Don't give up silver streak...I find this all interesting...I am trying to learn why, not necassarily take anyones word for it, know what I mean?


As an engineer, why would you use a formula for work, to prove a point about resistance or drag? Wondering....


To help me better understand you, look at my last couple posts and tell me, what logic is mistaken...that would help me...if you can make sense of it all...I tend to ramble.

Still trying to take this all in...

 

Think I have my answer...

 

FWIW and to prove I am not always thick..I thought I would post.

For reasons unknown, I began thinking about this topic again and I believe I may change my view point. Don't you love when that happens.

What made me change my mind about ring friction was something silver streak mentioned...

SS kept saying if you add all the cylinders up, the answer was obvious but in my mind it wasn't that easy, I also realize what should have been stated to make it clear but was not, for my understanding anyhow...haha

We agree 60 lbs for the six and 80 lbs for the eight, a perspective that wasn't mentioned was considering one cylinders force, which would have to overcome all eight cylinders resistance, obviously, one cylinder fires at once. They are all connected by the crank and must all move via one cylinders force as to set in motion.

From this perspective, one cylinder moves 60 (4.9) or 80 lbs (5.0), the six would win, less resistance to overcome. Another bonus, we were saying each example had a simillar displacement and the air fuel in each was perfect, the six cylinder, due to less total cylinders, will take in more air/fuel mixture per cylinder, thus more downward force created, again in favor of the six. The six has the ability to make more force per cylinder with less resistance to overcome, as to set in motion, six wins.


So as it stands, in my mind, if all we were taking into consideration were rings resistance, stroke and number of cylinders, everything else being equal, it would go to the six banger....

now factor in the rod angles, extra/larger mains and a few other details, who knows?

 

Clifford doesn't suck, it's just the fact that they are Resting on Olde Man Cliffords Well Established Laurels, haven't really come up w/ anything new in years & are asking a scary amount of Rhino for what you can get for a better price if you shop around.
My build from JMS Racing Engines came to $4246.00 & change for All Parts & Labor.

 

I posted this once before @ serveral individuals requests previouly, which yours was one of, you obviously didn't read it or didn't like what you saw & ignored the post.

The numbers start @ 3000 & stop @ 4600 on the print out, & on asking Olde Man Johnson about it, he stated he didn't have a clue & shrugged.
RPM SF-TQ SF-HP
3000 397.7 237.6
3500 397.8 264.6
4000 381.9 288.8
4500 351.4 297.7

They ran out of Pump Petrol & had to use Top Fueler Petrol on this run, the printer ate the other print-outs & they kept the surviving one for their files.
This is the best I'm able to produce for you, & I'd be hesitant about making libelous statements, if you've problems believing this.

 

Building Up A Six-Cylinder Engine
Tech Articles

Building Up A Six-Cylinder Engine
Six-cylinder engines don’t get much respect in performance circles. After all, they’re buzzy, down on power, and they tend to remind us of Saturday morning at the grocery store with mom when we were young. But make no mistake, Ford’s old, reliable in-line six is here to stay, and with good reason. You just can’t kill ’em.

By Jim Smart
Photography: Jim Smart

What About the BIG Sixes?

The 240 and 300ci sixes were installed in large cars, trucks, and vans from the '60s until the '90s. In fact, the 300ci six was equipped with port fuel injection until its demise two years ago. Clifford Performance offers a lot for the big Ford sixes. Crouch tells us the 300ci makes more torque, and has a broader torque curve, than the 302ci V-8. The 300ci six has a 4-inch bore with a 3.96-inch stroke. Put these numbers alongside the 302 V-8 (4-inch bore with a 3.00-inch stroke) and we find the 300 six has the clear advantage. Serious huffage (and leverage!) going on here. Plus, if built, ignited, and aspirated properly, it will take a 7,000-rpm blast.

