anyone running a 350 with 2.1 box?

Automotive powered airboat discussion.
Keeth1123
Site Supporter - I
Site Supporter - I
Posts: 316
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 8:54 pm
Location: Polk County
Contact:

anyone running a 350 with 2.1 box?

Postby Keeth1123 » Wed Feb 27, 2019 5:45 pm

Anyone running a Chevy 350 (not highly modified) with a 2.1 belt box? If so, what is it on and how does it run>?
:old_glory:

Basin_Runner355
Southern Airboat Member
Posts: 183
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 7:16 am
Location: St.martinville , Louisiana

Re: anyone running a 350 with 2.1 box?

Postby Basin_Runner355 » Thu Feb 28, 2019 5:43 am

I like mine it runs good. Slightly built. Destroyed a few positions had to. Rebuild it. Had to bite it .040 over and put a cam it’s spinning a 3 blade sensenich on pitch mark 15
14ft diamond back mild zz4 355sbc pushin 410 hp 430 TQ 2:1 belt drive reduction with a 3 blade sensenich 78Jw series

One Eyed Gator
Southern Airboat Member
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 11:33 am
Location: Ocala,Fl

Re: anyone running a 350 with 2.1 box?

Postby One Eyed Gator » Thu Feb 28, 2019 7:43 am

Not an exact comparison but close in Hp/tq.

I ran a stock carbed 5.3 with a 2:1 gearbox. Motor was on a 14x7-6 alumitec with SS rigging set-up with 3/8" poly for fishing the gulf.
The motor was straight out of a wreck truck with 113K then was on a buddies boat for 2 years before I got it. (so it was not a fresh motor)

I tried a an early whirlwind think a stump puller 76" 2 bld, 80" 2 blade maximus and a 81.5" 2 bld R. 2 bld R ran the best cruised at 3200-3400 with a load and WOT as 5000. Ran about 46 and push good on the ground.

I was able to get a 2.68 box and put it on that motor I ran a 79" 3 bld R (was just what I got a deal on). It felt like a completely different boat. My motor liked the bigger ratio.
Last edited by One Eyed Gator on Fri Mar 01, 2019 6:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Prototype
Southern Airboat Member
Posts: 752
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 2:28 pm

Re: anyone running a 350 with 2.1 box?

Postby Prototype » Thu Feb 28, 2019 9:38 pm

Had a friend that ran a stock 350 then 383 and now a 427 on a 2.09 with stump pullers.
Dude couldn't find his way to his front door if someone stapled a 6x6 degree wheel on it?
3 motors later and two major prop damages is all one needs to say "Had a friend"!
You know the type that preps there boat in the middle of the ramp?

Keeth1123
Site Supporter - I
Site Supporter - I
Posts: 316
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 8:54 pm
Location: Polk County
Contact:

Re: anyone running a 350 with 2.1 box?

Postby Keeth1123 » Thu Feb 28, 2019 9:42 pm

Heck no I hate people that hog up the ramp. Last week I seen someone drying off a 1992 center console with faded paint. I mean if your gonna dry the damn boat it better have a slick paint job at least.

I ask the question because I was thinking of getting a spare motor (350) cause of a good deal, but have no idea how it performs on a belt.
:old_glory:

Basin_Runner355
Southern Airboat Member
Posts: 183
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 7:16 am
Location: St.martinville , Louisiana

Re: anyone running a 350 with 2.1 box?

Postby Basin_Runner355 » Fri Mar 01, 2019 7:29 am

If you ain’t looking to climb to the moon they run good before i Did my motor work it was a Stock 350 and it went everywhere it’s more about the boat set up than motor

When i first got my boat it wound not run the ground at all. Right before it blew because of to much timing i was climbing the levee the big boys play on.
14ft diamond back mild zz4 355sbc pushin 410 hp 430 TQ 2:1 belt drive reduction with a 3 blade sensenich 78Jw series

User avatar
Prototype
Southern Airboat Member
Posts: 752
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 2:28 pm

Re: anyone running a 350 with 2.1 box?

Postby Prototype » Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:33 am

Agreed!
Your going to pay to play and some pay regardless of playing?
It should do OK but maybe better served as a budget upgrade replacement as funds come ready!
It just depends on how you need to get back in! Everything breaks and wears out, but most don't leave the ramp thinking that.

