Stock cam vs schneider 292 vs "Rock the Banshee"

[pagemo]

Here is some of my design strategy:

I wanted to be able to use off the shelf valves with a roller cam. The Schneider roller cams have a drastically reduced base circle. They work very well, but need an engine built around them, i.e. notched pistons, custom longer valves, raised valve cover, etc...

 

In order to use off the shelf valves on a roller cam, I couldn't go really big on the duration. I could still make a roller grind that didn't need as long of a custom valve as the Schneider, but if you need a custom valve, you might as well go crazy with the cam.

the Rock the Banshee cam is as big as we could go without needing a custom valve in order to preload the hydraulic lifters. If we had a mechanical roller rocker set-up, we could get really aggressive and make the ultimate cam for this engine. No one has come up with them yet, so I will try this summer if I can ever get to it. I've been overly swamped with my real job for the last 4 years or so, and haven't been able to do much in the way of car projects.

 

Right now, Chip is right. My Screamin'Banshee mechanical slip rocker cam has the best all around performance on most set-ups. I do have the Rock cam on one engine, and I love it over any of my other cams. However, the set-up is such that really works well with that cam. You almost have to list all mods in order to figure out what part of the build matches or doesn't match to the cam. All machine mods, and parts, etc... have to match each other with the same overall goal in mind, for the cam choice to work or not it seems.

 

I might not be back on for a week, so I'll check back then. Not sure if my next destination hotel has internet!

 

I actually did a design for a mechanical roller rocker but never had time to make them, I talked to a company that specializes in custom rocker arms and they quoted me about $400 a set for the first 5 sets. I just dropped it because I was busy and really doubted there would be enough interest to get the order in. They wanted the 2K upfront to start the process, they also needed the cam we wanted to run as well as a complete head. They said they could deliver the custom rockers in 3 weeks.

[jinx]

Nice to see camshaft options discussed. Good info

 

Interesting feedback on the schnieder "custom" cam results.

Seen oz cam 2L install, "wake up" after minor degree change, as well.

I had forgotten about numerous surge complaints with those bullseye T04B.

That will degrade your lower rpm performance, and consequntly re-shape the

torque curve.

 

on the tq vs hp thingy.....

As the late John Ligenfelter put it... "Hp sells motors. Tq wins the race".

He was a master at extracting torque, propelling heavy street vehicles to

extrordinary ETs.

 

G54 torque curve proven fine for a quick street/strip car, even with 3.54.

No need to rev or shorten gearing. Thats optional. Hot Ford 2.3s typically

have similar tq curves that's been sending their street cars into the 10s

for eons.

Here's one from a 10.8 sec daily - 4 cyl 5spd, 3.27 gear

http://www.eville140.com/dyno.html

very similar in shape to 88white 404hp/461tq for example

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u37/phi...Features/88.jpg

 

Coming from the buick GN world, where the 3.8 'was done' @5700rpms... taught

me; rpms, short gearing & peak hp r totally unneccessary for 'hard-pulling'

street car.... even a heavy one. Tq is

 

Either of the above 2 valve motors maintain excellent street response & the

fun factor = 'a good deal' imo

 

RPMs & gearing is another way to go quick (more efficiently too) and change

the driving experience/character. Still I wouldn't want my G54 to emulate my

dohc, where the compromises are amplified, due to the extended rpm range.

 

Probably less than a handful of folks building a "race" g54 I reckon

[chiplee]

Nice to see camshaft options discussed. Good info

 

Interesting feedback on the schnieder "custom" cam results.

Seen oz cam 2L install, "wake up" after minor degree change, as well.

I had forgotten about numerous surge complaints with those bullseye T04B.

That will degrade your lower rpm performance, and consequntly re-shape the

torque curve.

 

on the tq vs hp thingy.....

As the late John Ligenfelter put it... "Hp sells motors. Tq wins the race".

He was a master at extracting torque, propelling heavy street vehicles to

extrordinary ETs.

 

G54 torque curve proven fine for a quick street/strip car, even with 3.54.

No need to rev or shorten gearing. Thats optional. Hot Ford 2.3s typically

have similar tq curves that's been sending their street cars into the 10s

for eons.

