'd hardly call the current small block the same design as the original small block.


Correct me if I'm wrong but I do believe the 1955 265 ci sbc had 2 valves per cylinder and push rods and as far as I know the new z06 has the same setup. But as fast as chevy has been moving up their game who knows. When the zora c8 hits the streets it's game over.
IP: Logged
hyperv6
Member
Posts: 5523
From: Clinton, OH, USA
Registered: Mar 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 90
Rate this member

Report this Post09-24-2015 07:13 AM Click Here to See the Profile for hyperv6Send a Private Message to hyperv6Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
You can get into all kinds of pissing matches but engines can make power 6 ways to Sunday. It is all about volumetric efficiency. Like I stated you have to get the most air in and out of a cylinder to make the most power.

The reason many use V8 engines is that it is easier and cheaper to do so. I could make a 4 that will out perform about anything on the dyno but it gets very expensive and much more radical. If not for todays electronics and higher quality parts we would not have the engines we have today coming from the factory.

As in for what is faster you can not judge this way. You compare the engines on a Dyno. Like the Ferrari vs. the Typhoon means little as the type vehicle and delivery system effect things in different way. That part is all about how to get the power to the ground.

Even today with the Hellcat it has more power than it can use. They put up a big number but the truth is the engine management cuts back power to make it hook up. Putting the power to the ground is the greatest challenge but yet not compromise the car from normal driving. You can make a drag car but you would not want to drive it to work daily with 90/10 shocks.

As for HP it is the thunder but Torque does most all the work.
IP: Logged
engine man
Member
Posts: 5246
From: Lebanon NH
Registered: Mar 2006


Feedback score: (5)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post09-24-2015 08:25 AM Click Here to See the Profile for engine manClick Here to Email engine manSend a Private Message to engine manEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Wow i am reposting formula maybe if you read it you will understand it

the simple mathematical formula for calculating potential power for a V8 engine is to multiply the maximum flow bench CFM test data at 28 inches of test pressure by 2 to get the estimated horsepower capability. This means that porting modifications to cylinder heads and intake manifolds that increase airflow by 1 CFM can produce 2 horsepower in a V8 engine (1 CFM x .255 x 8 Cylinders = 2.04 HP). just get any porting book and they will say the same thing

Flow Bench The horsepower potential of an engine can be calculated by the airflow capability of the cylinder head and intake manifold. Airflow testing of cylinder heads and intake manifolds can be conducted on a flow bench. Horsepower calculations can be estimated from the flow bench test data as follows:
The standard measure for flow testing is 28" of test pressure on a Superflow 600 flow bench.
The formula for calculating horsepower from flow test data measured at 28" of test pressure is as follows:

HP = 0.255 x flow test data at 28 inches of test pressure

Example:
Intake airflow of 250 cfm at 28" of test pressure can produce 510 hp.
250 cfm x .255 = 63.75 hp per cylinder
63.75 hp per cylinder x 8 cylinders = 510 hp.

so if you use the formula for a 6 cylinder will be 1cfm x .255 x 6 = 1.53 hp per cfm of flow so if you had a head that flows 250 cfm on the intake port then the HP potential is 1.53 x 250 = 382.5 hp
this is the formula all shops use it is the standard

this is for a natueraly asperated engine this formula show why it is harder to get the same power out of the 4 cyl & 6 cyl as 8 cylinders

[This message has been edited by engine man (edited 09-24-2015).]

IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
dobey
Member
Posts: 11572
From:
Registered: Sep 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 371
User Banned

Report this Post09-24-2015 08:56 AM Click Here to See the Profile for dobeySend a Private Message to dobeyEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Silvertown:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I do believe the 1955 265 ci sbc had 2 valves per cylinder and push rods and as far as I know the new z06 has the same setup. But as fast as chevy has been moving up their game who knows. When the zora c8 hits the streets it's game over.


I guess Ford's V8 was an SBC too because it had 2 valves per cylinder and push rods. So did Chrysler's. So did pretty much every pushrod V8 made in the last 100 years.

