Quote from: GoCougs on May 11, 2012, 08:37:11 AM
NO on stroke. Stroke does NOT define your torque. And "rotating mass"???  It's displacement + rod/stroke ratio. Take for example Honda's F20C (9,000 RPM 4-cylinder in the S2000). Bore is 3.4" and stroke is 3.3". By your definition this should be a "torque monster." Why isn't it? Rod length. Rod length is a relatively long 6.02" for a rod/stroke ratio of well less than 2. If you understood the kinematic relationship you'd understand why Honda designed the engine this way; in short, it's because of cylinder side wall loading, amongst other things. Stroke length by itself does not define torque.

NO on VE. For a 5.0L engine at 7500 rpm to require 780 cfm it'd have to be operating at 120% VE. LOL - exhaust and intake tuning??? You ain't getting that without forced induction. The Boss 302 never made anywhere near 400 hp stock.

NO. Sorry, Ford told you the the 426 Hemi was better (and too the big block Chevy) Ford FE because Ford replaced the FE at the height of the heyday.

This is getting tiring - you simply can't hang on the tech and otherwise I own you on this and it all started because you made an assertion that went very poorly (400 hp Boss 302) and now you're trying to dig yourself out. My suggestion is beware the dangers of fanboyism - it leaves one vulnerable; ignorant peanut gallery and all.

Honda S2000 a "torque monster"?  Silly boy.  I'll take this rambling diatribe as meaning that you still don't 'get it'.

edit:  this is fun .

Quote from: MX793 on May 11, 2012, 10:46:04 AM
The F20C has a lot of torque for its displacement.  Over 150 lb-ft from an NA 2.0L is pretty darn good.

My 2.0L SVT has 145 lbs-ft.

Quote from: ergodic on May 11, 2012, 09:20:20 AM
How'd an over-square engine be a torque monster by anyone's definition? If anything, the longer rods is what makes it more torquey I think.

Edit: wait, wtf am I arguing with Cougs...

By FoMoJo's definition more stroke relative to bore = more torque. Yet, the performance engines of the period were mostly rather short stroked; nowhere near equal square:

Ford 302:  4" x 3"
Chevy 350:  4" x 3.48"
Mopar 440:  4.3" x 3.75"

And then we have the 9,000 rpm S2000 motor, which is almost equal square:
F20C: 3.4" x 3.3"

Rod length simply defines the distance from piston to crank journal; longer rods do not make and engine more "torquey." Longer rods actually tend to move the power band UP in the rpm range (= tendency to be less "torquey").

Quote from: MX793 on May 11, 2012, 10:46:04 AM
The F20C has a lot of torque for its displacement.  Over 150 lb-ft from an NA 2.0L is pretty darn good.

True, but then again that doesn't happen until 7,500 rpm.

Pretty much any 2.0L with the same VE% will have about that torque irrespective of stroke. (Basic thermo tells us this.)

Quote from: FoMoJo on May 11, 2012, 10:46:06 AM
Honda S2000 a "torque monster"?  Silly boy.  I'll take this rambling diatribe as meaning that you still don't 'get it'.

edit:  this is fun .

YOU defined the S2000 motor as a torque monster - it has a very long stroke relative to bore (see my previous post), and you keep clamoring on about how more stroke = more torque. That is simply not correct. It's a misnomer that stroke defines or is a major factor in torque output. Torque output is a function of displacement and VE%.

My god, what an awful thread. Thanks for the memories, Cougs

Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 11, 2012, 12:42:32 PM
My god, what an awful thread. Thanks for the memories, Cougs

I think it's a great thread - look how much you guys have learned - especially a bit of engine tech/history of the muscle car heyday and that peak torque = displacement + VE% ≠ stroke and/or rod length.

Quote from: GoCougs on May 11, 2012, 04:55:30 PM
I think it's a great thread - look how much you guys have learned - especially a bit of engine tech/history of the muscle car heyday and that peak torque = displacement + VE% ≠ stroke and/or rod length.

I haven't learned shit.  The posts have been too long.

It doesn't help CJ can't read

Quote from: MrH on May 11, 2012, 09:47:13 PM
It doesn't help CJ can't read

I CAN read...I just choose not to.

Quote from: Catman on May 08, 2012, 07:46:37 PM
Unreal how a V6 today would blow the doors off the older GT's.

Not of the S197 generation. Even the older 300hp cars without 3.73 rear ends were still slightly faster.

Quote from: Raza  on May 09, 2012, 08:04:18 AM
And by older, you mean like two years ago.  It's insane.

The 2010's, with a 3.73 rear, would actually beat this car in a drag race. Still, pretty damn fast for a V6

Quote from: CJ on May 11, 2012, 08:57:01 PM
I haven't learned shit.  The posts have been too long.

Damn those words. Damn them to hell.

Quote from: GoCougs on May 13, 2012, 12:30:30 PM
Damn those words. Damn them to hell.

Quote from: CJ on May 13, 2012, 12:36:54 PM

Shame; the automotive enthusiast community needs a healthy dose of basic tech education.

Quote from: GoCougs on May 13, 2012, 12:45:29 PM
Shame; the automotive enthusiast community needs a healthy dose of basic tech education.

I just don't care about old American muscle.  I'm more interested in...not that.

Quote from: LonghornTX on May 13, 2012, 12:26:34 PM
Not of the S197 generation. Even the older 300hp cars without 3.73 rear ends were still slightly faster.