Here's one from a 10.8 sec daily - 4 cyl 5spd, 3.27 gear

http://www.eville140.com/dyno.html

very similar in shape to 88white 404hp/461tq for example

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u37/phi...Features/88.jpg

 

Coming from the buick GN world, where the 3.8 'was done' @5700rpms... taught

me; rpms, short gearing & peak hp r totally unneccessary for 'hard-pulling'

street car.... even a heavy one. Tq is

 

Either of the above 2 valve motors maintain excellent street response & the

fun factor = 'a good deal' imo

 

RPMs & gearing is another way to go quick (more efficiently too) and change

the driving experience/character. Still I wouldn't want my G54 to emulate my

dohc, where the compromises are amplified, due to the extended rpm range.

 

Probably less than a handful of folks building a "race" g54 I reckon

 

so then, you generally agree that for a race only app, you're not doing the wrong thing if you transition the torque curve to the right via tuning, and make up for the lost torque with gearing. I mean, we all agree that torque rules. When my engine builds 22psi, if it hooks, it's eye watering to ride along at 380ft/lbs to the wheels. I should get my car weighed, but anyway, if I could bring the curve just slightly to the right and match HP and torque before I install the 3.90 gears I think I'd still be very happy with street performance but realize gains at the track, without changing anything but cam timing really.

[lionbull]

granted, but generally speaking, isn't it better to make more HP than TQ so you can take advantage of gearing. Within reason, if the changes you're making are making the same engine make more HP then you are increasing its ability to do work, plain and simple. The more work it can do, the faster it can propel the car down the track. I've always thought the loss in tq must be made up for with appropriate gearing, but you are clearly correct that if you never intend to change anything about the power train then for a street car, torque is king. The cars with the same hp and tq are probably the most fun to drive though.

 

are we trying to run these motors up to 160 mph? what kind of driving characteristic are you lookin for?

[lionbull]

Nice to see camshaft options discussed. Good info

 

Interesting feedback on the schnieder "custom" cam results.

Seen oz cam 2L install, "wake up" after minor degree change, as well.

I had forgotten about numerous surge complaints with those bullseye T04B.

That will degrade your lower rpm performance, and consequntly re-shape the

torque curve.

 

on the tq vs hp thingy.....

As the late John Ligenfelter put it... "Hp sells motors. Tq wins the race".

He was a master at extracting torque, propelling heavy street vehicles to

extrordinary ETs.

 

G54 torque curve proven fine for a quick street/strip car, even with 3.54.

No need to rev or shorten gearing. Thats optional. Hot Ford 2.3s typically

have similar tq curves that's been sending their street cars into the 10s

for eons.

Here's one from a 10.8 sec daily - 4 cyl 5spd, 3.27 gear

http://www.eville140.com/dyno.html

very similar in shape to 88white 404hp/461tq for example

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u37/phi...Features/88.jpg

 

Coming from the buick GN world, where the 3.8 'was done' @5700rpms... taught

me; rpms, short gearing & peak hp r totally unneccessary for 'hard-pulling'

street car.... even a heavy one. Tq is

 

Either of the above 2 valve motors maintain excellent street response & the

fun factor = 'a good deal' imo

 

RPMs & gearing is another way to go quick (more efficiently too) and change

the driving experience/character. Still I wouldn't want my G54 to emulate my

dohc, where the compromises are amplified, due to the extended rpm range.

 

Probably less than a handful of folks building a "race" g54 I reckon

 

 

 

I agree,

 

we should focus on the cars strengths and manage its weaknesses. not focus on the weaknesses. this motor will NEVER run or give you the top end of a DOHC. cam the car for what it was meant for, mid range torque. a high reving street g54b will get you nowhere fast . Chip, will you race yor car on the track? if not, you know what you have to do for cam specs. no 7 page thread needed.

[emagdnim]

when has there EVER been a high revving G54B around here to collect data from?

 

And pagemo... Check the GB section for headstuds that will actually hold the power your making.

[Tim_C.]

Lots of torque is great, but our drivetrains can't handle it for long. That seems to be the overall issue. Everyone's different preferences, and budgets to back up their preference.

A fairly high RPM, more horsepower oriented engine was easier for me to build since that is where I have experience, and could use that experience to help me save money overall. However, I don't see where torque was lost much either. Maybe reduced a little, but certainly not lost. With a big cam, and the ability to advance it, all of the torque comes back with some upper RPM loss. You have the ability to choose how you want to set-up a big cam. Small cams are exactly that, small and can't do near as much with them. You can almost always drop a gear to keep the power (road racing) too, rather than wish you had more RPM to go because the torque and horsepower already ran out. I think the correct balance between the two is key. I don't think it is good to totally focus on either one. The best of the best race engines start the upward ramp of HP when the torque runs out. Then the HP goes steeply upward. That's the engine that wins races. A balance of both worlds.