The bore spacing and deck height are the only things shared by the original SBC and the Gen III/IV/V engines. I guess you could say the bell pattern too, except for the LS4. Then current engines are closer to the original Pontiac V8, in terms of head design and pushing the limits with a pushrod V8, than they are to the original SBC.

[This message has been edited by dobey (edited 09-24-2015).]

IP: Logged
2.5
Member
Posts: 41388
From: Southern MN
Registered: May 2007


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 179
Rate this member

Report this Post09-24-2015 09:16 AM Click Here to See the Profile for 2.5Send a Private Message to 2.5Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by dobey:


Sports cars don't have torque converters.




Yeah thats why I added gears too

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 09-24-2015).]

IP: Logged
Silvertown
Member
Posts: 440
From: Las vegas
Registered: Sep 2015


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

User Banned

Report this Post09-24-2015 10:53 AM Click Here to See the Profile for SilvertownClick Here to Email SilvertownSend a Private Message to SilvertownEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by dobey:


I guess Ford's V8 was an SBC too because it had 2 valves per cylinder and push rods. So did Chrysler's. So did pretty much every pushrod V8 made in the last 100 years.

The bore spacing and deck height are the only things shared by the original SBC and the Gen III/IV/V engines. I guess you could say the bell pattern too, except for the LS4. Then current engines are closer to the original Pontiac V8, in terms of head design and pushing the limits with a pushrod V8, than they are to the original SBC.



You believe what you want to believe." If bore spacing" "deck height" two valves pc and push rods is not the original receipe. The engine has morphed around those parameters it's called evolution. And the evolution began in 1955 as a revolution and has systematically made every engine try catch it and fail. All the engines that are so ballyhooed by mopar dodge ford are extinct because they had inefficient designs.the op was engine size vs power and the sbc is the perfect balance of the two. That's why your putting one in a fiero even though I believe that's a inefficient use of a sbc with a horizontal transaxle.
And for the record the 1955 sbc was based on Ford's flat top dimensions.But you don't see them going in t buckets, 32 coupes anymore. I've watched ford guys do these build ups and stuff a sbc crate motor in them. And in jaguars, ferraris, shelby cobras and and on

[This message has been edited by Silvertown (edited 09-24-2015).]

IP: Logged
Silvertown
Member
Posts: 440
From: Las vegas
Registered: Sep 2015


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

User Banned

Report this Post09-24-2015 11:07 AM Click Here to See the Profile for SilvertownClick Here to Email SilvertownSend a Private Message to SilvertownEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Silvertown:


You believe what you want to believe." If bore spacing" "deck height" two valves pc and push rods is not the original receipe. The engine has morphed around those parameters it's called evolution. And the evolution began in 1955 as a revolution and has systematically made every engine try catch it and fail. All the engines that are so ballyhooed by mopar dodge ford pontiac are extinct because they had inefficient designs.the op was engine size vs power and the sbc is the perfect balance of the two. That's why your putting one in a fiero even though I believe that's a inefficient use of a sbc with a horizontal transaxle. And for the record the 1955 sbc was based on Ford's flat top dimensions. But you don't see them going in t buckets, 32 coupes anymore. I've watched ford guys do these build ups and stuff a sbc crate motor in them. And in jaguars, ferraris, shelby cobras and and on

[This message has been edited by Silvertown (edited 09-24-2015).]

IP: Logged
engine man
Member
Posts: 5246
From: Lebanon NH
Registered: Mar 2006


Feedback score: (5)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post09-24-2015 12:01 PM Click Here to See the Profile for engine manClick Here to Email engine manSend a Private Message to engine manEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Arthur Chevrolet was awarded US Patent #1,744,526 for an overhead valve engine design. This patent included an adapter that could be applied to an existing engine, thus transforming it into an Overhead Valve Engine.

In 1949, Oldsmobile introduced the Rocket V8. It was the first high-compression I-head design, and is the archetype for most modern pushrod engines.

and as far as ford engines not making power the 351 Cleveland with stock 4 barrel heads that are ported can make a ton of power as i have seen it with my own eyes at school we had a stroked 351 to 377 ci with those heads and solid roller cam and it made 600 + hp it made more power than my 454 BBC with a roller cam

[This message has been edited by engine man (edited 09-24-2015).]

