Hot Rod Forum banner

3 inch stroke motor project, rod ratio, and mpg

32K views 184 replies 21 participants last post by  4 Jaw Chuck 
#1 ·
my name is Austin, and this is my first real post on here. I hope it doesn't make you guys think I am nuts or have a screw loose. Any ways I have a couple of questions that you guys can help with. I have acquired for a song 2 283 motors, a 327 small journal motor and a 307 from craigslist. These things go super cheap here in Louisville and I know why. It's because everybody wants big cubes to get the power way down low in the rpm range. Anyways, I have been reading about how all the people on here are very much against using these motors in a full size car, and I dont mean in drag racing, but even just a daily driver. I don't mind that I wont win any land speed records thats not what Im looking to do. I just want to get better fuel economy, I cant afford the gas. So here are my questions: #1 If I get 6 inch rods and mate them to stock 350 chevy pistons in that 327 block and hook them to the 283 crank, would that work? #2 Compression height calculator shows about .040 higher in the bore with them, but dropping from a 3.48 stroke of a 350 to a 3 inch stroke is gonna lose alot of compression so is +040 closer to the heads too much? #3 In my mind, rod ratio increases dwell time at tdc so I can run less ignition advance and still burn all the fuel and the same with compression ratio up to a point correct? I would like 11:1 static compression, I think if I watch how much ignition timing I am running it will get better gas mileage especially since I have a huge radiator to keep the heads cool. #4 If nobody thinks a 3 inch stroke is good enough to be in a heavy car then why did gm put them in the 1957 chevy and lots of other heavy vehicles like trucks studebakers and checker taxi cabs until 1968? #5 According to wiki the 327 was the most powerful small block combo ever made until the LS6 in 2001. Even the paltry 307 managed 200 hp (149 kW) SAE gross at 4600 rpm and 300 lb�ft (407 N�m) of torque at 2400 rpm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_small-block_engine The question is, with the short deck height of the small block, is any more stroke than 3.25" really helping peak power at all, and is more stroke actually hurting fuel economy do to rod ratio? The main question is will 350 pistons work in my 327 with 6 inch rods and 283 crank. Thank you for reading, Austin
 
See less See more
#52 ·
We'll leave all the short piston/long piston and piston acceleration stressing things, etc. out of it for now- it would quickly get too off topic for me.

Now, if you'd have said you wanted to try a LT1-based 302, you'd have at least a fighting chance at redemption. Problem again, is it just doesn't work in the real world the way guys suppose it will on paper.

From HERE:
An L99 crank in an LT1 block using the L99 rods and LT1 poistons will give you a super budget chevy 302 that lacks torque and the stock pcm rev limiter will stop you from spinning it high enough to ever make up for it in HP.

I sent a guy my old L99 rotating assembly and he tried it, even tried it as a milage motor in a Caprice and the lack of torque meant a lot of hunting and unlocking so it didn't even work for that. Was a cool application of backyard engineering though, as the L99 rods being longer(5.940) perfectly offset the shorter stroke allowing use of stock LT1 pistons.

One of the magazines did a LT4 heads on L99 build, again nothing but a novelty.
Be aware this guy isn't the only one who's been disappointed in the actual outcome from this one-off deal.

The only ways I can envision you having the proverbial snowball's chance in hell of making do w/a small, high winding engine in the 7-ton behemoth is possibly by using a Gen III 4.8L Vortec 4800 (293 cid)

OR if you'd have said a BBC-based engine built on a 454 or 502 Gen 6 foundation, using a 3" stroke and 7.4L heads. This would give a displacement of 340 or 382 ci respectively, and could at least get the truck down the road.
 
#53 ·
cobalt327 said:
I personally thought the Isky article debunked the theory rather than bolster it. It didn't go into much depth- but I guess it's all in what you want to read into it.

The biggest "pro" for long rods comes from Smokey. He liked 'em- and that's good enough for me to at least give it some consideration. But the engines I build would not benefit enough from a "long" rod to make it worthwhile to use anything longer than 6".

BTW, some guys, (Jere Stahl among them) don't consider an engine to have a "long" rod until 1.81 to 2.0 rod/stroke ratio. That's a 6.3" rod in a 3.48 stroke engine.

FWIW, a VW Type 1 boxer 4-cyl. can be as high as 1.99! That's the equivalent of a 6.93" rod in a 350. :p A 283 SBC is 1.9, a 267/305/350 SBC is 1.64, a 400 SBC is 1.48. The BBC 454 is 1.53.
Not to get in another short vs. long argument, but.......
1. I totally agree with cobalt on the Isky deal
2. Theory was , I feel, more than proven by Smokey,at Indy ,circa late n mid 60's stock block,pushrod chevy engines producing more than 900 H.P. all out of less than 210c.i.d.
So how many people that contradict Smokey's long rod theory, I wonder,have acomplished 1/10th of what he has.
Cant argue with sucess!
The only reason,I feel, manufacturers dont use higher rod ratios is. The engine has to fit under hood!
But this is kinda gettin away from the subject,which I think is already a dead dog!
 