My machinist says my engine will break the tach. I've taken it to 7500+, but don't really want to go higher than that. A local round track guy who uses the same machinist, ran an NA 2.6L to 8000RPM all night long for 2 seasons on the same engine. Big compression, big cam in a Challenger/Saporro body.

Mine has stock trans and rear, and it has been to 150+ MPH with lots of pedal left. It even had 2 black injectors in it (a friend 'helped' me, and inadvertently put a black in for the secondary, and I didn't double check him. 12Lbs of boost on a stock TBI with only a fuel pump mod and an adjustable baseline FPR. I had the baseline FP at 55PSI. I do plan on bringing the top speed down some with a set of 3.90's I have to put ini too. I agree, we don't need mega top speeds. It's too crazy.

Anyway, I have Chad's intake with FIP system, and Chad's header, and a couple of big turbos to play with whenever I get a miracle and have time.

The Schneider roller cam grinds work fairly well. Just build your engine around them, and you're in business! Mega power through mid-range and big top end power too. The reason it hits the pistons is the combination of lobe sep: 114, center line: 112, and duration: mine is 284 on both. Roller cam with .510 lift on steep ramps with a wide top of the lobe.

[chiplee]

yeah that's the only point I was gonna' make to counter lion's bull post. I mean lionbull's post, sorry. dirt trackers love these engines in my home town too and they rev 'em to 8k naturally aspirated all night long and get full season off one build all the time. I can tell by what he posted that he didn't read what I posted before he attacked my decision making process anyway so I'm convinced he's holding a grudge like so many others around here who I've verbally abused in the past. Figure I deserve it so whatever.

 

Thanks for the sincere replies to this unnecessary 7 page thread

[Funky Phil]

The info in this useless thread is priceless....

[lionbull]

yeah that's the only point I was gonna' make to counter lion's bull post. I mean lionbull's post, sorry. dirt trackers love these engines in my home town too and they rev 'em to 8k naturally aspirated all night long and get full season off one build all the time. I can tell by what he posted that he didn't read what I posted before he attacked my decision making process anyway so I'm convinced he's holding a grudge like so many others around here who I've verbally abused in the past. Figure I deserve it so whatever.

 

Thanks for the sincere replies to this unnecessary 7 page thread

 

 

good thread chip.

do you have a race engine?

 

thanks to all who chimed in.

[PDX87Starion]

Ok I know this thread is getting drawn out but I was thinking about something.

 

You know how putting roller rockers on a stock cam changes the cam timing for the worst.

I think shelby said it changes when the valves start to open and close. advances on one slope and retards the other?

Shelby can you refresh my mem. on that, the search feature for the archives isnt working.

 

Anyway If we have schneider (or anyone) do a roller grind would they take this issue into account? I would tend to think they

would just grind by the numbers and not take the time to set up a head to take actual readings at the valve.

 

Or is it the case that grinding them by the numbers works fine for rollers, and the stock cam has a unique grind that works

with the curved slippers but not the rollers?

 

PQ address this a little bit here: http://starquest.i-x.net/viewtopic.php?t=9...asc&start=0

"That SHORT RADIUS on a ROLLER WHEEL will cheat you outta DURATION TIME/DEGREES"

 

thoughts?

Edited April 2, 2008 by PDX87Starion

[jinx]

the crux of the matter is we have no data on the 'ellusive' higher rev G54. Only 'seat of the pants' accounts, which are decieving at best.

 

Can the 54 head can keep up with a cam.... plus how much of the robust natural lower-rpm tq curve will you sacrifice ? Only dynos will tell

 

A motor that 'revs past 7500' and one that 'pulls past 7xxx' are not the same thing. I'm sure a "good cam" can transform a n.a. 2 valve (as I've done it).... but the million dollar mystery: what happens to a *boosted* 54 torque curve (gains vs loss) ?

 

Definitely a risk involved 'chasing' higher rpm tq. These sorta tests are a step in the right direction.

 

Then after the power side of the equation is sorted, next comes gearing.

Say Car A hold 2nd & 3rd past 7000 rpm where you're making 220 ft-lbs.

Car B 'short shifts', revs drop down to ~4000 and rides out the 400+ ft-lbs.