IP: Logged
dobey
Member
Posts: 11572
From:
Registered: Sep 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 371
User Banned

Report this Post09-24-2015 12:37 PM Click Here to See the Profile for dobeySend a Private Message to dobeyEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Silvertown:
That's why your putting one in a fiero even though I believe that's a inefficient use of a sbc with a horizontal transaxle.


I'm putting an engine built from an LS4 block in the Fiero because it's close in design to the original Pontiac V8, and it's an interesting challenge.

Sorry, but I don't worship any one particular type of engine like the SBC, and like you seem to do. They are tools, and I just try to pick something interesting, that falls into the same manufacturer's realm, and will allow me to achieve the goals I want for the car.

I don't get your "I believe that's an inefficient use of an SBC" though.
IP: Logged
Silvertown
Member
Posts: 440
From: Las vegas
Registered: Sep 2015


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

User Banned

Report this Post09-24-2015 04:40 PM Click Here to See the Profile for SilvertownClick Here to Email SilvertownSend a Private Message to SilvertownEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by dobey:


I'm putting an engine built from an LS4 block in the Fiero because it's close in design to the original Pontiac V8, and it's an interesting challenge.

Sorry, but I don't worship any one particular type of engine like the SBC, and like you seem to do. They are tools, and I just try to pick something interesting, that falls into the same manufacturer's realm, and will allow me to achieve the goals I want for the car.

I don't get your "I believe that's an inefficient use of an SBC" though.



The transaxle is the problem. Front wheel drive V8s have never from the eldorado/tornado to the last montecarlo/gp been efficient enough to generate a following. But v6s have. I've owned pontiacs, chevrolets, Ford's and toyotas so I'm not that big of a fan as some stallllwarts. But having driven a good many miles behind the wheel of theses cars excluding the exotics in Vegas the small block chevys are more reliable less thirsty like my ss454 parts are plentiful and it don't take much to keep them alive and running. My 68 c10 original 327 is testimony on that point. Leaking oil, rings and valve seals and she still kept trucking till the day I sold it.

IP: Logged
Silvertown
Member
Posts: 440
From: Las vegas
Registered: Sep 2015


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

User Banned

Report this Post09-24-2015 04:44 PM Click Here to See the Profile for SilvertownClick Here to Email SilvertownSend a Private Message to SilvertownEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

Silvertown

440 posts
Member since Sep 2015
 
quote
Originally posted by engine man:

Arthur Chevrolet was awarded US Patent #1,744,526 for an overhead valve engine design. This patent included an adapter that could be applied to an existing engine, thus transforming it into an Overhead Valve Engine.

In 1949, Oldsmobile introduced the Rocket V8. It was the first high-compression I-head design, and is the archetype for most modern pushrod engines.

and as far as ford engines not making power the 351 Cleveland with stock 4 barrel heads that are ported can make a ton of power as i have seen it with my own eyes at school we had a stroked 351 to 377 ci with those heads and solid roller cam and it made 600 + hp it made more power than my 454 BBC with a roller cam



Where is 351 cleveland now? Extinct! Where's the rocket 88? Extinct. Next!

IP: Logged
Lambo nut
Member
Posts: 4335
From: Centralia,Missouri. USA
Registered: Sep 2003


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 260
Rate this member

Report this Post09-24-2015 05:52 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Lambo nutSend a Private Message to Lambo nutEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by engine man:

lets take a 350 chevy now each cylinder is 43.75 cubic inches now lets convert that to cubic feet 3.64 cubic feet for every intake stroke


 
quote
Originally posted by engine man:

See i went to School for this at the School of Automotive Machinist Huston TX and unless they are teaching their students wrong




Ummm, you might want to get your money back.

Kevin

IP: Logged
dobey
Member
Posts: 11572
From:
Registered: Sep 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 371
User Banned

Report this Post09-24-2015 05:56 PM Click Here to See the Profile for dobeySend a Private Message to dobeyEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Silvertown:
Where is 351 cleveland now? Extinct! Where's the rocket 88? Extinct. Next!