An '11 V6 w/ track pack outlapped the '10 GT w/ Track Pack on VIR in C&D's lightning lap, and that's despite spending a fair amount of time slamming against the 115 mph governor in the higher speed sections.

Quote from: MX793 on May 13, 2012, 04:35:05 PM
An '11 V6 w/ track pack outlapped the '10 GT w/ Track Pack on VIR in C&D's lightning lap, and that's despite spending a fair amount of time slamming against the 115 mph governor in the higher speed sections.

I think they were talking about straight-line speed.

That article Cougs posted makes me want a 327 Chev.

'65 Impala, please.

Quote from: MX793 on May 13, 2012, 04:35:05 PM
An '11 V6 w/ track pack outlapped the '10 GT w/ Track Pack on VIR in C&D's lightning lap, and that's despite spending a fair amount of time slamming against the 115 mph governor in the higher speed sections.

The 115mph governor is ridiculous. 

Quote from: Raza  link=topic=27367.msg1720101#msg1720101 date=1337007733
The 115mph governor is ridiculous. 

Accent is faster than Mustang

Quote from: CJ on May 13, 2012, 12:49:15 PM

I just don't care about old American muscle.  I'm more interested in...not that.

A well rounded enthsuaist should at least know about it.

Quote from: ChrisV on May 14, 2012, 12:34:15 PM
A well rounded enthsuaist should at least know about it.

I have no interest in old British roadsters unless an American V8 is stuffed in it (ala Cobra). I know absolutely nothing about anything British Leyland because I don't like them.  But I'm still an enthusiast.

But not a well rounded one.

Ha, ha!

Quote from: ChrisV on May 14, 2012, 02:25:13 PM
But not a well rounded one.

Not as well rounded as you are, no.  But we don't all need to be either.  Nor do we all want to be.

Quote from: GoCougs on May 14, 2012, 02:26:13 PM
Ha, ha!

So laughs the forum's unthusiast.

Hey look, here's a relevant comparo: http://www.dpccars.com/car-videos-12/05-24-12page-Subaru-BRZ-vs-Mazda-Miata-vs-Hyundai-Genesis-Coupe.htm

Quote from: SVT666 on May 14, 2012, 02:38:13 PM
Not as well rounded as you are, no.  But we don't all need to be either.  Nor do we all want to be.

I want to learn as much as I can about cars. And never stop learning. Why? Because I'm a car enthusiast and am interested in cars, not merely a few cars I might buy. Why? Because I might buy one later, or recomend one, or talk to someone that owns one and don't want to look ignorant. I'm on a general car forum where we can discuss all kinds of cars and I'd rather know what I'm talking about when it comes to cars. ANY cars. Even cars I may not like as much, or have no interest in owning (like Camrys...lol!)

But then again, I like cars not because of brands but because of their sheer mechanicalness. I'm fascinated by how different people developed cars to do similar things. How they designed them, how they engineered them, and how they arrived at different solutions for similar situations. I don't care whether a car is American, Japanese, Korean, British, German, Italian, Chinese etc. other than how that affected their creation.

And I just assume that guys that like cars are interested in more than just a handful of popular brands. And it always saddens me to find that so many car guys enjoy being intentionally ignorant of cars in general. I guess it's because they feel that their brains aren't strong enough to learn that much about cars and/or are afraid that if they actually learn about more kinds of cars, they may like their favorites less.  I find it odd that there are car guys that intentionally don't want to know what they are talking about.

Quote from: ChrisV on June 04, 2012, 02:23:58 PM
I want to learn as much as I can about cars. And never stop learning. Why? Because I'm a car enthusiast and am interested in cars, not merely a few cars I might buy. Why? Because I might buy one later, or recomend one, or talk to someone that owns one and don't want to look ignorant. I'm on a general car forum where we can discuss all kinds of cars and I'd rather know what I'm talking about when it comes to cars. ANY cars. Even cars I may not like as much, or have no interest in owning (like Camrys...lol!)

But then again, I like cars not because of brands but because of their sheer mechanicalness. I'm fascinated by how different people developed cars to do similar things. How they designed them, how they engineered them, and how they arrived at different solutions for similar situations. I don't care whether a car is American, Japanese, Korean, British, German, Italian, Chinese etc. other than how that affected their creation.

And I just assume that guys that like cars are interested in more than just a handful of popular brands. And it always saddens me to find that so many car guys enjoy being intentionally ignorant of cars in general. I guess it's because they feel that their brains aren't strong enough to learn that much about cars and/or are afraid that if they actually learn about more kinds of cars, they may like their favorites less.  I find it odd that there are car guys that intentionally don't want to know what they are talking about.

Your arrogance is unreal. 

I love cars.  I love a lot of cars, and contrary to popular belief my interest reaches far beyond the Mustang.  There are also cars I don't like, and when it comes to cars I don't like, I don't give a rat's ass what the engine is, chassis code is, gearing, or even if I can talk to somebody about it if I run into someone who owns one.  If I do meet someone who owns a car I don't like, I readily admit I know nothing about it and I let him talk about his car.  I still don't care to know anything about it though.  If you think I can't be a true car enthusiast because I don't give a shit about something like a Pinto, Gremlin, or even something a lot of people think is really cool like an Alfa spyder, then you're wrong.  I just don't like those cars, and I can't bring myself to learn about something I don't care about.  Especially when there are so many cars I do care about and do want to learn about and I would rather spend my time learning about those cars.