If you have a passion for Ford sixes and want to spank your buddies at the traffic light, consider the installation of a 300 six in your Mustang or Falcon. Why? With special engine mounts, Clifford makes it possible to drop a 240 or 300ci six into your Ford compact with hood clearance to spare. So what's available for the 240/300ci six from Clifford? Plenty! Five differ- ent manifolds--two fours, three twos, one four, one two, and two twos. Cast-aluminum valve covers. Custom-forged pistons. Mallory ignition. High-performance oil and water pumps. Even forged crankshafts. Ultimately, you can achieve 600 hp and 7,000 rpm with a 300ci Ford six. Just imagine the possibilities in your sleeper street car.

 

Libelous? Not my intent. And no, I didn't see the figures for anything but max torque at 3300 and max HP at 4500. What is of interest to me, as stated, is what is possible below 3000 rpm, because nearly all truck work is done there.

To repeat, once again, for clarity, I would like to see the dyno numbers for a worked over motor of this type at lower rpm, to evaluate the work potential of the motor for truck labors of the heavy hauling type.

And I would also like to see the low rpm 450 lb. ft. figure to support
Clifford's claims. I don't believe that they can produce the numbers. Such comments are hardly libelous, just pursuit of the truth, which should be backing claims of the sort Clifford is making. If they cannot do so, then "libelous" should be directed at the claims they are making, rather than my reasonable request for verifiable truth.

I have two Ford sixes myself, an EFI and a modded 309 cubic inch motor and think the world of them. They will outpull many larger motors. I would not trade them for even a 351. But please, people; you cannot write a blank check for torque and horsepower and expect that the 300 will answer every call no matter how high you set the bar. Limited displacement makes limited torque, especially at low rpm. Undoubtedly the low rpm torque of the 300 makes it an extremely competent truck motor, better than many V8's. Low rpm means it will lug down and continue pulling when higher revving motors quit, even if they have higher total torque.

Ultimately, however, physics cannot be denied. Unless they are not naturally aspirated engines, limited displacement has trouble making high torque figures at low revs. That's why they make large displacement engines.

 

You may wanna contact j41385a, he supposedly has a 300 using a 268 comp and the usual mods/ port work and hes getting 450TQ @ 3300 (or so thereabouts). He mentioned a dyno sheet, maybe he can scan it and give it to you, then send it my way, I would like to see it too.

When you use your physics, also keep in mind, we are discussing an inline configuration vs a bent 8.

 

Motorhead, I would be interested to see it. If this high torque is possible at low revs, off idle to 3000, then that would be the six cylinder setup to have. I don't expect 450 to be produced at the sub 2000-300 rpm speeds; all I want to know is if the torque is still respectable, given the breathing improvements that should benefit high revs rather than the low rpm speeds. In other words, I want to see if anything was lost in gaining HP.

No matter the engine configuration, compression and displacement make torque. If both engine types (V and inline) have the same breathing geometry (same length runners, valve configuration, etc. etc.) then torque and HP should be very similar.

Again, I ain't 300 bashing; I'm one of its biggest fans. Its strength was that it was set up as a no compromise torque motor, which cannot be said of most V8's, which are usually set up to gain power in the higher revs, sacrificing bottom end power.

And Col. Flashman, I followed the 350 vs. 300 post, and I'll pit my 300 against the 350 in a pulling war any day. A no compromise torque motor CAN outpull a 350 that is set up as most were, which was torque at higher revs. My motor pulls immediately, while the 350 has to build revs. By the time he got there it would be all over.

 

Actually your right to a point but in our scenario, the 300 against say the 302/351w, everything is different. Theres a reason why the six banger can generate more TQ than an equal displacement v-8 and make nearly identical TQ and HP as a simillarly modified SBF that has 51 more ci. What it lacks in cylinders, it makes up for in stroke.

The 300 is your friend, embrace it. J/K

 

I don't recall anyone saying a 302 couldn't make as much torque as a 300-it can. Just not as low.

Recall some efi specs:

302 185 Hp 270 Torque
300 145 Hp 265 Torque

Same torque; the 300 produces it at much lower rpm. Equals better truck motor, but not more torque. All stroke says is for a given displacement, the longer stroke motor will produce the torque at a lower speed, not that it produces more total torque.