Extinct because they aren't in new production vehicles? Whoop, then the SBC is extinct too! Yay for evolving engine platforms.
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
dobey
Member
Posts: 11572
From:
Registered: Sep 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 371
User Banned

Report this Post09-24-2015 05:57 PM Click Here to See the Profile for dobeySend a Private Message to dobeyEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

dobey

11572 posts
Member since Sep 2001
 
quote
Originally posted by Silvertown:
The transaxle is the problem. Front wheel drive V8s have never from the eldorado/tornado to the last montecarlo/gp been efficient enough to generate a following. But v6s have. I've owned pontiacs, chevrolets, Ford's and toyotas so I'm not that big of a fan as some stallllwarts. But having driven a good many miles behind the wheel of theses cars excluding the exotics in Vegas the small block chevys are more reliable less thirsty like my ss454 parts are plentiful and it don't take much to keep them alive and running. My 68 c10 original 327 is testimony on that point. Leaking oil, rings and valve seals and she still kept trucking till the day I sold it.


Not efficient in what sense? How is the transaxle the problem?
IP: Logged
engine man
Member
Posts: 5246
From: Lebanon NH
Registered: Mar 2006


Feedback score: (5)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post09-24-2015 05:57 PM Click Here to See the Profile for engine manClick Here to Email engine manSend a Private Message to engine manEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
where is the sbc its not in production either and Ls engine is nothing like a sbc other than it is a pushrod engine nothing interchanges
IP: Logged
engine man
Member
Posts: 5246
From: Lebanon NH
Registered: Mar 2006


Feedback score: (5)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post09-24-2015 06:09 PM Click Here to See the Profile for engine manClick Here to Email engine manSend a Private Message to engine manEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Lambo nut:
Ummm, you might want to get your money back.

Kevin


a 350 chevy is 43.75 cubic inches for each cylinder but i did do the cubic feet wrong it should be .025318287 not even 1 cubic foot
ya i messed up i only devided by 12 when it should have been 1728 witch is 12 x 12 x 12 = 1728 square inches in 1 square foot

[This message has been edited by engine man (edited 09-24-2015).]

IP: Logged
Lambo nut
Member
Posts: 4335
From: Centralia,Missouri. USA
Registered: Sep 2003


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 260
Rate this member

Report this Post09-24-2015 06:23 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Lambo nutSend a Private Message to Lambo nutEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by engine man:


it should be .025318287 not even 1 cubic foot


No where close to 1 cubic foot, let alone 3.64

The whole 350 engine in only around .203, or less than a quarter of a cubic foot.

You can't try to come across as smart and make a mistake like that. Although....no body else seemed to catch it.

Kevin

[This message has been edited by Lambo nut (edited 09-24-2015).]

IP: Logged
engine man
Member
Posts: 5246
From: Lebanon NH
Registered: Mar 2006


Feedback score: (5)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post09-24-2015 06:27 PM Click Here to See the Profile for engine manClick Here to Email engine manSend a Private Message to engine manEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
yes i agree but i am willing to admit my mistake when some one confronts me with actual facts

[This message has been edited by engine man (edited 09-24-2015).]

IP: Logged
dobey
Member
Posts: 11572
From:
Registered: Sep 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 371
User Banned

Report this Post09-24-2015 06:30 PM Click Here to See the Profile for dobeySend a Private Message to dobeyEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
LOL, Well, if a cylinder was 3.64 cubic feet, you'd need 364 CFM heads just to be able to turn 100 RPM. Good luck with that. :P
IP: Logged
engine man
Member
Posts: 5246
From: Lebanon NH
Registered: Mar 2006


Feedback score: (5)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post09-24-2015 06:41 PM Click Here to See the Profile for engine manClick Here to Email engine manSend a Private Message to engine manEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
well dobey you cant even understand the formula posted but i will say you do a good job at twisting thing to fit the way you want them by the way are you ever going to get your car done you seem to have advice for every one but after 5 years your car is still not together
IP: Logged
dobey
Member
Posts: 11572
From:
Registered: Sep 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 371
User Banned

