CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

In the early '80's I found a 63 Valiant that an old lady had owned
since new. I bought it from her for $125. The interior was like a brand
new car, needed paint.


Did you have the long-stroke high rev, or the short-stroke high torque
engine in it?

Ooops, you must not have seen my post regarding your ignorant statement
that the only thing affecting torque is stroke.... please answer, we'll
go from there, little guy. Also, you notice, please, that I never said
that one type (long stroke, small bore vs. short strong big bore) had
any more torque than the other. Quite the contrary. My statement was
WHERE in the power band that torque is prominent.

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

In the early '80's I found a 63 Valiant that an old lady had owned
since new. I bought it from her for $125. The interior was like a brand
new car, needed paint.


Did you have the long-stroke high rev, or the short-stroke high torque
engine in it?

Ooops, you must not have seen my post regarding your ignorant statement
that the only thing affecting torque is stroke....

Never said that. Did you miss the part where I said "Everything else being
equal (# cylinders, displacement)"
I even simplified my argument for you. Here it is again.

Engine #1- 250 ci straight 6 in a under square configuration (Stroke is
longer than the bore- long stroke)

Engine #2- 250 ci straight 6 engine in a over square configuration (Stroke
is smaller than the bore- short stroke)

Engine #1 will have more torque than engine #2 at a lower rpm.
Engine #2 will rev higher and achieve its max torque at a higher rpm than
Engine #1.
Engine #2 will also redline @ a higher rpm than Engine #1.

Anything here you disagree with?


Also, you notice, please, that I never said that one type (long stroke,
small bore vs. short strong big bore) had
any more torque than the other. Quite the contrary. My statement was WHERE
in the power band that torque is prominent.

And that's where you're wrong. You stated- "Inlines, because of the
relatively short stroke, and big bores, have a lot of low end torque"

Low end torque is not enhanced by having a relatively short stroke.

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

In the early '80's I found a 63 Valiant that an old lady had owned
since new. I bought it from her for $125. The interior was like a brand
new car, needed paint.


Did you have the long-stroke high rev, or the short-stroke high torque
engine in it?

Ooops, you must not have seen my post regarding your ignorant statement
that the only thing affecting torque is stroke....

Never said that. Did you miss the part where I said "Everything else being
equal (# cylinders, displacement)"
I even simplified my argument for you. Here it is again.

Engine #1- 250 ci straight 6 in a under square configuration (Stroke is
longer than the bore- long stroke)

Engine #2- 250 ci straight 6 engine in a over square configuration (Stroke
is smaller than the bore- short stroke)

Engine #1 will have more torque than engine #2 at a lower rpm.
Engine #2 will rev higher and achieve its max torque at a higher rpm than
Engine #1.
Engine #2 will also redline @ a higher rpm than Engine #1.

Anything here you disagree with?

Yes.


Also, you notice, please, that I never said that one type (long stroke,
small bore vs. short strong big bore) had
any more torque than the other. Quite the contrary. My statement was WHERE
in the power band that torque is prominent.

And that's where you're wrong. You stated- "Inlines, because of the
relatively short stroke, and big bores, have a lot of low end torque"

Low end torque is not enhanced by having a relatively short stroke.

Low end torque is enhanced by having a larger bore. Which is what I
originally stated.

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

In the early '80's I found a 63 Valiant that an old lady had owned
since new. I bought it from her for $125. The interior was like a
brand
new car, needed paint.


Did you have the long-stroke high rev, or the short-stroke high torque
engine in it?

Ooops, you must not have seen my post regarding your ignorant statement
that the only thing affecting torque is stroke....

Never said that. Did you miss the part where I said "Everything else
being
equal (# cylinders, displacement)"
I even simplified my argument for you. Here it is again.

Engine #1- 250 ci straight 6 in a under square configuration (Stroke is
longer than the bore- long stroke)

Engine #2- 250 ci straight 6 engine in a over square configuration
(Stroke
is smaller than the bore- short stroke)

Engine #1 will have more torque than engine #2 at a lower rpm.
Engine #2 will rev higher and achieve its max torque at a higher rpm than
Engine #1.
Engine #2 will also redline @ a higher rpm than Engine #1.

Anything here you disagree with?

Yes.

LOL, what is incorrect in my example above?
I'd love for Gene to chime in here.




Also, you notice, please, that I never said that one type (long stroke,
small bore vs. short strong big bore) had
any more torque than the other. Quite the contrary. My statement was
WHERE
in the power band that torque is prominent.