Totally spare 350, why not go through it with plans to replace what your hesitant now with?

pierson skunkape
Site Supporter - II
Site Supporter - II
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:11 pm

Re: anyone running a 350 with 2.1 box?

Postby pierson skunkape » Wed May 29, 2019 2:17 pm

My old man ran a 14 ft airgator.....400 sb...with close to 475 torque... which is what people with boats need to be talking about not horsepower... Had an old 2/1k way... I was a lot younger but I remember that thing going just about anywhere.... But if you want to take six people straight up the side of a levy better get a big block was some fat Pizza pan blades....Whirlwind props makes an excellent three-blade for two to one only applications.... Working on a new boat now it will have a belt drive to 2/1. 383 of course but it's a 15 by 8 Hamant..... Some of these high gearbox ratios go pass me in the swamp and they sound like they're going to explode their wrapped up so high... What's that different strokes for different folks.... I myself like cruising about 32 to 3400.... With plenty of pedal to get me out of trouble still....

User avatar
OneBFC
Southern Airboat Member
Posts: 595
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:04 am

Re: anyone running a 350 with 2.1 box?

Postby OneBFC » Wed May 29, 2019 9:28 pm

pierson skunkape wrote:...with close to 475 torque... which is what people with boats need to be talking about not horsepower.....


Dead wrong. HP makes thrust, not torque. If you disagree, that's totally fine. I challenge you to prove your position though.

Enlighten me.

:salute:
-Russ
-----------------------------------
The only thing stopping you is FEAR
400+hp Ecotec, 12x7.6 DBDO, 80" 3B Maximus, 2.3 OX,85+mph, water = purely optional
Life begins at 2 BAR, Just a good ole boy

SWAMPHUNTER45
Site Supporter - III
Site Supporter - III
Posts: 2735
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 11:38 am
Location: Naturecoast, Florida

Re: anyone running a 350 with 2.1 box?

Postby SWAMPHUNTER45 » Thu May 30, 2019 8:07 am

Torque makes usable thrust!

"You can't argue with a SknukApe....swamp"

User avatar
Slidin Gator
Site Supporter - IV
Site Supporter - IV
Posts: 636
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:33 pm
Location: Jupiter Farms, Florida

Re: anyone running a 350 with 2.1 box?

Postby Slidin Gator » Thu May 30, 2019 10:06 am

OneBFC wrote:HP makes thrust, not torque.

I guess them gear boxes are just a scam and everyone needs to get rid of em. All they do is increase useless torque, add weight, lighten your wallets and waste that precious HP.

Just all negatives it turns out. :scratch:
I grew up thinking I-10 was the Mason Dixon line.
1986 Airboat Engineering Inc., 14' Marsh Master. Refreshed narrow deck, SV O-540, 72” NGQ. A Bob Stossel original.

User avatar
kwanjangnihm
Site Supporter - IV
Site Supporter - IV
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: Bartow FL

Re: anyone running a 350 with 2.1 box?

Postby kwanjangnihm » Thu May 30, 2019 12:26 pm

Image
" I don't care who you are back in the world, you give away our position one more time, I'll bleed ya, real quiet. Leave ya here. Got that? "

User avatar
OneBFC
Southern Airboat Member
Posts: 595
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:04 am

Re: anyone running a 350 with 2.1 box?

Postby OneBFC » Thu May 30, 2019 12:30 pm

Slidin Gator wrote:
OneBFC wrote:HP makes thrust, not torque.

I guess them gear boxes are just a scam and everyone needs to get rid of em. All they do is increase useless torque, add weight, lighten your wallets and waste that precious HP.

Just all negatives it turns out. :scratch:


Really? You know better brother....

Gear box just changes the prop shaft speed so the engine can operate at peak POWER.

Going to need more than that to prove a high torque motor will out thrust a high power motor.

500lbft/ 400hp turns way way less prop and makes way less thrust than 400lbft/500hp .

YOU KNOW THIS. Why fight it?
-Russ
-----------------------------------
The only thing stopping you is FEAR
400+hp Ecotec, 12x7.6 DBDO, 80" 3B Maximus, 2.3 OX,85+mph, water = purely optional
Life begins at 2 BAR, Just a good ole boy

SWAMPHUNTER45
Site Supporter - III
Site Supporter - III
Posts: 2735
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 11:38 am
Location: Naturecoast, Florida

Re: anyone running a 350 with 2.1 box?