Report this Post09-24-2015 07:01 PM Click Here to See the Profile for dobeySend a Private Message to dobeyEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by engine man:

well dobey you cant even understand the formula posted but i will say you do a good job at twisting thing to fit the way you want them by the way are you ever going to get your car done you seem to have advice for every one but after 5 years your car is still not together


What formula don't I understand? Math is math, but that formula is almost entirely useless for building a real engine. You don't need 300 CFM heads to make 600 HP, especially not with a turbo. I said it before, and I'll say it again, you need the full package. Knowing some theoretical value isn't going to help you actually make any power. Worst thing it will do is make you waste money on crap you don't need. And yeah, I'm sorry, a 3.64 cubic foot 1 cylinder engine could turn about 225 RPM with 364 CFM, at 100% efficiency.

If you are in such a hurry for my car to get done, then you're welcome to give me a million dollars so I can have the necessary work space to get it done, and not have to worry about a day job, and all the other crap I have to do. If not, then STFU. My car will get done when I decide it will be done, and it's none of your concern when that is or is not. Keep your ad hominem to yourself.
IP: Logged
engine man
Member
Posts: 5246
From: Lebanon NH
Registered: Mar 2006


Feedback score: (5)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post09-24-2015 07:10 PM Click Here to See the Profile for engine manClick Here to Email engine manSend a Private Message to engine manEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
see that is the problem you are telling GM , Ford and the rest of the automotive community that the formula they use on NA engine and Turbo charged engine don't matter . since that formula is not worth any thing then i should be able to get 900 hp from a GM 2.8 with the stock heads LOL
IP: Logged
Silvertown
Member
Posts: 440
From: Las vegas
Registered: Sep 2015


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

User Banned

Report this Post09-24-2015 08:22 PM Click Here to See the Profile for SilvertownClick Here to Email SilvertownSend a Private Message to SilvertownEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by engine man:

see that is the problem you are telling GM , Ford and the rest of the automotive community that the formula they use on NA engine and Turbo charged engine don't matter . since that formula is not worth any thing then i should be able to get 900 hp from a GM 2.8 with the stock heads LOL



Not so. But you guys always want to paint the perfect scenario as in your beefed up motor against some vanilla sbc.a thimble sized engine may put out a 1000 hp but a 455 hp detroit diesel will drag you all over the parking lot in figure eights in a tug of war.
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
Silvertown
Member
Posts: 440
From: Las vegas
Registered: Sep 2015


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

User Banned

Report this Post09-24-2015 08:30 PM Click Here to See the Profile for SilvertownClick Here to Email SilvertownSend a Private Message to SilvertownEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by dobey:


Extinct because they aren't in new production vehicles? Whoop, then the SBC is extinct too! Yay for evolving engine platforms.



The sbc is not extinct. Pontiac. Is and for good reason. Chevrolet smart. Pontiac dumb. As in not developing their own engines. Why because the small block chevy was better.
IP: Logged
dobey
Member
Posts: 11572
From:
Registered: Sep 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 371
User Banned

Report this Post09-24-2015 08:49 PM Click Here to See the Profile for dobeySend a Private Message to dobeyEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Silvertown:
The sbc is not extinct. Pontiac. Is and for good reason. Chevrolet smart. Pontiac dumb. As in not developing their own engines. Why because the small block chevy was better.


The SBC is equally as extinct as a Pontiac.

No, it has nothing to do with the Chevy being better. It has everything to do with corporate structure. The Gen II/III/IV/V engines are not "Chevrolet" engines. They are GM Powertrain engines. Having divisions within the same company competing to design engines is just stupid and a horrible waste of money. Engineers from all of the subsidiaries now design together the same engine, to reduce cost. Pontiac being shut down had nothing to do with engines, and everything to do with the brand being turned into mediocrity by poor leadership.

The SBC is done. It was last used in production over 12 years ago. Stop trolling with this nonsense. It is irrelevant to the thread.
IP: Logged
Silvertown
Member
Posts: 440
From: Las vegas
Registered: Sep 2015


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

User Banned

Report this Post09-24-2015 08:56 PM Click Here to See the Profile for SilvertownClick Here to Email SilvertownSend a Private Message to SilvertownEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by dobey:


The SBC is equally as extinct as a Pontiac.

