close to 300 hp wanted

[SappySE107]

I was talking about getting it closer to 300. Actually hitting 300 is gonna take custom intakes.

[Anonymous]

I spent ~$4,500 on just the rebuild for my car, and only had 125 WHP

I spent 2700 and got 214hp to the wheels without headers

The next question, why? For the amount of money you spent TRYING to get to 300HP you could be making over 500 out of a V8. I just don't see it economically worth it. I guess thats just my opinion though?

We have 4 small block V8s at my house, a 574hp blown 400, a 285hp LT1, a 350hp 350, and another 400 being built. They are no fun. They are all the same, they all look the same, and all sound the same.

But when I went to Missouri and drove around the cones avoiding the water pit while the LT1 trans Am beside me lit them up, then I ran within .15 seconds of him, it was fun. It made me proud. You should have seen the looks on peoples faces as this Lumina that they couldn't hear over the LT1's rumble was biting its bumper all the way to the line.

[dykz34]

I spent 2700 and got 214hp to the wheels.

214hp with headers? That's too bad. Michael put down 220hp without headers.

[bszopi]

Hey Aaron... why do you keep bringing up your numbers in the PUSHROD area?!?!

[SappySE107]

no shit, they will be deleted from now on since they have no relevance to the pushrod area at all.

[RacerX11]

My car is bone stock, and put down 306 WHP. And it is a pushrod.
Wait....this this the 60degreeV6 board, not LS1.com???

Marty

[SappySE107]

now wtf are you talking about?

[dykz34]

He's saying his LS1 put down 306hp.

[Manitcor]

Ed from headersbyed firmly held that 40"+is better. He said he doesn't know why companies even make smaller for he'd rather have manifolds But he said go as long as possible, but fitting them sometimes is mor eimportant. I chose 30' becuz they'd fit, plus totally maximize high end. And he said with the 4 valve/cyl design and the high redline, 30" should be about right, but maybe a little short. Now the guys over at Mymonte.com, they chose an 8" primary, and they aren't equal lengh and they have a larger diameter than the headers on Winston Cup cars.

The one that is being made yes, though I agree with the idea that they are on crack, thus why I bought S&S headers and will just have to have some fun with a sawzall on my firewall.

[RacerX11]

now wtf are you talking about?

Sorry...just a sarcastic comment about my Camaro dyno run, since you guys were giving Aaron a hard time about quoting his DOHC power numbers in the pushrod forum

[smilinguy99]

<rant>

The number 300HP seems to come up a lot with regard to this motor. Usually no mention of torque requirements, just horsepower. It is a number, I think, simply pulled from the air.

Let's think about this. When are you "using horsepower" and when are you "using torque".

Torque is rotational force, and we feel that in our backsides. Horsepower is the rate you can apply this force, and it gives us our top speeds. How much of our enjoyment comes from a big fat kick in our backsides and how much of our enjoyment comes from seeing the fenceposts get blurry?

When you mash the throttle from 20MPH and feel the acceleration, you are experiencing the torque properties of the motor. Peak horsepower is still a ways off.

When you put your foot to the floor and hold it until the vehicle won't accelerate any more, you have found the point at which power=frictional losses. You are probably beyond the horsepower peak at this point. So really, why be concerned about horsepower.

If you are in a racing class where the HP requirements are fairly well known, I'd say be all over the HP question, but if you just want to beat ricers, grab all the torque you can with both fists. They may blow by you at speeds above 90MPH, but that's not likely with a liter or more of displacement advantage.

I think if people would concentrate on torque and forget about max horsepower for street vehicles, they would be more satisfied. Just once, I'd like to see a post that starts out, "I'd like 250-300ft-lbs of torque available at 3000rpm, how do I get there." But it is a hard sell.

One other thing. Every once in a while on this forum I see opinions about weight and dismissive comments about the value of losing weight in a vehicle. If you look at how much it costs to lose weight with fiberglass panels and such, and how much it returns in straight line performance, it doesn't seem to return a lot. But when you consider that losing weight helps acceleration, deceleration, and handling all at once it starts to look attractive. How much do bigger brakes, suspension pieces, AND go fast parts cost? Lots. Want to improve them all? Lose weight. In that light, the cost/benefit of losing weight starts looking attractive.