Postby SWAMPHUNTER45 » Thu May 30, 2019 5:54 pm

SORRY ABOUT THE HI-JACK Keith

Riddle me this one...….

IF on a dyno..... torque and horsepower always cross at 5252 rpm and IF someone built and ran their engine below 5252 rpm then would it not really only be about the TORQUE ?

TORQUE it's what horsepower envies !

Do you know what Torque said to Horsepower? I'm waiting.....LOL

User avatar
OneBFC
Southern Airboat Member
Posts: 595
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:04 am

Re: anyone running a 350 with 2.1 box?

Postby OneBFC » Thu May 30, 2019 6:27 pm

SWAMPHUNTER45 wrote:SORRY ABOUT THE HI-JACK Keith

Riddle me this one...….

IF on a dyno..... torque and horsepower always cross at 5252 rpm and IF someone built and ran their engine below 5252 rpm then would it not really only be about the TORQUE ?

TORQUE it's what horsepower envies !

Do you know what Torque said to Horsepower? I'm waiting.....LOL


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

NOPE!

:violent1: :banghead: :dontknow:

HP_Owns_You.JPG


:old_glory: :salute:
-Russ
-----------------------------------
The only thing stopping you is FEAR
400+hp Ecotec, 12x7.6 DBDO, 80" 3B Maximus, 2.3 OX,85+mph, water = purely optional
Life begins at 2 BAR, Just a good ole boy

Keeth1123
Site Supporter - I
Site Supporter - I
Posts: 316
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 8:54 pm
Location: Polk County
Contact:

Re: anyone running a 350 with 2.1 box?

Postby Keeth1123 » Thu May 30, 2019 7:26 pm

SWAMPHUNTER45 wrote:SORRY ABOUT THE HI-JACK Keith

Riddle me this one...….

IF on a dyno..... torque and horsepower always cross at 5252 rpm and IF someone built and ran their engine below 5252 rpm then would it not really only be about the TORQUE ?

TORQUE it's what horsepower envies !

Do you know what Torque said to Horsepower? I'm waiting.....LOL



Lol
No worries I like reading all the debates. Hell, I’m
Thinking about starting up the ole

CARMOTOR IS BETTER THAN A/C motor thread

:cheers:
:old_glory:

CarMotorBarge
Site Supporter - I
Site Supporter - I
Posts: 937
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:32 pm
Location: Lake Harney Woods

Re: anyone running a 350 with 2.1 box?

Postby CarMotorBarge » Thu May 30, 2019 7:46 pm

OneBFC wrote:
Slidin Gator wrote:
OneBFC wrote:HP makes thrust, not torque.

I guess them gear boxes are just a scam and everyone needs to get rid of em. All they do is increase useless torque, add weight, lighten your wallets and waste that precious HP.

Just all negatives it turns out. :scratch:


Really? You know better brother....

Gear box just changes the prop shaft speed so the engine can operate at peak POWER.

Going to need more than that to prove a high torque motor will out thrust a high power motor.

500lbft/ 400hp turns way way less prop and makes way less thrust than 400lbft/500hp .

YOU KNOW THIS. Why fight it?


Didn't slidin gator write that his high torque A/C motor would make less thrust than the high HSP and low torque LS I am building? I think we need to put them on the thrust tester and find out.
14x7.5 Al David hull with 14 inch transom
419 CI Horsepower Barn LS3 with 2.88 Ox Box swinging 4 blade 83.5" R
GTO Rigging and B&S Tilt Trailer

User avatar
kwanjangnihm
Site Supporter - IV
Site Supporter - IV
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: Bartow FL

Re: anyone running a 350 with 2.1 box?

Postby kwanjangnihm » Fri May 31, 2019 10:21 am

OneBFC wrote: 500lbft/ 400hp turns way way less prop and makes way less thrust than 400lbft/500hp


according to my AC pocket protected fuzzy math excel calculator the engines have equal power and both exceed waterthunder thrust expectations :salute:

I challenge any CM calculators to prove me wrong!!

:stirpot: :fishing :stirpot: :fishing :stirpot: :fishing :stirpot: :fishing

thrust.PNG
thrust.PNG (8.86 KiB) Viewed 740 times
" I don't care who you are back in the world, you give away our position one more time, I'll bleed ya, real quiet. Leave ya here. Got that? "

Keeth1123
Site Supporter - I
Site Supporter - I
Posts: 316
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 8:54 pm
Location: Polk County
Contact:

Re: anyone running a 350 with 2.1 box?

