I'll say it a little easier on ya keith.
He implyed that low end torque is better on the street as well as for ET. Also that ET was superior to trap speed.
I was saying that I think street fun and trap speed are alot more related than the opposite.
It just seemed the two things he said were contradicting each other since trap speed is a heck of alot more street fun than ET. (Read my little example a few posts back).
what i was trying to say was that on the street and around town, people tend to spend alot more time below 3000 rpms than above. i would think those people would probably prefer a torquier low end. i know i do
and also in general, more botttom end torque gets you off the line faster, at least that's what i have always heard ... i'm thinking stoplight to stoplight here. sure, traction may be an issue, but the driver and sticky street tires can mitigate that.
the statement about ET indicating torque and trap speed indicating HP was more a statement that torque wins races, not HP. it follows that the shorter the race, the one who can put down more torque in that distance will win
i disagree with you about the how fun a car is on the street being related to trap speed vs ET. you say higher trap speed means the car is more fun around town, i say the opposite
do we agree that ET is a more of an indicator of total torque put down over the distance, while trap speed is more a indicator of HP? if not, then stop reading now
so it follows that for 2 cars with the same ET, the car with lower HP (car #1) must have a flatter torque curve, and the car with higher HP (car #2) must have less torque below some RPM point, and more torque after that point
now let's consider these 2 cars with the same ET at the track, #1 with more low end torque, and #2 with more high end torque, and what their runs would be like
car #1 will get off the line faster and accelerate more earlier and less later
car #2 will get off the line slower, and accelerate less in the beginning and more in the later part of the race.
of course, car #2 will be ahead if the distance was extended, but it would be behind if the distance was shortened
around town, which would you rather have, car #1 that gets off the line faster and accelerates more earlier, or #2 that takes longer to get up to speed? that is a matter of opinion i guess, but i'd prefer car #1 around town where most of the time, the openings for acceleration are a lot shorter than a quarter mile long.
and also in general, more botttom end torque gets you off the line faster, at least that's what i have always heard ... i'm thinking stoplight to stoplight here. sure, traction may be an issue, but the driver and sticky street tires can mitigate that.
the statement about ET indicating torque and trap speed indicating HP was more a statement that torque wins races, not HP. it follows that the shorter the race, the one who can put down more torque in that distance will win
i disagree with you about the how fun a car is on the street being related to trap speed vs ET. you say higher trap speed means the car is more fun around town, i say the opposite
do we agree that ET is a more of an indicator of total torque put down over the distance, while trap speed is more a indicator of HP? if not, then stop reading now
so it follows that for 2 cars with the same ET, the car with lower HP (car #1) must have a flatter torque curve, and the car with higher HP (car #2) must have less torque below some RPM point, and more torque after that point
now let's consider these 2 cars with the same ET at the track, #1 with more low end torque, and #2 with more high end torque, and what their runs would be like
car #1 will get off the line faster and accelerate more earlier and less later
car #2 will get off the line slower, and accelerate less in the beginning and more in the later part of the race.
of course, car #2 will be ahead if the distance was extended, but it would be behind if the distance was shortened
around town, which would you rather have, car #1 that gets off the line faster and accelerates more earlier, or #2 that takes longer to get up to speed? that is a matter of opinion i guess, but i'd prefer car #1 around town where most of the time, the openings for acceleration are a lot shorter than a quarter mile long.
Wow!!! this has gotten intresting since the last I looked at this thread. I have to agree with you on most points. I don't like crossbreeding though in any form. Chevy in a ford or ford in a chevy. I personally don't like it either way. I like chevys personally its the guys who badmouth my fords that I don't like.
I have a freind that had a lt1 and a ls1 camaro at the same time both had ramair 6 speeds and everything pretty much the same except the lt1 car had 3.73s and a aftermarket ignition. I drove the lt1 car and he drove his 2001 ss. I could jump him everytime through second gear but going into third everytime he would blow by me. I was the better driver of us two as well. HP wins races but torque is fun. My cobra will stay with the SS for the first two gears then the SS pulls by me easily. Personally I would rather have the HP but I don't want to sacrifice driveability for it. The loss of some low end torque is ok just not the driveability.
If a combo is put together right you can build a SBF to get good hp without sacrificing driveability but only a real pro will be able to do this right. The LS1 will always have an advantage though as the LS1 heads and intake design wasn't limited by distributor fitment and 60's tech. If you use a dis ignition and design new heads not limited by factory ford port or valve locations which would require a special intake, pistons, and exhaust setup the SBF would be much more comparable to the LSx engines. Just look at the Yates cleveland style heads.
