I always get a laugh everytime a magazine "covers" a camshaft shootout. They don't cover them, they ceate them in cahoots with the cam mfg's. I learned a long time ago not to just grab a new issue off the magazine rack (pick one) because of the flashy cover or enticing words of new found horsepower. After the first couple of years of computer assistance; cam profile "gurus" really haven't come up with any real significant improvements, despite how much advertising $$$ the mfg's throw at them. They will also tell you how much they have improved the OEM grinds with their blueprint series cams, but they just wanted to get in on the muslecar restoration money when the (nos) factory camshaft stockpiles dried up. BTW, whatever happened to that whole Rhoades lifter era (make that fiasco) of improving low end torque and responsiveness from overcammed street engines.
Not gunna get torque from a small block. Inches bring torque. Want to make a torque monster look for 472 or 500 Cad. Remember these engines were built to push the "Titanic". Low RPM and tons of horsepower and better mileage than a BBC. Will last for ever in a tow vehicle. CMD and MTS both make kits to put these monsters in almost everything.
I know this is the dumb question to rule them all, since there is so many good posts from intelligent people on her. I like your post, @falcongeorge, but my mind only get sixty pro cent first time I read it. But you make sense, so I go back and read it again. But here goes the stupid question that sometimes makes smart people laugh: Why would you build a SBC if you want a torque monster when the pick n pull is full of Truck motors that are good enough and is runners. And I get you can go along way with a good build, but a truck motor will be a good set up compared to the "power build" SBC. We all agree on the on the first letter in SBC is short for SMALL. It's like a GMC 305 V6 compared to any Chevy SBC 305 V8. Or any IH truck motor compared to most SBC or a tall deck BBC with a descent displacement compared to a 383 stroked SBC. And not that I claim to be an expert, but some of you guys are awe fully smart for my thick southern skull, but the weight of the fly wheel is more about launching and stumb pulling, the actual power and torque. It's a balance of not going to light and bog at launch or go to heavy and it counter acts all your work and prevents it too rev right.
Your question isn't stupid. Long arm mean torque. 305 IH has a long arm and small pistons. Look up specs for V12 or 16 for any make. Huge arms, small pistons, tons of torque and low RPM. Big truck diesels run giant arms and small pistons compared to the engine size. You can whore "poke & stroke" a SBC till the "whores come home" but the more you go the more it becomes unreliable.
I would also like to add, the old engine picture with the flywheels, do not have much torque. I have some from the 20's though 50's. The flywheels only keep the turning, most of mine I can stop them just by dragging the flywheels down.
86 burb tow rig? do a 5.3 with 4l80e swap. Upgrade the 5.3's cam, valve springs & converter to match- you'll make equal power to stock 6.0. Gear it right and you'll pull houses down and knock off 20 mpg easy.
Wow.... I have computer print out sheets from the early 80's around somewhere calculating every thousands of an inch for piston speed in the cylinder (combustion speeds, how long the piston stays in the quench area) compression heights, different Rod length - stroke combinations ... I might have even screwed up what I just said...my head is spinning reading some of this stuff... . I think for your dollar value. You'll be happy with a 383 SBC. I'm gonna make some popcorn and check back on this one!
I think it takes a turbo for a diesel to make more than 1 ft-lb per cubic inch. But low speed running is just about perfect ( the perception of torque) due to no reversion and strictly controlled rpm based fueling (automatic with old style mechanical injection).
Yes but it also cheaper then normal fuel. That stuff is very popular on OT small euro build Japanese cars with large turboes. Buts it's hard on old carbs, fuel line etc. So it gonna be expensive when you count all in.
Further to the whole "do better BSFC numbers automatically equate to an improvement in part throttle fuel economy" thing, I was looking at this 351 Cleveland dyno test last night, and noticed something of interest. Take note of the BSFC at 3500-4000 in tests 1 and 2, and compare them to test 4. Test 1 is the stock cast iron Cleveland intake with the autolite spread bore, test 2 is the same carb with the aluminum Boss 351 intake, and test 4 is a single plane torker with a Holley 850 double pumper. Note that the BSFC at 3500-4000 for the torker/850 combo is WAY lower than either autolite spread bore combo. The corrected brake hp at 3500-4000 rpm is actually lower for the Torker/850 combo, and since we know BSFC is a measure of lbs of fuel burned per hp produced per hr @ WOT, there can be only one conclusion we can draw from this. At WOT @ 3500-4000 rpm, the torker/850 combo is burning CONSIDERABLY less fuel than the autolite spread bore. Ok, hands up, who actually thinks that this is going to carry over to part throttle, and the torker/850 is going to use less fuel at pt throttle cruise than the autolite spreadbore and dual plane?
Start looking up specs for the Cad. Big HP big torque at low rpm. "Factory" '76 500, 190 hp @ 3600 rpm. Yeah right! 360 ft. lbs. of torque @ 200 rpm w/8.5 compression. '70 500, 400 hp @4400 rpm, 550 ft. lbs. @3000. You don't call these torque monsters? This is stock ratings. Like I said before, these engines were designed to push the Titanic. Also CHEAP to just rebuild or a little more power and because of the low rpm will last forever in a tow rig.
Should push that truck around Ozarks FAIRLY quickly. Just don't let the BBC Suburban and 5.0 Mustang guys know what's in it.
How this for Caddy lore. This is the engine and car that was built in the late '80s. Obviously the engine never made it. Engine was designed in the 60's.
This is my tire frying short box with a 500 cu in Eldorado engine. Yes torque is where it is at. This engine and trans will be for sale shortly in the parts for sale area. Gary
Lets say the 850 and torker are drawing less fuel on the fuel meter at WOT. The power is also lowest in that set up at 3500. I'll place my bet that the 850 with the throttle flopped to WOT at 3500 and the carb venturies with those jets its lacking the signal. I'll bet it's also lean and that's why power is down as well as the BSFC- based on math and flow meter observation
Fuckin eh! See, here's a guy whose THINKING, not just regurgitating some crap he's read in a magazine. You make me proud son! 351C Torkers, are notoriously weak in the 3500-4000 range, even compared to other single planes. In fact, Edelbrocks old Scorpion for clevelands has made more torque than the Torkers in dyno tests, and it has bigger runners and a bigger plenum than the Torker. So your homework assignment is to google "shear plate speed Talk" and read what Darin Morgan says. My guess is, A guy could make the 351c Torker work a LOT better in the 3500-4000 rpm range with a quick bolt-on, and yes, this has EVERYTHING to do with building torque motors. Especially focus on what Darin says about how to tell if the plate is working by what the motor wants in terms of jetting with the plate on there. Don't you wish they had included the egt's?
Good God, the tag team are gate keeping together a-gain. Do the 472-500 Cadillac. Say it, 500 foot pounds of torque at l o w RPM's. And a '65 anything is not a 'hot rod'.
I'm looking back thru the posts. And where did all these come from? I know they weren't there before I posted mine.
Look at CMD web sight. http://www.cad500parts.com They ran a '70 Coupe de Ville on the street that ran low 11's. 5000 lb. car in the 11's? That's some serious power!
The Jalopy Journal