Car B can very well wind up quicker.

I've seen numerous cases where taller gear netted quicker ETs.

10.8sec ford 2.3 posted above, eipquest, for example.

Gearing is not as one-dimensional as many see it

 

At least we have lots of the 'convetional' G54 builds/proven combos to

choose from for now. Not a bad situation at all from where I sit

[chiplee]

good thread chip.

do you have a race engine?

 

thanks to all who chimed in.

 

I don't see the point of your question. people are discussing generalities about the principles of cam design in this thread. If you have input to that end please make it. Otherwise what is your presense here adding to the discussion?

 

 

 

 

As for the question pdx posed, I'd have to guess schneider is going to take that into account. They asked which ratio rockers the cam would be used with and stated that they needed to know, to know how to grind the cam. Didn't matter if I used 1.5 or 1.6 ratio rollers, they would grind it so that the cam card and the specs were accurate, so long as they knew which rockers I intended to use.

 

 

jinx, I don't doubt that you've seen individual engines or situations that seem like exceptions to these rules but I disagree with you on princple. These principles are simple. If you have to chose, then it is better to make more HP than TORQUE, so you can take advantage of gearing. More HP means more work done, period, end of discussion.

 

what does remain open to discussion is the right mix of HP and torque for our given gear ratios and the easy changes we can make to 3.90s or 4.22s Again, based on results thusfar, my opinion is that a starquest with 3.90s and equal hp/tq numbers at around 350/350 will be a great street/strip combo

[Chad]

These principles are simple. If you have to chose, then it is better to make more HP than TORQUE, so you can take advantage of gearing. More HP means more work done, period, end of discussion.

 

Exactly, If torque wre king, why don't pepole drage race more deisel motors? They make mountains of torque, but dont' actualy make a lot of "power".

 

the torque vs HP argument is simply answered by basic laws of physics and simple math. It's indesputable.

 

It can be argued that certain torque curves do make certain combos more "fun" or perpahs have advantages in specific circumstances, but HP when geared propeprly will always trump torque.

 

If you dont belive that statement, think about the basic pricipal here, torque is force, HP is that force multiplied by how often that force is applied.

 

Take two motors regardless of design, fuel, cylinders, or any other factor. If one motor makes 200% more force, but applies that force 40% as often as the other (lower RPM), the other will always win because it makes more power, it does more work, and can apply more energy into the drivetrain over time.

[Tim_C.]

Exactly, If torque wre king, why don't pepole drage race more deisel motors? They make mountains of torque, but dont' actualy make a lot of "power".

 

the torque vs HP argument is simply answered by basic laws of physics and simple math. It's indesputable.

 

It can be argued that certain torque curves do make certain combos more "fun" or perpahs have advantages in specific circumstances, but HP when geared propeprly will always trump torque.

 

If you dont belive that statement, think about the basic pricipal here, torque is force, HP is that force multiplied by how often that force is applied.

 

Take two motors regardless of design, fuel, cylinders, or any other factor. If one motor makes 200% more force, but applies that force 40% as often as the other (lower RPM), the other will always win because it makes more power, it does more work, and can apply more energy into the drivetrain over time.

 

Exactly. The diesels don't drag race because the range is way too narrow. They are dominating LeMans because of latest advancements to get a little more range and better ways to keep it in that range on a road course. HP oriented engines have a much wider range of power. Even if the peak is less, the extended range stretches the power you have, further, for more advantage. However, the peak is usually higher too, for that much more gain. Again, dyno runs get everyone looking at the peak and thinking higher is always better. It also needs to extend the range to be better in reality, which a very high peak difference can do too.

[Tim_C.]

Also, the main reason Schneider wants to know the rocker ratio is so their lift target is accurate. There will be little difference in the other figures. The 1.6 ratio will allow them to not reduce the base as much, so it may not be as big of a nightmare to assemble as I make it out to be. The valve lengths you have might just work. However, I would have to think it will hit the pistons on the intake valve, and the rockers will hit the VC.

Schneider only offered one roller cam when I ordered mine, and gave me 1.4:1 rocker ratio numbers. Of course, no such hydraulic rocker exists, nor should it because that just requires a smaller base to get the grind. They would not do a custom grind at the time, and talked me into buying the one I got. I later found out Jerry was pushing that grind so he could save money by making a larger quantity run. He might have them ground out of house too, which I doubt he would admit to. My grinder actually has done work for them too.