I have 4.30 gears and less weight. I definately doubt you would pull away from me anywhere. I don't need torque, I have gears. Read back on my build posts, this was covered.
No....
Yes...
I'd like to throw in the fact that you can make 650+rwhp on the stock 351 block rather than around 500rwhp in the 5.0 block. That is why I mainly would go to a 351 block. I'd much rather build a big bore 363 over a 410. But thats just me...
Ok?
I would probably hate running around with 460rwtq @ 1,700rpms like you guys seem to love and have your power fall off at 5,000rpms.
I think Ford has a good deal on some 08' Super Dutys for you guys.
Well in that situation #1 will be the car to go for if your already talking about running the 1/4. I would personally put more gear and a looser torque converter, or run a stick and launch on the rev limiter in car #2 and go blow the doors off of car #1
There does come a point where you have to run a more radical setup than is fun day to day on the street. I just think that with todays tech a car can be much faster than before without sacrificing driveability. I think most people don't realize this though as its pretty new and the tech isn't as widely spread for the engines that haven't been produced in this decade. Just look at the hemi and LSx engines. They have something in common larger heads with smaller (less duration) billet roller cams and smaller lighter valvetrains all from the factory. Guess what they make more hp and they still make good torque at lower rpms but make peak torque around 4400 rpm.
everyone has their preferences. ours differ. life would sure suck if we were like the borg
heh, this thread got off that topic a really long time ago
As foretold this subject has gone on for 6 pages full of steam!!!
Kurt is a visionary...he said this on the 2nd comment page #1
Chris
Yep, I agree totally. So I don't get what the big deal is if some of us have a high reving screamer and don't want a diesel Mustang.
You know, in the past I used to get into it with the ls1 vs 5.0 thing with him; and all BS/banter aside, going through his buildup I can really appreciate his point of view.
Now that I tossed the blower on the 5.0; it's a whole different ballgame. Before it was try to use that strong midrange and do the 'lowend' streetcar thing. It's ****ing BUNK. The blower loves RPM. The car loves RPM with more boost higher up. I want to be able to twist the thing to 7k if I could. High TQ down low is only going to give you more traction issues down low.
Nothing can beat the feeling of ripping them back loose from a hooked up roll as the car really starts to pull. If I had to shift at 5k I'd want to cry. Unfortunately to really do what I want with the car would require like an entire re-do including my heads, but damn would it almost be worth it. As for the 4:30s comment, if Stopsign is twisting his car high enough it ****ing works. He can actually use that gear and allow for the high tq multiples down low. I kinda would like to drive mine without the 3:73s and more gear with the boost.
I may have a slight GM bias, but at least I'm seeing things with both eyes open.
Now that I tossed the blower on the 5.0; it's a whole different ballgame. Before it was try to use that strong midrange and do the 'lowend' streetcar thing. It's ****ing BUNK. The blower loves RPM. The car loves RPM with more boost higher up. I want to be able to twist the thing to 7k if I could. High TQ down low is only going to give you more traction issues down low.
Nothing can beat the feeling of ripping them back loose from a hooked up roll as the car really starts to pull. If I had to shift at 5k I'd want to cry. Unfortunately to really do what I want with the car would require like an entire re-do including my heads, but damn would it almost be worth it. As for the 4:30s comment, if Stopsign is twisting his car high enough it ****ing works. He can actually use that gear and allow for the high tq multiples down low. I kinda would like to drive mine without the 3:73s and more gear with the boost.
I may have a slight GM bias, but at least I'm seeing things with both eyes open.
All this time Chris and you didn't tell us you were running diesel in that engine!
WHAT!? Where the hell do you get that? I don't miss gears and can bang them pretty well so I have no use for an automatic. The real test is at the track. Let me know if you want to run my little high reving motor if you are close by. You gotta give me some lengths though since clearly I'm at a disadvantage it seems.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand? We can't simplify the TQ concept anymore for you. If you strap YOUR engine to an auto with the same gearing as another guy with more low end TQ, your car will feel and be slow compared to the other.
My 306 put out more low end than your 331 and even that felt slow. As to your car beating mine that's a whole nother story and you're spitting against the wind kid. I am at least the same rwhp as you and not even getting started compared to your radical mods. But I know a guy with a Honda that will run you if you are interested.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.