And that's where you're wrong. You stated- "Inlines, because of the
relatively short stroke, and big bores, have a lot of low end torque"

Low end torque is not enhanced by having a relatively short stroke.

Low end torque is enhanced by having a larger bore. Which is what I
originally stated.

Wrong. Low end torque is not enhanced by bore size as long as the overall
displacement of the engine remains the same.

CR wrote:

Wrong. Low end torque is not enhanced by bore size as long as the overall
displacement of the engine remains the same.

Prove it.

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

CR wrote:

Wrong. Low end torque is not enhanced by bore size as long as the overall
displacement of the engine remains the same.

Prove it.



"Engine torque output is essentially related to cubic inch displacement of
any engine. The RPM that maximum torque is produced at is related to the
length of the stroke of any engine. A 230 c.i.d. "under-square" engine will
make about the same torque as a 230 c.i.d. "over-square" engine but will do
so at lower RPM due to its longer stroke."

http://www.novak-adapt.com/knowledge...es_general.htm

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

CR wrote:

Wrong. Low end torque is not enhanced by bore size as long as the overall
displacement of the engine remains the same.

Prove it.



"Engine torque output is essentially related to cubic inch displacement of
any engine. The RPM that maximum torque is produced at is related to the
length of the stroke of any engine. A 230 c.i.d. "under-square" engine will
make about the same torque as a 230 c.i.d. "over-square" engine but will do
so at lower RPM due to its longer stroke."

http://www.novak-adapt.com/knowledge...es_general.htm

What you fail to realize, is that you need to think of the connecting
rod as a lever. What is essential, and you fail to understand, or
address, is that my statement had to do entirely with WHERE in the
power curve you are measuring torque.

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

CR wrote:

Wrong. Low end torque is not enhanced by bore size as long as the
overall
displacement of the engine remains the same.

Prove it.



"Engine torque output is essentially related to cubic inch displacement
of
any engine. The RPM that maximum torque is produced at is related to the
length of the stroke of any engine. A 230 c.i.d. "under-square" engine
will
make about the same torque as a 230 c.i.d. "over-square" engine but will
do
so at lower RPM due to its longer stroke."

http://www.novak-adapt.com/knowledge...es_general.htm

What you fail to realize, is that you need to think of the connecting
rod as a lever.

#1- A longer lever works easier than a short one
#2-#1 is only one reason why a longer stroke engine has inherently more low
end torque than a short stroke engine of the same displacement.

What is essential, and you fail to understand, or
address, is that my statement had to do entirely with WHERE in the
power curve you are measuring torque.


I've addressed what you've said in just about every response, and it is the
basis of why you're wrong-

"Depends on where in the power band. Inlines, because of the relatively
short stroke, and big bores, have a lot of low end torque"
You are attributing the low end torque of an engine to the "relatively short
stroke". This is ass-backwards from reality.

On 16 Oct 2006 15:49:43 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

CR wrote:

Wrong. Low end torque is not enhanced by bore size as long as the overall
displacement of the engine remains the same.

Prove it.



"Engine torque output is essentially related to cubic inch displacement of
any engine. The RPM that maximum torque is produced at is related to the
length of the stroke of any engine. A 230 c.i.d. "under-square" engine will
make about the same torque as a 230 c.i.d. "over-square" engine but will do
so at lower RPM due to its longer stroke."

http://www.novak-adapt.com/knowledge...es_general.htm

What you fail to realize, is that you need to think of the connecting
rod as a lever.

Actually... a longer rod does not change the force on the crank at all
- the "lever" is the offset of the crank pin from the crank centerline
- i.e. half the stroke.

Basically, the rod isn't a "lever", it's a vector. The "leverage"
doesn't change because the lever arm (crank throw) is fixed. What does
change with a longer rod and less rod angle is the force vector. You
can gain very slight efficiencies with longer rods, but the torque of
an engine is primarily controlled, as CR correctly stated, with
stroke. Other things have influences, but stroke is the primary
mechanical factor.

Oh, and obviously, a longer rod does not increase stroke.

Harry Krause wrote:

On 10/13/2006 5:36 PM, Eisboch wrote:

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:IDTXg.24$cQ5.14@trndny06...


Thanks. I haven't been able to find a "review" with the v6 engine.


I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure why
but they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's
the compact shape?


There's a good reason for it.
I just wish I knew what it was.

Eisboch


I'm going to do my best to talk my wife into the 268 hp Toyota Camry.

The new Camrys are ugly as hell. I hope you are looking at an '06.