Postby Keeth1123 » Fri May 31, 2019 11:03 am

The real question we need to ask is

Will a bass boat fly if you put wings on it? My lord, they already rip 100 mph by me on the ditch and now they draft so shallow they fish in the f#%*in airboat trail.

MADNESS
:old_glory:

User avatar
OneBFC
Southern Airboat Member
Posts: 595
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:04 am

Re: anyone running a 350 with 2.1 box?

Postby OneBFC » Fri May 31, 2019 11:24 am

kwanjangnihm wrote:
OneBFC wrote: 500lbft/ 400hp turns way way less prop and makes way less thrust than 400lbft/500hp


according to my AC pocket protected fuzzy math excel calculator the engines have equal power and both exceed waterthunder thrust expectations :salute:

I challenge any CM calculators to prove me wrong!!

:stirpot: :fishing :stirpot: :fishing :stirpot: :fishing :stirpot: :fishing

thrust.PNG


:lol: Killing me !

Some physics for a refresher. Easy format.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/work ... _1377.html

A nice quote from that page sums it up well...

a machine must rotate to produce power! A machine with no rotation can deliver torque - like an electric motor - but since no distance is moved by force - no power is produced. As soon as the machine starts to rotate power is produced.
-Russ
-----------------------------------
The only thing stopping you is FEAR
400+hp Ecotec, 12x7.6 DBDO, 80" 3B Maximus, 2.3 OX,85+mph, water = purely optional
Life begins at 2 BAR, Just a good ole boy

User avatar
Deano
Site Supporter - V
Site Supporter - V
Posts: 4544
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:16 am
Location: Inverness, FL

Re: anyone running a 350 with 2.1 box?

Postby Deano » Fri May 31, 2019 1:02 pm

kwanjangnihm wrote:
OneBFC wrote: 500lbft/ 400hp turns way way less prop and makes way less thrust than 400lbft/500hp
Ultimately, this statement is a demonstrably true fact without a doubt,
(provided that the definition of "way way less prop" is admittedly a subjective observation).


kwanjangnihm wrote:According to my AC pocket protected fuzzy math excel calculator the engines have equal power and both exceed waterthunder thrust expectations :salute:
Image
I challenge any CM calculators to prove me wrong!!
:stirpot: :fishing :stirpot: :fishing :stirpot: :fishing :stirpot: :fishing

OK, I accept your challenge.
Remember you asked, I didn't set out to beat up your post. :wink:
There are a couple things to be clarified though, so as not to confuse the natives who are new to our little island. :lol:

No need for any calculator. These calculations are suffering from to way to much pocket fuzz to produce a usable result.
There are TWO fundamental problems with lines 7, 8, and 9 that render the displayed results incorrect and of little value.

The first problem being the definition of "power unit" in lines 7 and 8, and then its use a variable in line 9.

While the underlying presumption of a calculated "power unit" MIGHT be usable/applicable in some equation, some where;
it is NOT usable OR applicable to gear ratio calculations such are displayed above.

This is junk math based on a false presumption, and part of what
perpetuates this debate and people's misunderstanding of the subject.

What needs to be understood as basic truths is that:
1) A gear reduction WILL multiply the delivered torque and
2) A gear reduction WILL NOT multiply the produced horse power.
Hence, the above equation implied on lines 7 and 8 are entirely invalid to produce a variable, or for it to be used in line 9.

The second problem is that the equation on line 9 is completely invalid unto itself (even IF the first variable were to be valid).
There is no equation to take any singular unit of measure (let alone torque) and then produce a thrust number.

Even when given a known amount of Horse Power AND Torque, THE PROP is still responsible for producing THRUST.
Bear in mind that EACH PROP will produce a DIFFERENT thrust curve, which will further vary by the amount of power applied.

Hence, an across the board equation could not be derived except for A SINGLE PROP that might be in question.
Even then, it could only happen if all the thrust variables were known and were plotted using the predetermined HP and Torque.
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and politics,
but it is not the path to knowledge; it has no place in the endeavor of science."
- Carl Sagan

User avatar
kwanjangnihm
Site Supporter - IV
Site Supporter - IV
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: Bartow FL

Re: anyone running a 350 with 2.1 box?