No, it has nothing to do with the Chevy being better. It has everything to do with corporate structure. The Gen II/III/IV/V engines are not "Chevrolet" engines. They are GM Powertrain engines. Having divisions within the same company competing to design engines is just stupid and a horrible waste of money. Engineers from all of the subsidiaries now design together the same engine, to reduce cost. Pontiac being shut down had nothing to do with engines, and everything to do with the brand being turned into mediocrity by poor leadership.

The SBC is done. It was last used in production over 12 years ago. Stop trolling with this nonsense. It is irrelevant to the thread.


If you cracked open a book and read about engine development history from the beginning this discussion wouldn't be happening. But for time constraints I will acquiesce to your so called knowledge.
IP: Logged
dobey
Member
Posts: 11572
From:
Registered: Sep 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 371
User Banned

Report this Post09-24-2015 09:11 PM Click Here to See the Profile for dobeySend a Private Message to dobeyEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by engine man:

see that is the problem you are telling GM , Ford and the rest of the automotive community that the formula they use on NA engine and Turbo charged engine don't matter . since that formula is not worth any thing then i should be able to get 900 hp from a GM 2.8 with the stock heads LOL


No. I'm telling you that a formula that has no practical merit, is useless. If you can show me one single street car with a naturally aspirated engine, making anywhere close to the maximum horsepower from having that formula, then I'll say otherwise. But it's not going to happen. You'd be hard pressed to even find a race car that makes as much power as that formula tells you that they can make.

To even pump 300 CFM through each cylinder, my engine (0.030 over 287 is 292 cid) will have to spin to over 28000 RPM. A 6.2L engine would have to turn over 22000 RPM. Here's a formula for you:

(CID x RPM / 3456) * VE = CFM

That tells you how much CFM your engine will be able to flow at any given RPM and VE. You must supply that much air in order for that VE to be met. Less air means lower VE. Having an intake pipe to the cylinder that can supply more will help, up to a point, but you cannot physically pump more air through the system. With some fancy tuning of the valve timing, you may be able to get just slightly over 100% VE, but in a N/A engine, you're not likely to see that unless it's a full race engine. A very high performance street engine might see close to 90-95% VE, but probably not more so. How the peak CFM of a head fits into that picture, depends on the valve train. Having a head that flows its peak CFM at some point outside the operating range of your valve train, is not useful. You need a valve train that will give you the highest VE with the heads you use, to be able to meet the CFM requirements, so the engine can rotate and provide power.
IP: Logged
engine man
Member
Posts: 5246
From: Lebanon NH
Registered: Mar 2006


Feedback score: (5)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post09-24-2015 09:12 PM Click Here to See the Profile for engine manClick Here to Email engine manSend a Private Message to engine manEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Silvertown:



Not so. But you guys always want to paint the perfect scenario as in your beefed up motor against some vanilla sbc.a thimble sized engine may put out a 1000 hp but a 455 hp detroit diesel will drag you all over the parking lot in figure eights in a tug of war.


your right the diesel will drag it all over but the heads have to flow a certain amount to make all that torque in other words you can't push enough air though a straw sized intake port no matter how much boost you have. to make a engine gas or diesel make its power the port must flow enough air NA or forced induction to make the power
IP: Logged
hyperv6
Member
Posts: 5523
From: Clinton, OH, USA
Registered: Mar 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 90
Rate this member

Report this Post09-24-2015 09:12 PM Click Here to See the Profile for hyperv6Send a Private Message to hyperv6Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Well GM is all corporate engines and has been for years.

While we can call the LT a GM powertrain engine it is funded mostly by the Chevy division since they use about 98% of them.

While the engine is called a Small Block by name it has left all the things of the original engine far behind and is a totally modern engine. It really is amazing to get inside one of these engines and see just how well built they are today.

Pontiac died over the years due to mismanagement. After Delorean left them GM really did not understand them or know what to do with them. The engineers at Pontiac were some of the best and the engines and Suspensions were key to what made them a Pontiac. Sharing platforms was nothing new but Delroean, Knudsen and Estes let the engineers loose and they had some of the best in the era. What is sad what was turned down in the 60's by GM that would have transformed the division. They had plans on FI. Radial tires in 1965, OHC and DOHC V8 engines. Euro composite head lamps. Better suspension tuning. 4 wheel Disc Brakes in 1965. All were killed.

