x3
it was over at my post of csa... which i think was the first response.
Moderator: Team
x3
Looking for an answer that was outside the conventional thinking. Never got it. But it does exist.
Not really. I wasn't looking for a suggestion. I asked if a 1.8 CSA would be sufficient for my RPM and CID.mt-engines wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 12:06 pm it was over at my post of csa... which i think was the first response.
1.8 and 220’s at .050 you have sub 6000 rpm 425-450 hp. Put it together lolmt-engines wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:48 pmyeah, and less cam is needed. 220@.050 will do it. only need 5000rpm to bootdigger wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:17 pmIMO 1.8" MinCSA should be adequate for that power levelskinny z wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:50 pm
Yeah. I'm seeing that the heads are definitely on the small side for a 6000 RPM 383. That said, I could lower my peak HP RPM and still get satisfying results I would think. Maybe target peak around 5500 with a 5700 RPM shift.
Interestingly, it has been compared to a tow truck.
I can't say that I have one really. The obvious answer would be the most out of the heads and cubes selected. I would think somewhere in or around 450 HP isn't unreasonable. Even a solid 425 would be a step function change from the existing iteration.
i offered you the csa to get you to your goal... did your calculator determine that was wrong?skinny z wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 12:22 pmLooking for an answer that was outside the conventional thinking. Never got it. But it does exist.
Good replies from many just the same.
Not really. I wasn't looking for a suggestion. I asked if a 1.8 CSA would be sufficient for my RPM and CID.mt-engines wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 12:06 pm it was over at my post of csa... which i think was the first response.
You offered up another CSA altogether. (1.9-2.0). Though, in a round about way I suppose that's saying no.
Then it was suggested by others that 1.8 would be fine.
So, what then? Leave it at that or pursue it further?
I choose the latter.
Now I'm getting shit on for it.
Too bad.
Hey man. No need to get like that really. May I not ask questions? I come here seeking guidance. I ask questions that maybe you find silly. Or perhaps you're insulted that I question you? I don't know. I DO know that by your reply above, you still haven't got the real gist of my question. Post 1 mentions nothing of a HP goal. Only MCA, CID and RPM. Can it be done or do I lower my RPM ? It was suggested by you and others that yes, maybe 6000 RPM out of those heads and CID wasn't going to happen. I should have said thanks and moved on. But it raised a couple of other questions. Nothing calculator related (god forbid).mt-engines wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 4:11 pm
i offered you the csa to get you to your goal... did your calculator determine that was wrong?
yeah because your goal is stupid, you want 6000rpm but 450hp. you are leaving 100hp on the table easy.
you will make 450hp 1000rpm before you want to peak. to make the engine peak 6000 you need the csa range i gave you. if you want 450hp, then leave them.
i mean damn, lets take a 5.7 vortec engine that was designed to make peak power at what 4600rpm... add stroke to it and try to make it peak 6000?
thats essentially what you want.. at this point do what you want.