Postby kwanjangnihm » Fri May 31, 2019 8:52 pm

I have had a lot of PM's today on how impressive/accurate my AC pocket protected fuzzy math calculator is, but many want to see a few more examples for direct drive motors. I grabbed numbers from oneBFC's chart and I threw in a stock 1970 caddy 500 hp/tq numbers so swamp wouldn't feel left out!

Here are the 2 simplest examples. (even CM guys can follow) :lol:

math.PNG


:stirpot: :fishing :stirpot: :fishing :stirpot: :fishing :stirpot: :fishing :stirpot: :fishing
" I don't care who you are back in the world, you give away our position one more time, I'll bleed ya, real quiet. Leave ya here. Got that? "

User avatar
Deano
Site Supporter - V
Site Supporter - V
Posts: 4544
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:16 am
Location: Inverness, FL

Re: anyone running a 350 with 2.1 box?

Postby Deano » Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:52 am

-- Sigh --
kwanjangnihm wrote:I challenge any CM calculators to prove me wrong!!
You challenged, and I accepted. No more, no less. However, In spite of your fishing expedition, I have already taken the bait so I will persist as my mission is not complete and I'm as stubborn as the next guy 'round here. :stirpot:

It was never my goal to prove you wrong, but rather to increase other's
understanding of what seems to be perpetually confusing subject matter.

Now you are changing horses in mid stream, and attempting to slide the HP vs Torque vs Gear ratio subject
matter into a direct drive discussion where the original erroneous statements are completely omitted. :thumbleft:
You need be very careful when doing this, lest the Demonicrats reading this begin to think have found a new leader! :shock: :lol:

It is not my intent or desire to insult anybody that sent you a PM, but that does show the reasoning behind this statement:
earlier Deano wrote:This is junk math based on a false presumption, and part of what
perpetuates this debate and people's misunderstanding of the subject.

To digress, and to stay with your original formula of a 'power unit', it would be more realistic and accurate to show it like this:
500 HP + ( 400 TQ x 2.68 gear ratio ) = 1572 power units
400 HP + ( 500 TQ x 2.68 gear ratio ) = 1740 power units
Shown as such, it should become readily obvious that that formula is bogus because 400 hp will NOT swing more prop than 500 hp.

Now, onward to a little more sillyness before lunchtime. :P
kwanjangnihm wrote:I have had a lot of PM's today on how impressive/accurate my AC pocket protected fuzzy math calculator is, but many want to see a few more examples for direct drive motors. I grabbed numbers from oneBFC's chart and I threw in a stock 1970 caddy 500 hp/tq numbers so swamp wouldn't feel left out!
Here are the 2 simplest examples. (even CM guys can follow) :lol:
Image
:stirpot: :fishing :stirpot: :fishing :stirpot: :fishing :stirpot: :fishing :stirpot: :fishing

While you're due credit for doing some research, you've over looked that the HP number you sighted there is at 4400 rpm, which is arguably a little past balls out WOT. In any case, even the baddest of all stock Caddies will not come near that number at DD RPMs.

In cell B5, kwanjangnihm wrote:It's documented that most DD make 900-1000 Lbs of Thrust on average.

C'mon Man ! (Even AC guys can follow) and see that this is a stand alone, blanket, generic statement that can be made without the preceding two lines and does not require a spreadsheet with complex formulas to be made.

Hey ! Wait a minute ! There are no formulas . . . this doesn't even look like a calculator at all !
Will you admit this is only a fancy format for presenting your propaganda to amuse your pot stirring fishing buddies ? :lol: :lol:

One last question, :scratch: What is this "AC Pocket" to which you keep referring, that is protecting your 'fuzzy math calculator' ? :D
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and politics,
but it is not the path to knowledge; it has no place in the endeavor of science."
- Carl Sagan

User avatar
Slidin Gator
Site Supporter - IV
Site Supporter - IV
Posts: 636
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:33 pm
Location: Jupiter Farms, Florida

Re: anyone running a 350 with 2.1 box?

Postby Slidin Gator » Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:15 pm

OneBFC wrote:Really? You know better brother....

500lbft/ 400hp turns way way less prop and makes way less thrust than 400lbft/500hp .

YOU KNOW THIS. Why fight it?