[Technology]

If you told schnider what you were after, I'd think they could set ya up with the same cam as Pagemo.

Yeah, the torque curve doesn't take the traditional G54 nosedive at all. Looks more like a dohc motor dyno. Interesting.

Notice it lacks the normal ~4k tq swell tho..... which is what a bullseye T04B should give you on even a stock G54.

Dunno if the "custom" schnieder cam design tradesoff the lower tq for higher peak hp.

Question is, would you accept that compromise ?

Once you're making solid tq, no need to rev. Our quckest street starquest on SQC doesn't.

I wouldn't want to turn a G54 into a 'revver' at that cost. Gotta consider significantly accelerated engine wear n tear too.

 

From way back in the day, 'turbo' profiles had more intake than exhaust duration. Sport compacts 4cyl were running 10s on drawthru turbo/carb setups - prog no fuel inj, intercooling, etc...

Folks today are mesmerized by a higher peak hp more than anything... could that would be the reasoning for higher duration exh. ?

Notice alot more of this 'pepsi generation' more absorbed with pk hp numbers and trap speed... than tq & a quick ET - lol

 

Just want to point out that on a stock conquest with TBI, stock intercooler, and just hardpipes, a 3.5" downpipe going to a 2.5" exhaust with the ebay log mani and a t3/t3 with 1.15A/R exhuast side did this:

http://photos-h.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v66/191/87/163906158/n163906158_30970343_5147.jpg

195hp@9psi then 213hp@10psi

just a maf translator setup for fuel.

 

granted, this isn't a lot of boost, but even a td06 couldn't dream of a curve that flat.

[jinx]

way I see it... all motors make torque. Hp only tells you at what rpm you make that tq. There's ALOT more variables that influence a cars' performance than a peak hp number & gearing.

Nope, it is not that simple.

 

What is simple.... is this question;

Put a 600hp/380tq honda 1.8L in a 7000+ pound dualie. Gear it ANY way you possibly could, to optimize use of its power.

Run it against an identical hull with its 500hp/850 ft-lbs cummings motor.

 

Do u guys honestly believe the 600hp 1.8L will outperform the 500hp diesel ?

HP rules period, right ? Principle is simple, now isn't it

 

Consider this, just for argument sake.

Its ez to get a g54 to make more peak hp than peak tq.... Put a 14cm housing on a 20G.... get my drift ?

 

I hear what you're saying and respect everyones 'opinion'... BUT.... real world examples are MY guiding star... not formulas, charts, maps, theory or principle alone.

 

Here's a classic case. Everyone *thought* this 4cyl needed shorter 4.10... even *AFTER he proved* otherwise (some folks r just bent on theory - lol)

http://www.ka-t.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=26775

 

4.08:1 maxed out @11.4. 3.54:1 went 10.90 - Any idea why ???

0.5 sec ET reduction on a lo 11/hi 10sec street car is a HUGE improvement!

 

Exactly, If torque wre king, why don't pepole drage race more deisel motors?

 

errr... you might wanna look around again bud

see what Audi ?? Gale Banks ?? did to their competition... then have fun explaining this statement to them

 

but HP when geared propeprly will always trump torque

 

No point entertaining what is "king or best, in theory or principle etc.."

Bottom line; "torquey" G54s proven as fast as we wannabe.... and then some.

Quickest 'street' SQ around did its damage with torque. Nuff said.

Reckon he didn't try or couldn't figure out this "hp/ revs/ gear" thing ?

10.4 from; a sohc 4cyl, that weight, a T04B, 3.54:1 & shifting gears... is as good as it gets (for the equipment).

A recipee/result derived from, lots of experience & testing - Not 'paper'.

This is fact

 

So ya 'think' rpms, pk hp & gearing would improve that ?? Wait for it

that is theory

 

Until any "higher-rev/hp G54 specimen" eclipses past performances, thats pretty much where 'that' discussion ends, eh.

[TurboRaider]

The factor I would consider is the area under the curve.

 

That is the average HP you have from when you drop the clutch to your shift point, grab a gear you get an RMP drop, you rev again till you hit the next shift point.

 

Take the area under the curve between the low and the high RPM and you have your effective HP.

 

How can more gear hurt you? The motor has inertia the lower the gear the faster the rate of change for the motor, that faster rate of change absorbs power. At some point the benifts of better gearing are outweighed by the HP the motor is storing as it revs up.

 

So when you gear lower and go slower you have two thing to look at:

 

1: Should I take some mass out of my motor to reduce inertia?

2: Is it an issue with how fast the turbo spools? It has intertia and is affected by the faster acceleration as well.

 

 

 

HP defines the ability to do work, area under the curve defines the effective HP as the RPMs change.

 

A better statement might be the vehicle with the greatest effective HP will be the fastest.

 

Kevin

Edited April 5, 2008 by TurboRaider

[Chad]

Why are there so many 10 second hondas? they make lots of horse power (with only minimal torque). and how many 10 second starquests?

 

As to the diesel argument, no ma y diesels are under 10 seconds? now how many gas engines? Diesel (torque) has it's time and place, contests of max speed require max power, power is measured in HP.

 

If torque were so superior to HP, wouldn't it make more sence to adapt the G5 mitsu diesel and race that?

 

Some diesel cars run very competitivly in raod courses where a flat torque curver is superior, this is where a diesel can shine, but this is not a contest of power now is it?

 

You might want to study the laws of physics, all things are bound by them, including race cars. If you study those laws, you will find that power beats force every time. It can be proven with any number of annologies if you are not into physics.

[Maxzillian]

What is simple.... is this question;

Put a 600hp/380tq honda 1.8L in a 7000+ pound dualie. Gear it ANY way you possibly could, to optimize use of its power.

Run it against an identical hull with its 500hp/850 ft-lbs cummings motor.

 

Do u guys honestly believe the 600hp 1.8L will outperform the 500hp diesel ?

HP rules period, right ? Principle is simple, now isn't it

 

Let's play with some numbers here. Since it's obvious we're only comparing peak numbers and not the shape of power curves, this is pretty straight forward.

 

But first the two engines need to be the same horsepower. So lets compare two 500 hp engines. One makes peak power at 9000 rpm, the other at 3000 rpm.

 

For the 3000 rpm engine, that's a stout 875.3 ft-lbs. For the 9000 rpm, it's a dismal (in comparison) 291.8 ft-lbs.

 

Now lets gear both of these behemoths down to 1000 rpm. The wheel torque on the 3000 rpm engine comes out to 2625.9 ft-lbs (875.3 * 3:1 reduction) and the 9000 rpm engine comes out to 2626.2 ft-lbs (291.8 times 9:1).

 

Considering rounding errors, both those engines make the same torque at the same wheel speed.

 

Whoa wait, what?! They make the same end torque?! No way!

 

Well, it's simple math. Horsepower is always how much work is done in a given amount of time. No matter what RPM the engines are turning, as long as they're making the same horsepower, they're producing the same output.

 

So to answer your question, if two trucks were cruising at then same speed, the 600 hp 1.8 liter would be producing more wheel torque than the stout 500 hp Cummins. I'd also be willing to bet that the 1.8 would pull away with it's wider range of power production.

 

Now, if this is about which one would be more reliable, my bet is on the Cummins.

Edited April 5, 2008 by Maxzillian

[PDX87Starion]

Everyone is right with their theory with their own scenarios. There is not one answer for every application.

HP or torque wins races... It really depends on the race.

 

My little fiat 1.3L race engine (yellow one in sig pic) has no torque but has "some" power from 5500 - 10,000 and gets around the track

pretty quick. All torque below 5000 has been sacrificed for top end power.

How do I utilise that peaky power? I have a close ratio gear box. This car is for road coarse racing

and getting off the line is not important. This car would be a dog in a drag race or auto cross.

 

Now I recall a tuner import show down in a mag a while back where they dynoed several high HP tuner imports then drag raced them.

The cars with the highest peak HP were not the fastest in the 1/4 mile. It was really surprising at some of the results.

Call them dyno queens or what ever, but because there HP peaked for a short amount of time they just weren't as fast.

Of course technically Chad and Chip are right when they say gearing can make up the difference but at what cost?

How many street cars have a close-ratio gear box to keep the RPMs in the sweet spot?

 

Street cars are always a compromise and every ones examples are taken to extremes, so there is really no right or wrong.

 

My opinion on the G54B is to build for torque, then try every trick in the book to hold that torque past 5200 to keep the HP numbers up.

but I wouldn't sacrifice hardly any low end torque to do that. I will be accelerating the most at 3500-4500 and thats where I want the most

torque to be for my SQ which will be almost always driven on the street.

