I've heard the stock V10 can take a Hemi any day, because the V10's torque curve is so flat.

Same with the FE's. Notice the torque curve on that graph above, at only 2000RPM, about 370 ft/lbs... and a peak of 425 (like the V10's net).

The Hemi has peak torque of only 375@4200, HP is 345@5400. While these are "net" with accessories, and that graph is probably "gross", the Hemi has a useless torque curve at low-end.

It never ceases to amaze me - I think Dodge has been bitten by the HP bug, and no one there realizes that you need the TORQUE all across the RPM range to get moving. Peak HP has nothing to do with it, and they have taken the HP-bait hook-line-and-sinker...

 

That's about as right as rain Krewat!

 

By the way, I'm talking about cars too, not just work trucks.

We could measure the length of the torque curve with no more than 20% deviation from peak in terms of RPM, and then where that 20% deviation from peak starts and stops.

I propose a new way of measuring engine performance. Figure the length of the torque curve where it's within 20% of the peak, where it starts, and what the actual peak is. So it's:

(Total RPM range where 20% peak torque is achieved)@(Start of 20% of peak torque)@(peak torque)

V10: 1000RPM-5000RPM (not sure, but it's higher than 5000, lost the brochure) at 20% deviation from peak torque of 425ft/lbs net
Hemi: 3300RPM-5800RPM at 20% deviation from peak torque of 375ft/lbs net

Result:
V10: 4000@1000RPM@425ft/lbs
Hemi: 2500@3300RPM@375ft/lbs

The higher the first number, the flatter the torque curve. The lower the second number, the sooner it comes in. And, of course, the higher the last number, the better.

This means so much more than peak HP.

 

I like what you guys are saying :-) Just wish I could get my motor to run this way consistenttly. Anyway, if I could get traction and my motor to run like this all the time, I think my truck would be pretty quick. Check out this torque curve or....torque line :-)

http://www.thedreyerfamily.com/69f25...fe446dyno2.htm

 

Ratsmoker, My engine is as follows.......
.060 over 390
1 C8AEH and 1 D2 head with polished exhaust and smog bumps removed and smoothed, also did some blending and polishing in the bowl area. 68cc heads with some minor polishing in the combustion chamber, 3-angle valve job, 2.04 intake valve, 1.57 exhaust.
10.1:1 compression ratio (Speed Pro Forged pistons flatop with valve reliefs)
Edelbrock Performer RPM intake
Holley 600 CFM Vac. Secondary carb. currently running a 1 inch 4-hole spacer
3.78 stroke crank (stock 390)
windage tray, stock volume and pressure oil pump
Edelbrock Performer Plus cam (for right now) and Sure Seat springs, Crane Pushrods and factory type adj. rockerarms

I don't think you need all what I listed but if you need anything else.....

 

Could you please run the 801, 901 Powermax's, and the 052 (Energizer) and either show or tell me what you think would be best.

 

Sorry, I meant the 941 not the 901

 

Hi there RAPIDRUSS, on the DUI system you were talking abought. it is a GM HEI set up and is very prone to blowing the IGN moduel in side the cap. this is due to heat build up. also the coil has a bad habit of blowing a hole thru the top of the cap and then grounds out. I am a former FORD TEC (ASE MASTER) and before that I worked the after market shops. total of 14 years. I do not like any IGN system that has the module on or near the engine due to heat and vibration problems. that includes ford. you will notice the late model fords have the module mounted away from the engine now, lesson learned at ford. I would recomend you purchase the book ( PERFORMANCE IGNITION SYSTEMS) by Christopher Jacobs. it has some realy good info in it. well I have opened up a pandoras box so to speak, please keep in mind this only my opionion. I have converted to duraspark and will be going to MSD very soon. let me hear from the rest of you folks on this.

 

According to desktop dyno you do not have enough head flow to run the 801 but I have seen guys run bigger cams with stock heads and more compression and make great power. Here is all 4 cams compared though. The energizer doesn't seem to energizing huh?

If you plan on upgrading the rocker shafts or getting end stands then I would run the 941 but the 801 should make it move a little faster.

[IMG]//www.clubfte.com/users/ratsmoker/Anila.jpg[/IMG]

 

I really don't agree with that graph. I had to double check and make sure it was all entered right. It was. The performer cam is about as aggressive as the stay-puff marshmallow man. The 801 or 941 should make a good bit more power at at least the higher RPMs.

 

I hate to devolve this into the ground, but could you do me a favor?

I have a 390 - 10.5:1 flat-top TRW forged pistons, SCJ exhaust valves in C8AE heads, Edelbrock Performer 390, Holley 750 vac-sec (4160?), and the cam:

292/292 advertised
230/230@.050
.554/.554" valve lift
107/111 intake/exhaust lobe ctrs. I believe it was advanced 4 degrees, it was 12 years ago... we were going for more low-end... that puts the intake lobe ctr at 111, exhaust at 115.
ADV timing: BTC:37 ABC:75 BBC:75 ATC:37
.050 timing BTC:7 ABC:43 BBC:45 ATC:5
Both of these need to be adjusted based on the 4 degrees advance.

I went for a "square" cam because with the exhaust being wide-open, I figured it was a good way to keep the overlap down. Long-tube matched length 1 7/8" headers, not sure that matters. Compression is nearer to 11:1 after being computed

I'm just curious what this works out to be compared to others. I have yet to see a cam anything like this one mentioned, it's a Wolverine Blue Racer, and even Crane doesn't list anything close anymore in their Blue Racer line.

Idles at 11 inches of vacuum with 16 degrees advance, which sounds pretty typical (messy vac advance hack gets me 16 degrees at idle, but less than 10 cranking).

Quick edit: Pulls like a *****... much more than the mild RV cam in the previous 390, and totally overshadows the 360 I originally had in it. A very lopey idle at 900RPM...

 

Those event numbers don't match the centerline numbers Krewat. That cam must have asymmetrical lobes. That is pretty cool. Now I have to figure out how to fudge that into the program. I'll post a graph in a few. SSI has copied that profile I do believe.

Here it is:

 

Now we are talking camshaft part no. right (just making sure).
I didn't really consider the 801 but I do like the 941 and the 901. I think I would probably just skip the 901 for the 941. If I give you some cam specs from some other companies would you mind running them for me?

 

I remember something about that - my machinist looked at the figures, started at the wall a while, and said it would probably work great for me.

I can spin the 33" BFGs on dry pavement starting off in 2nd (with 435NP and 4.10 rear) at 1500RPM. Not too bad for such a lopey idle. It pulls great up until around 5200RPM and starts to drop off noticably, but still pulls pretty good up to 6000RPM - only did that once or twice, still stock valve train.

 

I'lll run any cam. If you want a comp cam run then just give me the part number. I have them all on file. I'll do a comparison with the two programs later. I have little time before I have to go to work.