I do know better, but my point is that a flat out statement of "Make More HP" is just as incorrect, it all has to be applied correctly. Torque and HP are interchangeable when compared against RPM, just 2 different curves showing the same thing. The HP curve best shows top end and the Torque curve best shows everything else.

CarMotorBarge wrote:Didn't slidin gator write that his high torque A/C motor would make less thrust than the high HSP and low torque LS I am building? I think we need to put them on the thrust tester and find out.

I certainly did, no doubt higher HP produces higher static thrust. Thrust needed is a function of the hull, friction and the load. I spot you top thrust king on the thrust tester vs. my 500 ft-lb motor. I am interested in the thrust response comparison, time to 90% of max thrust for a given rig. 40 yard dash, climb the hill and follow the leader through the woods, that's what counts. We are gonna have to set up an obstacle course :stirpot:

Keeth1123 wrote:Anyone running a Chevy 350 (not highly modified) with a 2.1 belt box? If so, what is it on and how does it run>?

Keeth1123 wrote:I ask the question because I was thinking of getting a spare motor (350) cause of a good deal, but have no idea how it performs on a belt.


I think it will run a hell of a lot better than the 350 DD you are running now and probably the cheapest path for you to upgrade. 350 motors are a cheap way to make reasonable power. A used whatever may or may not last, but less than $2000 to rebuild to last on 2:1. Redline it around 5000 and cam it to match, stock heads will be fine at that RPM, you just need a proper rotating assembly.
I grew up thinking I-10 was the Mason Dixon line.
1986 Airboat Engineering Inc., 14' Marsh Master. Refreshed narrow deck, SV O-540, 72” NGQ. A Bob Stossel original.

User avatar
OneBFC
Southern Airboat Member
Posts: 595
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:04 am

Re: anyone running a 350 with 2.1 box?

Postby OneBFC » Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:35 pm

Slidin Gator wrote:
I do know better, but my point is that a flat out statement of "Make More HP" is just as incorrect, it all has to be applied correctly. Torque and HP are interchangeable when compared against RPM, just 2 different curves showing the same thing. The HP curve best shows top end and the Torque curve best shows everything else.

...no doubt higher HP produces higher static thrust. Thrust needed is a function of the hull, friction and the load. I spot you top thrust king on the thrust tester vs. my 500 ft-lb motor. I am interested in the thrust response comparison, time to 90% of max thrust for a given rig. 40 yard dash, climb the hill and follow the leader through the woods, that's what counts. We are gonna have to set up an obstacle course :stirpot:


So, not getting off the hook with that kind of reply either as it's all wrong.

Higher HP produces more thrust, period. Static, Dynamic, etc...all will be HIGHER with higher POWER, not torque.

You want to accelerate faster? Get more HP.

I am pretty sure you didn't read or maybe didn't fully understand the information provided at the previous link or you would not have typed your last reply. Torque is useless unless you rotate a shaft with it . As soon as you rotate the shaft, it then becomes useful and is measured in terms of POWER.

Here's a nice little graph comparing the available prop shaft torque and power between a stock SV 0540 vs LTG 2.0. Both stock mind you. Not cooking any info at all.

SV0540vsLTG2.0.JPG


You tell me, which engine has more Torque at the prop shaft most of the time? Which engine has more HP at the prop shaft most of the time? Anything below 1000 prop RPM is fairly useless when your talking about the types of airfoils that DD setups turn.

Everything about the Ecotec engine is better....period. And this is comparing it using a really poor reduction choice of 2.0:1 vs the better 2.38:1 (for stock LTG). Nothing is slanted in favor of the Ecotec in this comparison and it still beats the 0540. The very top end, beyond the rated RPM where the SV0540 makes its "official" power, the engine makes a bit more and so, with more power available, edges out the LTG after 2750 RPM.

We all know that both engines are possible to have in the 300+ power range as well and the comparison doesn't change one bit.

Facts are facts man.... Still waiting for some proof here based in real world physics (or any physics for that matter). The torque is king myth needs to die once and for all!
-Russ
-----------------------------------
The only thing stopping you is FEAR
400+hp Ecotec, 12x7.6 DBDO, 80" 3B Maximus, 2.3 OX,85+mph, water = purely optional
Life begins at 2 BAR, Just a good ole boy


Return to “Automotive Power Only”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests