The muscle guys always like to stroke a motor for the torque increase. I
know in my 440 (It's a 'cuda, my Imperial is a small block) I can drive
around 20mph in 4th gear with no problems at all. It's nice cause the
clutch is kind of heavy. I never drove a 413 either, but most drag guys I
knew wanted 440s, over 413s.
I know it's not what Imperials are about.
My 4 speed 'cuda gets comparable mileage to my 360 Imperial :(
Rob
Hoping to get 15 on the way to Carlisle
>From: "D. Dardalis" <dardal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: IML: low end torque vs long stroke, was: 413 vs 440!
>Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 13:59:42 -0500
>
>At 11:21 AM 7/11/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>>If you have had much experience driving a real long stroke engine, such
>>as the flat head straight eight, you may feel a little different about
>>stroke and torque. My '38 would accelerate from dead stop to 110, all in
>>high gear, and leave almost anything around at the time (1958) in its
>>dust. I hardly ever used the first two gears.
>>
>>4 - Toes
>
>Sir, I have not driven such an old car (other than a 37 Chevrolet, which
>did not have that much low end as your 38). All these real early engines
>had a high stroke/bore ratio (more than 1.2, 1.3?). Also, they had a lot
>of low end torque, by modern standards. Due to the lack of synchromesh in
>their transmissions, it was very desirable to be able to drive on high gear
>till very low speed when you slow down for a corner (I am sure you know
>that). However, the very strong low end is NOT really a direct result of
>the long stroke (although there is some relationship between the two that
>becomes important in high compression engines, like diesels, won't get into
>why). The low end torque of these old engines was more related to the very
>small cams with almost zero overlap, tiny intake valves and ports (compared
>to later engines), small carburetors and narrow intake manifolds. These
>characteristics allowed reasonable volumetric efficiency and reasonable
>fuel atomization at low engine speed. The trade off was of course in the
>low rpm potential and upper end (specific) power of these older
>engines. Of course, another reason for relatively low specific power of
>older engines is that they had to endure the very low octane gas of the
>period, forcing very low compression ratios...
>D^2
>PS, a late 20's Bugatti type 35B could be cranked with the electric
>starter with forth gear engaged, and accelerate to 80 mph, all within 30
>seconds! (straight 8, twin overhead cam, only 2.3 L).
>
>
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network