Just my $00.02.

sg99

</rant>

[z284pwr]

<rant>Big Long Rant I didn't want to quote entire thin of was here..... :P </rant>

You make a good point, I'm all about Torque.....Why do you think I love riding in our '73 Trans-Am and '79 Suburban...its all about the torque....

Torque breaks thing though.....and at 250-300 lb/ft at the wheels with slicks, I'm guessing things will break.... damn FWD.....

Oh ya, with that same dyno HP I mentioned I've got peak 153 lb/ft, with ~140+ availabe from ~2500 to ~4700 RPM, and even 130 from ~2000 to ~5100 Guess we'll have to wait a month or 2 here now to see what it puts down with the turbo....

You make a good point with the weight reduction and things like that. That is the other key with drag racing, my dad learned that plenty of times throughout the 10+ years he was racing, along with the other tricks from building a race car from scratch.....
Now if only brake upgrades weren't as expensive, they would be alot nicer to look around for....either way, I'll end up getting one and swapping to rear discs....but damn does Baer have some good looking brake kits.

[614streets]

<rant>

The number 300HP seems to come up a lot with regard to this motor. Usually no mention of torque requirements, just horsepower. It is a number, I think, simply pulled from the air.

Let's think about this. When are you "using horsepower" and when are you "using torque".

Torque is rotational force, and we feel that in our backsides. Horsepower is the rate you can apply this force, and it gives us our top speeds. How much of our enjoyment comes from a big fat kick in our backsides and how much of our enjoyment comes from seeing the fenceposts get blurry?

When you mash the throttle from 20MPH and feel the acceleration, you are experiencing the torque properties of the motor. Peak horsepower is still a ways off.

When you put your foot to the floor and hold it until the vehicle won't accelerate any more, you have found the point at which power=frictional losses. You are probably beyond the horsepower peak at this point. So really, why be concerned about horsepower.

If you are in a racing class where the HP requirements are fairly well known, I'd say be all over the HP question, but if you just want to beat ricers, grab all the torque you can with both fists. They may blow by you at speeds above 90MPH, but that's not likely with a liter or more of displacement advantage.

I think if people would concentrate on torque and forget about max horsepower for street vehicles, they would be more satisfied. Just once, I'd like to see a post that starts out, "I'd like 250-300ft-lbs of torque available at 3000rpm, how do I get there." But it is a hard sell.

One other thing. Every once in a while on this forum I see opinions about weight and dismissive comments about the value of losing weight in a vehicle. If you look at how much it costs to lose weight with fiberglass panels and such, and how much it returns in straight line performance, it doesn't seem to return a lot. But when you consider that losing weight helps acceleration, deceleration, and handling all at once it starts to look attractive. How much do bigger brakes, suspension pieces, AND go fast parts cost? Lots. Want to improve them all? Lose weight. In that light, the cost/benefit of losing weight starts looking attractive.

Just my $00.02.

sg99

</rant>

Nicely said. Your two cents is worth a buck fifty.

[614streets]

Sigh just have to add though , if you want to play with the big boys you have to go BIG. Thats all.

[RacerX11]

Good discussion on torque. Just to add a point, a broad powerband is even more important. A peaky, high-revving, high-HP engine may look good on paper as far as bragging rights go, but put it in a car, and it won't be much fun to drive everyday. By the same token, an extreme torque monster that runs out of breath by 4000 rpm won't be much fun either. It launches good, but runs out of breath early. A good engine has decent torque, as well as high rpm HP. A combination of both makes a flexible engine. It isn't about peak numbers, its about the area under the curve(s).

Take, for example, an L98 TPI F-body, and an LS-1 F-body. The L98 makes craploads of torque (way more than the LS-1 down low), but is anemic at best up top. The LS-1 sacrifices the extreme stump pulling low end torque for a broader powerband, and more top end power. Which car is faster? The LS-1, by a long shot. OK, this is an extreme case, but still shows the point.

An example closer to home. 3.1L vs. 3100. The 3.1L has less power, more torque, but is it faster than a 3100? In a heavier car, where the torque has a bigger effect, maybe. In a lighter car, the 3100 will be faster.

I want a 300HP @ 6000rpm engine with 300ft-lbs @ 2000 rpm.
Torque is force, Power is a measure of work. Both are equally important in my book.

Marty