Segway forward to 1979 the Pontiac V8 was killed and being an enthusiast car you ripped the heart our of the car many loved. Many of these guys bought modified and raced Pontiac because of the engine. This lost many in the early 80's

Pontiac then tried to rely on styling to move them forward. The TA, Fiero, Grand Am and Bonneville all help revive sales and saved them from being shut down before Olds. But the division was really killed when they removed the only RWD car they had and tried to sell cars like the Aztek, G3 and cars like the G5 and G6 and not even offer a Performance Engine of any kind. Imagine a G6 with a 260 HP Turbo or even the G4 which was already built on the line with the Cobalt SS. One was built and rejected. I saw it and they ran parts at the plant with it.

GM is going to have a new line of engines soon. Cadillac is going to make their own 4-6-8 in the coming years with more advanced technology and more power. These will not be based on the other engines and will not be shared. GM has learned the value of exclusive in a premium brand and the profits in this segment are such to let them do this. It will take time but I image we will see some special engines this time. No Short Cut N Star this time.
IP: Logged
dobey
Member
Posts: 11572
From:
Registered: Sep 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 371
User Banned

Report this Post09-24-2015 09:19 PM Click Here to See the Profile for dobeySend a Private Message to dobeyEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Silvertown:
If you cracked open a book and read about engine development history from the beginning this discussion wouldn't be happening. But for time constraints I will acquiesce to your so called knowledge.


Oh look, he's trying to be condescending, how precious.

If you'd read about engine development history past the time of the SBC, this discussion wouldn't be happening. The current engines are not SBCs. They are GM corporate engines. The SBC is no longer in production. Yes, there are crate engines available, but you cannot go buy a new car or truck with an SBC in it. There are Pontiac crate engines available too, or small block Ford, or Mopar. You'd know the SBC hasn't been used in production for over 12 years now.
IP: Logged
Silvertown
Member
Posts: 440
From: Las vegas
Registered: Sep 2015


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

User Banned

Report this Post09-24-2015 09:21 PM Click Here to See the Profile for SilvertownClick Here to Email SilvertownSend a Private Message to SilvertownEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by engine man:


your right the diesel will drag it all over but the heads have to flow a certain amount to make all that torque in other words you can't push enough air though a straw sized intake port no matter how much boost you have. to make a engine gas or diesel make its power the port must flow enough air NA or forced induction to make the power


The diesel turns less than 2000 rpms at 75 mph so you can wind up any little motor of your choice and get your crank snapped in two from the torque of a diesel pulling you backwards. You can flow all the air you want at high speed but torque gets you moving first and how you do that I give up.

IP: Logged
Silvertown
Member
Posts: 440
From: Las vegas
Registered: Sep 2015


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

User Banned

Report this Post09-24-2015 09:27 PM Click Here to See the Profile for SilvertownClick Here to Email SilvertownSend a Private Message to SilvertownEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by dobey:


Oh look, he's trying to be condescending, how precious.

If you'd read about engine development history past the time of the SBC, this discussion wouldn't be happening. The current engines are not SBCs. They are GM corporate engines. The SBC is no longer in production. Yes, there are crate engines available, but you cannot go buy a new car or truck with an SBC in it. There are Pontiac crate engines available too, or small block Ford, or Mopar. You'd know the SBC hasn't been used in production for over 12 years now.


Pontiac "we build excitement"power supplied by chevy. But if you don't believe me then read this. Get off the island pontiacs dead the wars over
http://www.superchevy.com/h...block-chevy-history/
IP: Logged
Previous Page | Next Page

This topic is 6 pages long:  1   2   3   4   5   6 
next newest topic | next oldest topic

All times are ET (US)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Back To Main Page

Advertizing on PFF | Fiero Parts Vendors
PFF Merchandise | Fiero Gallery | Ogre's Cave
Real-Time Chat | Fiero Related Auctions on eBay



Copyright (c) 1999, C. Pennock