variable cam
Sit. Stay.
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 18,308
Likes: 20
From: Washington State
Okay...I figured that. 
My statement was for the Ford weanies reading these threads letting them know that they really need to get off their ****!
GMs got their 400HP 6.2 coming out. Dodge has their 425HP 6.1 already out and we're stuck with out 362HP V10.
My statement was for the Ford weanies reading these threads letting them know that they really need to get off their ****!GMs got their 400HP 6.2 coming out. Dodge has their 425HP 6.1 already out and we're stuck with out 362HP V10.
FTE Leadership Emeritus
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 42,561
Likes: 423
From: Long Island USA
Originally Posted by Monsta
GMs got their 400HP 6.2 coming out. Dodge has their 425HP 6.1 already out and we're stuck with out 362HP V10.
What's the TORQUE curves look like?
Forget HP - it's a bogus number...
Sit. Stay.
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 18,308
Likes: 20
From: Washington State
Originally Posted by krewat
And I thought you were smarter than that
What's the TORQUE curves look like?
What's the TORQUE curves look like?
Well actually the Dodge will probably have around 390HP & 440 lb ft in the trucks when it comes out. It will be tuned for TRQ in the truck. (A drop 425/420) Let me ask you...if you could trade 10lbs of torque for 40 more HP, would you? (I'm using the 350/450 3V V10 numbers)
We all know that the Escalade will come out with GMs new 6.2L all-aluminum V-8 engine with VVT delivering 403 horsepower and 417 lb.-ft. of torque.
No, the TRQ numbers are not close to the Triton V10 but still...
And yes, I know the curves are important.
One thing would be to Supercharge AND Turbocharge the V10. Watch what VW is doing with thier Twincharger engine. They think it could spell doom for the modern diesel in cars & light trucks.
FTE Leadership Emeritus
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 42,561
Likes: 423
From: Long Island USA
Originally Posted by Monsta
C'mon...I AM smarter than that but the fact is I didn't know the TRQ numbers.
SNIP
Let me ask you...if you could trade 10lbs of torque for 40 more HP, would you? (I'm using the 350/450 3V V10 numbers)
SNIP
Let me ask you...if you could trade 10lbs of torque for 40 more HP, would you? (I'm using the 350/450 3V V10 numbers)
Second, no I would not trade 10 lbs of torque for 40 more HP. WHY?
Here's why:
More HP but less torque means you'd have to pull more RPM's to make the higher HP numbers.
What good is a higher HP number with less torque? NONE!
That is, everything else being the same, vehicle/gearing/tranny/weight/tires/etc.
FTE Leadership Emeritus
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 42,561
Likes: 423
From: Long Island USA
More on Monsta's question about giving up 10 ft/lbs of torque for 40 HP:
Using my '01 V10 as an example:
310HP@4250 (I believe) means at 4250 RPM, there's 383 ft/lbs of torque.
Computing what RPM it would have to spin to get 350HP (40HP more) means I'd have to pull to 4928RPM to get that 350HP and 373 ft/lbs of torque.
Now, I know that's not exactly 10 ft/lbs less at PEAK, but you get the idea. I'd have to spin the V10 up to almost 5000RPM to get the 40 more HP with 10ft/lbs less torque.
To make up the difference, I'd have to regear to 3.82:1 to make up the torque loss.
Using my '01 V10 as an example:
310HP@4250 (I believe) means at 4250 RPM, there's 383 ft/lbs of torque.
Computing what RPM it would have to spin to get 350HP (40HP more) means I'd have to pull to 4928RPM to get that 350HP and 373 ft/lbs of torque.
Now, I know that's not exactly 10 ft/lbs less at PEAK, but you get the idea. I'd have to spin the V10 up to almost 5000RPM to get the 40 more HP with 10ft/lbs less torque.
To make up the difference, I'd have to regear to 3.82:1 to make up the torque loss.
Sit. Stay.
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 18,308
Likes: 20
From: Washington State
Okay let's say that you didn't have to spin it for those numbers. Granted both those engines I talked about post those Peak HP numbers at above 5000.
However, if I didn't have to spin my V10 any higher to reach peak HP than I am now, I would trade 10lbs for 40 more HP up top. 350/415 are still good numbers.
My "arguement" of course didn't take RPMs into account. Fact is, a 390/440 truck engine is still a stout engine. If the numbers (RPMs) were the same I'd choose the 390/440 over the 350/450.
However, if I didn't have to spin my V10 any higher to reach peak HP than I am now, I would trade 10lbs for 40 more HP up top. 350/415 are still good numbers.
My "arguement" of course didn't take RPMs into account. Fact is, a 390/440 truck engine is still a stout engine. If the numbers (RPMs) were the same I'd choose the 390/440 over the 350/450.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
FTE Leadership Emeritus
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 42,561
Likes: 423
From: Long Island USA
OK, Monsta, now I get it - loose 10 ft/lbs at PEAK, but get 50 more HP?
That means the torque curve is slightly FLATTER, with it peaking at a lower #, but extending more torque out to a higher RPM.
That I WOULD take, actually. 10 ft/lbs would hardly be noticed, and the ability to pull better up to 5000RPM would make up for that.
But somehow I suspect those "other" motors have a much steeper torque curve at the lower RPMs...
That means the torque curve is slightly FLATTER, with it peaking at a lower #, but extending more torque out to a higher RPM.
That I WOULD take, actually. 10 ft/lbs would hardly be noticed, and the ability to pull better up to 5000RPM would make up for that.
But somehow I suspect those "other" motors have a much steeper torque curve at the lower RPMs...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
sps_sac
Small Block V8 (221, 260, 289, 5.0/302, 5.8/351W)
3
Jan 7, 2005 08:53 PM