 

Stock?

Take a 302, add the equivalent items/modifications added to col. flashmans build, I would highly doubt it would hit 350-375 much less 400 Tq.

Most warmed over (mild stock head port work, mild cam) 351w, that I recall, put out somewhere in the neighborhood of 375-400 TQ, thats another 51ci.

 

You're talking about "equivalent rpm." Give me that same 302, add modifications to optimize its performance, and it will make the same 375 to 400 lb ft. at much higher rpm. If you think a 302 can't make 400 lb. ft, you haven't been to the racetrack much. There are some damn fast 302's. The bottom line is revs, and the 302 would make a completely crap truck motor, as it would have no low speed torque. It must rev to make the torque-but it makes it.

By modding the 300 for HP, you move the torque curve higher as well. It has to, or it wouldn't generate much horsepower either. The question is, what does the curve look like below 2000? 1500? At clutch engagement?

Here's a relevant question; two motors, one 488 and another 300 cubic inches. The big one makes 450 lb. ft; the smaller a claimed 450 lb. ft. Both have approximately equal compression. Which one has the lower torque peak rpm?

Look up the specs for the original Dodge cast iron V-10; notice the low rpm at which it makes 400 lb. ft.

Now you know why I want to see the low rpm performance of these hopped up 300's. That should resolve the issue. You're not gonna see the torque at as low an rpm as the V10 produces. BTW, the Dodge engine has a 3.88" stroke; the Ford six has 3.98". Displacement per cylinder is 48.8 CI for the Dodge; 50 CI for the Ford six. And it has four fewer cylinders.

 

Never stated that about Clifford.
My reference are in regards to your comments about my statements & @ me.
I can not give you what I do not have, as the Print-out that was readable was still rather a mess & JMS kept it!
As for Photo Copying it, it was rather eligable when we attempted it because of the smeard ink & it being so badly chewed up.
But I did in several places POST the #'s that I did have, which you state you Never saw even though I posted them in threads you were involved in, as I recall.
I wished for & received a Med-Range, Over-All, Performance Engine that will last for quite some time, as 300 Inliners are known to.
This engine will not be straining it's guts out on the Hwy @ high R's @ speed & Perform the Towing I wish to do, as well as the Off-Roading when I need it, w/ the TQ & HP where I wish it, when I need it.

"I would like to see a dyno run that showed 400 lb. ft. as well. Heard about it, but nobody's ever produced one. On a NA 300."

"What I mean is a scanned in dyno sheet, reproduced for us to see as original. With the power output curves, etc. etc. so we can see the behavior of the motor. I've seen SS's so it's been done, I'd just like to see these 400+ lb. ft. 300's.

"I'd think if you shelled out the bucks for a dyno run you have a right to expect a printed graph of the motor's output."

"I think it's reasonable to ask to see dyno results rather than extrapolating what I THINK might be happening. I think the real answer is to dyno my own sixes and find out for myself rather than rely on third hand information about what somewhat else said the motor was capable of without supplying any other information than a single figure for max torque and max horsepower."

"Funny that I hear all this talk about 400-450 lb. ft. 300's at low rpm yet a dyno sheet is nowhere to be found."

You come across to me as though you are calling me a Liar.
I've given you what I've got from the Dyno Print-out that I wrote down @ the time.
I saw the 'Puter display which did have those #'s you are asking for in the Low r's, which I didn't write down @ the time as I was distracted by the Printer eating the Print-Outs, beliveing they would be ON the print-out itself.
They were impressive as I recall as "Olde Man" Johnson was making comments that stated such @ the time.
I'm sure if you, as the Math-man you seem to be, can extrapolate the #'s backwards from the ones I've posted, you'll have what you are asking for.

 

Col, take my comments for what they were intended; as a request to see a dyno sheet of the 300.

Please reread my posts. I thought I made that pretty clear.

Obviously, I am a skeptic, and a skeptic needs proof. That's a reasonable request to resolve the issue.

My doubts concern the 450 lb. ft. figure most particularly. Something doesn't add up.