Approximately 10/7/03 13:24, Joshua Nelson uttered for posterity:
No, you can create such an engine. An example I can think of would be the chevrolet 427 that had so much torque at idle that you could not stop the !@#$# thing with the brakes if the clutch was locked up. The highest torque could be clear up in the 4-6K plus range, but if you have enough at idle, who cares.
Depends on the specific model and cam. The LT1 version had 370 hp at 6000 rpm and 380 lb-ft at 4000 rpm.
You can also cam the thing down for low end grunt as used in trucks. Is oversquare, but then so is the 454 and it isn't exactly torque shy. Back in the early 60's the favorite engine I can recall in Jeep conversions around Green River and Moab was a Chev from 265 up to 327 and either the Quadrajet [aka the BBQ Carb] or a big 2 barrel and aftermarket manifold specific for big 2 barrels.
Kinda depends on your cam and breathing plus as you say, the gears. If it is wound out at 70, passing is more "interesting", plus a Jeep is a tad less aerodynamic than a brick or a Corvette.
The fact that an engine is an inline or V design has very little to do with its power band, but it is a factor. The biggest factors in determining the RPM where peak torque occurs is the design of the induction and exhaust systems. Probably the main factor of an inline engine that causes it to have more low RPM torque than a V design is the fact that the intake runners are usually much longer on the inline engine purely by design. One other factor that will make an inline engine seem to have more torque is the fact that the weight of the crankshaft and connecting rods will create more inertia. This is great for low RPM use because the engine will not bog as easily. The drawback for high RPM use is that the same inertia will resist fast RPM increases in instances such as passing. also, most V design engines have a shorter stroke than an inline engine of the same displacement. This also means that the inline engine will have smaller piston bores, which means smaller valves, which "usually" means more low RPM torque. An engine's peak torque occurs at the highest RPM that it can completely fill the cylinders (100% volumetric efficiency). Some of these guys that are racing the rice burners like the Toyota inline 6, are spinning them at ungodly high RPM, but these engines have 4 valves per cylinder, small stroke/big bore/long connecting rod design, and some very exotic induction and exhaust systems. OTOH, there are V6 engines used in cruising boats that basically idle along all the time and have a max recommended RPM of about 4000. there are also
500 cubic inch V8 racing engines out there that don't make a bit of torque until 5 or 6000 RPM, such as in Pro Stock drag racing. These engines are revved to about 9000 RPM during a quarter mile race. there again, these engines have absolutely huge ports, cams, and carbs. Granted, some engines are not suited to low RPM use because there just isn't a good mix of parts to make them run like they should, but most of the common engines like the Dodge 318/360, Chevy 350, and Ford 302/351 have many good parts available for making a very torquey low RPM engine. The Jeep 4.0 and the AMC/Jeep 258 are a good place to start because they were made to run at lower RPM and don't require much, if anything to make a good powerful off road type engine.
Chris
"Jeff Strickland" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com...
Wow Chris, that was an insanely great post with great information. I learned a great deal from it, especially a far deeper understanding of why an inline six is generally thought of as a better low-end torque motor than a V6 is. Thanks, that was an extremely well-written, and informative post with just the right amount of detail to back it up!
I dunno about that. A buddy of mine has a 1990 Eagle Talon TSi Turbo AWD. It's only a 4-cylinder engine. I am not sure of the exact displacement, but it can't be more than 2.5 liters at the very most. Yet with those twin turbos, it will blow away all but the beefiest of muscle cars. I personally witnessed it smoke a 5.0 Mustang.
Approximately 10/9/03 07:56, Joshua Nelson uttered for posterity:
The original quote, from the guy who kicked Ferrari's ass on a regular basis, was more along the lines of: "All else being equal, there is no substitute for cubic inches"
As for smoking a 5.0 Mustang, there are several levels of tune for that engine. Some of them wouldn't let the TSi get close enough to see if there is a rear license plate. With a twin turbo in the mucking fustang, it probably couldn't even get close enough to recognize it as a mustang.
I'm pretty sure that is the accurate quote from Carroll Shelby. Most folks tend to confuse it with trying to beat a 1.5 liter F1 motor with a 300 cube overhead valve, which isn't what he meant. You actually had to use a 427 cube motor with OHC to beat a 1.5 liter F1 motor. Or a 60 cube rotary, or a 36 cube equivalent turbine.
Approximately 10/9/03 11:28, L.W.(ßill) Hughes III uttered for posterity:
TVR are apparently quizzing owners really hard as to whether they want 800hp in their Speed 12. Seems to be a bit of a handful. Fast enough to put a smile on your ... pants.
formatting link
Dave Milne, Scotland '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: > I'm pretty sure that is the accurate quote from Carroll Shelby. : > Most folks tend to confuse it with trying to beat a 1.5 liter : > F1 motor with a 300 cube overhead valve, which isn't what : > he meant. You actually had to use a 427 cube motor with : > OHC to beat a 1.5 liter F1 motor. Or a 60 cube rotary, : > or a 36 cube equivalent turbine.
Other than that I can't afford even the XJR, I really would have loved to see the Aston Martin V-12 in the new big aluminum Jag sedan. Almost as much as I'd like to see DC put a big honking diesel in the Grand Cherokee that could beat that 303hp /553 lb-ft one that offers the fastest 0-60 performance and top speed [150+] in the Touareg. Screw that wimpy Hemi.
Approximately 10/9/03 13:39, Dave Milne uttered for posterity:
Don't get your panties in a wad. The OP said "There's no replacement for displacement." Obviously, from this example, there is, and it worked quite well. Now, go take your prozac and calm down...
The quote was that there are "no replacements for displacement." This implies that there is absolutely nothing you can do to compensate for lower displacement. But that is patenently false, as there are PLENTY of replacements for displacement... to name a few random examples: 1) turbos, a la the Eagle Talon TSi, 2) lower vehicle weight (a 600cc Honda CBR would undoubtedly smoke a 5.0 mustang as well), 3) gearing (a 1.5L stock Honda Civic could out-accelerate my off-road geared 5.7L CJ) and so on ad nauseum.
Adding the words "all else being equal" to the end of the sentence changes the whole meaning of the quote.... that's a no brainer. I don't think you'll find anyone to argue the point that two indentical vehicles, equipped exactly the same except for different engine size, will perform the same.
In practice, I have had the opportunity to drive numerous vehicles ranging from a 0.4L dirt bike to a 5.9L Suburban and have found engine size alone offers no meaningful indication of how the vehicle will accelerate or power.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.