Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope...I meant 366....for those that don't know, it was a tall deck (0.400 taller than a typical car block) heavy duty truck block that came with a 3.935 bore/3.760 stroke, small port heads and only made 210 hp. Yet it was as every bit as big (and heavy) as a 454.
I'd take a 396 big block any day over a 366. Though I'd take a 496 any day over any of them....except maybe a 502 or a 572....torque is where it's at.
Torque is what your truck needs to pull your trailer with racecar to the track so it's high rpm, high HP will make it win races.
Its hard to believe, today they make dinky 4 cylinder engines that would blow away of those old big blocks.
That's due to several reasons... many of the dinky 4-cylinder engines are turbo-charged. They also rely on high revs to get every bit of hp they can and use low (sometimes very low)gearing. Many modern cars have 3- and even 4-series 1st gear ratios, in addition to low axle ratios, whereas '60s cars had 1st gearing as high as 2.45:1 (the Mopar Torqueflite).
Having said that, I would take one of the old big-block cars over 5 modern 4-cylinder matchbox cars.
Also, a few common mods on the old cars really improved performance.
For example, a test of a stock 1970 Buick GS Stage 1 455 ran a 13.7 @ 105.2 mph 1/4 mile. Adding headers and Goodyear 8.50x14 slicks resulted in a 13.12 @ 107.60 mph 1/4 mile. That was with 22 lbs of air in the slicks. Dropping it to 15 lbs gave a very good 12.89 @ 107.80 mph 1/4. This was with 3.64:1 gearing. 4.11s would have probably resulted in a 12.5 sec or better 1/4 mile.
Another example: Motor Trend tested a 1970 Ford Boss 429 Mustang. With 4.56:1 axle ratio and 7" drag slicks, it ran 12.3 @ 112 mph.
One more example: Another magazine tested a 1970 Chevrolet Chevelle SS 454 LS6 with 4.11:1 axle ratio. With headers and 10.50x15 slicks, it ran 12.69 @ 113.26.
Another advantage of the classic cars... they were affordable when new. For well under $4,000, you could buy a Plymouth Duster 340 with 3.91:1 gears which could outdrag a typical Ferrari of that era.
LOL are you serious? Did you even read what you typed before you posted?
Do you even know what horsepower is actually a measurement of?
Second what makes you think you need high rpms to win races?
My F250 diesel has a lot more torque than my 2012 Mustang GT.
The GT spanks it every time.
Please, explain the torque domination to me.
A lot of guys like you buy into the theory though.
Tell me what happens when you pass 5250 rpms.( where real racing takes place)
My F250 diesel has a lot more torque than my 2012 Mustang GT.
The GT spanks it every time.
Please, explain the torque domination to me.
A lot of guys like you buy into the theory though.
Tell me what happens when you pass 5250 rpms.( where real racing takes place)
Your truck vs. your car is comparing apples to oranges.
The reason your GT spanks your F250 is because the F250 is set up for stump pulling very low in the rpms. Whereas the GT is more evenly spread out. Also because most likely your GT weighs less than your F250 not to mention probably has better breathing heads and so forth.
Depending on what kind of vehicle in you're in determines what you need. A lighter vehicle needs less torque to move it as opposed to a heavier vehicle. It's all about power to weight ratio.
Also having more torque = you don't need as low of a gear to get the car moving.
Furthermore, I don't know what you dictate as "high rpm" but the turbo 6 in my 3560 lb 87 T type only turns 5k before it changes gears and has ran a mid 12 at 109 in the 1/4 on a malfunctioning ignition set up. But that shouldn't have happened right?
If you truly think you don't need torque to accelerate, you should sell your GT and buy a Honda as that's their thinking.
^^^Issue with the story above is that a good engine combination well have both a useable torque and then another hp band contributing to a quicker 1/4 mile compared to a similar engine which has a single peak torque and then a considerable drop off in power afterwards as your Buick engine does. You just do not make the power after that first peak to prolong the shift point vs. a well balanced NA engine that can do the same. Your engine combo uses a turbo-intercooler to compensate for lack of cubes and poor hp showing after peak torque is due to limitations in the combination.(heads, exhaust, camshaft timing, turbo size,etc)
Instead of considering how quick your car is with shifting at 5000rpm, think in terms of how much quicker you could be going with a better engine combo.
Then there is the issue of your 60' time and what type of tire combo you were using along with converter stall speed and rear axle.
Almost forgot, how much boost as well.
I enjoy a good discussion but I think you are a being in slanted in how your present the data on your car to buttress your point of view.\
NB: I vaguely recall the TI231 used a tuned intake manifold to force twin torque peaks which makes sense in turbo applications to aid the lack of cubic inches. I suppose your engine really is just not able to produce a useable hp curve.
^^^Issue with the story above is that a good engine combination well have both a useable torque and then another hp band contributing to a quicker 1/4 mile compared to a similar engine which has a single peak torque and then a considerable drop off in power afterwards as your Buick engine does. You just do not make the power after that first peak to prolong the shift point vs. a well balanced NA engine that can do the same. Your engine combo uses a turbo-intercooler to compensate for lack of cubes and poor hp showing after peak torque is due to limitations in the combination.(heads, exhaust, camshaft timing, turbo size,etc)
Instead of considering how quick your car is with shifting at 5000rpm, think in terms of how much quicker you could be going with a better engine combo.
Then there is the issue of your 60' time and what type of tire combo you were using along with converter stall speed and rear axle.
Almost forgot, how much boost as well.
I enjoy a good discussion but I think you are a being in slanted in how your present the data on your car to buttress your point of view.\
Outside of maybe a 274 stage II stroker with GN1 heads, what better engine combo are you thinking of? FWIW I don't shift at 5k, the trans does, as Buick turbo 6 engines typically don't like being spun past 5k...but the point I was trying to make is it's not always required to run your engine up to 6k...7k...8k...9k rpm....to make power, as some people think. I never did get to see the full potential as the car was laying down at the top of each gear due to an ignition problem I later found. Then the track closed due to a few politicians.
Outside of maybe a 274 stage II stroker with GN1 heads, what better engine combo are you thinking of? FWIW I don't shift at 5k, the trans does, as Buick turbo 6 engines typically don't like being spun past 5k...but the point I was trying to make is it's not always required to run your engine up to 6k...7k...8k...9k rpm....to make power, as some people think. I never did get to see the full potential as the car was laying down at the top of each gear due to an ignition problem I later found. Then the track closed due to a few politicians.
For what it's worth I have read that the Big Block Chevy engines in pro stock are shifting at 10,500. You just can't make 6 sec runs at 5,000 rpms.
Outside of maybe a 274 stage II stroker with GN1 heads, what better engine combo are you thinking of? FWIW I don't shift at 5k, the trans does, as Buick turbo 6 engines typically don't like being spun past 5k...but the point I was trying to make is it's not always required to run your engine up to 6k...7k...8k...9k rpm....to make power, as some people think. I never did get to see the full potential as the car was laying down at the top of each gear due to an ignition problem I later found. Then the track closed due to a few politicians.
The Turbo Buick motors have a lot of low end grunt and make tons of torque at a low rpm (sorta like a diesel) by design. The boost is the reason for the power.. They can run a whole faster then 12's too and never make it over 5000 prm. They can run deep into the 10's with that combo..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
