Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Calendar
Monthly
Weekly
Agenda
Archive
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support Hardline Crawlers :
Forums
Rock Crawling Forums
Tech & Fab
Pro's N Con's More HP then "needed"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="PsDad" data-source="post: 110269" data-attributes="member: 692"><p>A 600hp small block would be a dandy motor for a mud whomper (or a rock whomper) , but it's torque peak would be at a higher rpm range than would make sense for a crawler. Throttle response would be compromised due to the lowered intake velocity (mach #), BSFC (fuel required per horsepower) will be much higher, and volumetric efficiency would be much lower at midrange rpms. Engine life will be reduced by the necessity of turning higher rpms to produce usable torque, and the higher idle speed required for a long duration cam will necessitate using a high stall speed torque converter producing much higher transmission temps and shorter trans life. As for Gen1 or 2, it really doesn't make any difference, the same rules apply. Nascar engines produce over 2 HP/cu. in., but only have to live for a few hundred miles. Top Fuel engines produce over 16 HP/cu. in. and frequently don't live for 1000 feet! 'Scuse me fer gettin' windy, but I really love this stuff and I almost always learn something from hearing other folks' opinions!!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PsDad, post: 110269, member: 692"] A 600hp small block would be a dandy motor for a mud whomper (or a rock whomper) , but it's torque peak would be at a higher rpm range than would make sense for a crawler. Throttle response would be compromised due to the lowered intake velocity (mach #), BSFC (fuel required per horsepower) will be much higher, and volumetric efficiency would be much lower at midrange rpms. Engine life will be reduced by the necessity of turning higher rpms to produce usable torque, and the higher idle speed required for a long duration cam will necessitate using a high stall speed torque converter producing much higher transmission temps and shorter trans life. As for Gen1 or 2, it really doesn't make any difference, the same rules apply. Nascar engines produce over 2 HP/cu. in., but only have to live for a few hundred miles. Top Fuel engines produce over 16 HP/cu. in. and frequently don't live for 1000 feet! 'Scuse me fer gettin' windy, but I really love this stuff and I almost always learn something from hearing other folks' opinions!! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Latest posts
I am moving to Tennessee
Latest: Blackbeard
Yesterday at 4:06 PM
General Discussion
For Sale
2005 Ford Excursion Eddie Bauer
Latest: jeeptj99
Monday at 11:55 AM
Vehicles For Sale
I.w.i.w clampy
Latest: bobbedrunner99
Friday at 4:44 PM
Tech & Fab
Salvage 10
Latest: ridered3
Friday at 7:47 AM
Tech & Fab
Ultra4 - Battle in Bluegrass (Bowling Green, KY) East Series (4/19-4/20)
Latest: ridered3
Apr 25, 2024
Trail Rides & Competitions
Forums
Rock Crawling Forums
Tech & Fab
Pro's N Con's More HP then "needed"
Top