[jinx]

Why are there so many 10 second hondas? .....if you are not into physics.

 

Banks diesels set a land speed record ....& blasted 7sec 1/4 ETs.

Audis diesel won Lemans 24hr.... what more are we expecting here ?

These are facts, not 'laws of physics'

 

10sec hondas vs starquests ? That's ez. 10,000 'tin cans' vs 100 'barges'.

Studying the law of physics didn't tell ya that ?

 

Ask a better question; How many lighter(civic wt) G54 powered street cars in

the 10s/9s.... that will pound the ch1t out of a civic with far less hp/revs

answer; Quite a few!

 

I recently posted a thread of a 9.8sec G54 powered street datsun doing just

that = totally destroy a hot civic.

 

Have you ever been in a mid 10sec full wt 3400+# airconditioned buick GN ?

Now how many higher hp civics run 10s full weight with AC etc... ?

Now take that same lower HP GN, loose 1000 pounds & gear it properly.

 

Please don't tell me you think it'll still run mid 10s, and the honda would

be anywhere in the same galaxy

[Maxzillian]

Banks diesels set a land speed record ....& blasted 7sec 1/4 ETs.

Audis diesel won Lemans 24hr.... what more are we expecting here ?

These are facts, not 'laws of physics'

 

10sec hondas vs starquests ? That's ez. 10,000 'tin cans' vs 100 'barges'.

Studying the law of physics didn't tell ya that ?

 

Ask a better question; How many lighter(civic wt) G54 powered street cars in

the 10s/9s.... that will pound the ch1t out of a civic with far less hp/revs

answer; Quite a few!

 

I recently posted a thread of a 9.8sec G54 powered street datsun doing just

that = totally destroy a hot civic.

 

Have you ever been in a mid 10sec full wt 3400+# airconditioned buick GN ?

Now how many higher hp civics run 10s full weight with AC etc... ?

Now take that same lower HP GN, loose 1000 pounds & gear it properly.

 

Please don't tell me you think it'll still run mid 10s, and the honda would

be anywhere in the same galaxy

 

How many times has Audi won Lemans before? Their diesel R10 is estimated at 650 hp while the R8 was officially 610 hp but believed to have 660 hp. Now give that diesel better fuel economy in race conditions and it's no surprise it's faster. And regardless, the Porsche Spyders out ran it in a number of events. The sidewinder is a Dakota with a 5.9 liter engine stuffed under the hood with the potential to make 500-600 hp continuously on the salt flats. I'm not surprised it broke the record and kudos to Banks for doing it. It even towed it's own parts trailer to the event. God I love it.

 

Anyway, I guess my point is that torque is not everything. There are limits to it. Yes, torque is fun. Yes, it has it's applications. No it's not the end all be all. If you had an engine with 1000 ft-lbs of torque and it only made 1 hp (that'd be one hell of a slow turning engine) you'd be going nowhere quickly. THAT is a fact of physics.

 

Furthermore, in comparing Hondas to Grand Nationals. Just how wide of a powerband does a Honda produce? How wide of one does a GN produce? Now how are each of these cars geared? There are so many variables to this that we can't even begin. It's not merely torque, horsepower, and weight. It's that PLUS gearing, weight balance, where the drive wheels are, etc etc.

 

Now personally, I do like torque. It's fun and effective, but I do understand that horsepower is a major player in the game of speed.

[Chad]

Go get HP figures on those diesel motors and let me know. You will find they'll have a much higher HP to torqe ratio than most diesel motors. they have been setup to opperate like gas engines in their power curves, buthave the fuel advantages of running diesel fuel.

 

Also, go research the gear ratios those cars are opperated at, you will fint they are opperated at their HP peaks, not their torque peaks, there is a reason for that .

 

The laws of physics dictates everythign arround us. there are no "tricks" to get arround that. You can however manipulate your setup to make the most use of torque that is available, which is what we have all been saying (gearing).

 

Ask any Pro 1/4 mile racer if he shifts to stay at his power peak or his torque peak. I think you'll find the same answer every time... When I say pro, I mean someone who makes a living off it, not "bubba down the street" with the rad '70 nova.

 

that is what this discussion was all about, do you build your power for torqe peaks or power peaks... racers build them arorund power peaks, and the torque peak is just a varriable. For street use, torque peaks are more important, you want to manipulate your car to make torque at a lower RPM to widen the power curve.