#54 ·
Yes I first wanted to build a big block chevy, as there are some 427 tall deck blocks for sale for couple hundred bucks. I was reading how people used the 348 w motor crank with bearing spacers, but I havn't had any luck finding any spacers like that, short of making my own with 60 over bb bearings then line boreing them to the cradle size of the w big block. I dont know for sure if that would even be small enough though and seemed so much trouble and expense that I decided to build a small block. A 427 tall deck motor would be better all around though I agree. I am limited on funds however.

On the topic of the new version of the 302, the cost is higher, the parts harder to get, the cranks are not forged like the 283, and I do not see the point of why I would want to do that really... I already have all the stuff to do this motor, all for less than 220 bucks I got 4 motors, one complete 283 that runs good, one 327 small journal block with crank, oil pan, oil pump, rods, and pistons, one rebuildable 283 with no heads or manifold but otherwise complete, a worn out 307 complete, 2different size pressure plates, flywheels, clutches, and a set of decent long tube headers with no dents. How do you beat that? Can I not retrofit reverse flow cooling on an gen 1 sbc? I wanted to try this motor in my van, its absurdly easy to swap motors in a step van, so no biggie if it doesnt work well for the application. I can stick it in the s10... I also have a 1965 ford van with 3 on the tree, no rust southern cali model I used to drive thats been sitting in a garage for 10 years... I saw a adapter to mount a chevy motor to a ford tranny on ebay, not cheap tho, like 300 dollars but it might be cool to have a scooby doo mobile that was fast and mean sounding. Its a motor that I want to build no matter what tho. Maybe I will put two saab turbos on it like that one guy on here... Maybe Ill just put it on a run stand and post 1001 ebay vids of me revving it up to the moon who cares.... lol geez :p
 
#55 ·
Thank you topwrench, you posted while I was still typing. I think maybe you are the only one who hasn't told me not to build it, I do not want a 383 or whatever, I have made that perfectly clear from the get go, but thats all anybody has to contribute it seems. ~sniff~ Ok just kidding I dont really care, I like a good debate. I already have a great running 350 in my old suburban rust bucket I could pull out if I wanted to, and I might. I just wanted to talk about this motor that I want to build... Maybe get some advice on cams and stuff.. Unfortunatly it never got that far.... bummer :spank:
 
#56 ·
For a good read try this:

NHRA Tech Specs

you can see all of the bore/stroke/rod length ratios use by everyone,
THERE IS NO MAGIC BULLET

if you want to check 'long rod' combos, see Pontiac, Olds, Buick, Chrysler, nothing stands out as ultra high-performance OR ultra high mileage motors. All of the long rod motors carry the BB dead weight penalty, so much for mileage.

Have fun with your build, post the results
 
#57 ·
topwrench said:
Not to get in another short vs. long argument, but.......
1. I totally agree with cobalt on the Isky deal
2. Theory was , I feel, more than proven by Smokey,at Indy ,circa late n mid 60's stock block,pushrod chevy engines producing more than 900 H.P. all out of less than 210c.i.d.
So how many people that contradict Smokey's long rod theory, I wonder,have acomplished 1/10th of what he has.
Cant argue with sucess!
The only reason,I feel, manufacturers dont use higher rod ratios is. The engine has to fit under hood!
But this is kinda gettin away from the subject,which I think is already a dead dog!
That's just it, Smokey's long rod always better theory is 40 years out of date, modern information has blurred the lines on his hard and fast rules from those days quite a bit.

That 209ci 900 hp small block was under a great deal of turbocharger boost pressure, and on methanol, to reach those numbers. Would have been lucky to make 350hp naturally aspirated.

Current Pro Stock engines are using shorter deck blocks and shorter rods than even come in a stock 454, you don't see them all worried about rod length. Go and look at what Reher & Morrison has found out about rod length theory, it's on their web site.

Still looking for someone to post data for long rod superiority that can be proven to be just based off of rod length.

I'll agree, put the longest rod in you can for most of us and our performance or race engines at levels less than ProStock or Indy cars, the benefits of thrust loading and light pistons is there, but just throwing long rods into something is no "magic bullet" that us suddenly going to add 10 hp or 5 mpg.
 
#61 ·
Ok, I didnt tell u not to build it because Ive built some,wild,strange and goofy motors in my life,experimented with a lot of stuff,some with other peoples money,most with my own,some of it worked,some of it didnt,but in the end Im gonna be able to say it went beyond a dream.
But you asked about reverse flow cooling a regular s.b.
Here is how it was done at Smokey's.
1 Build 2 block off plates for where water pump bolts to block.
2 Just before the flanges of where the water pump meets block,machine out
two inch and1/4 threaded pipe holes make fittings n screw them down on
the holes(use aluminum water pump and pipe)
3 hog out portion of head between 1and 3,5and 7. 2 and 4 ,6 and 8
4 Build a plate deal to cover these holes, you have to manufacture diffuser
inside of plate/head to aim water at the x haust valves
5 run 2 hoses one of each side of pump to the plates you built for heads, and of course water manifold them to equally feed water to your 2 inlets on each head
6 now you have to get the water out, best place is freeze plugs on side of block, and here is where it got tricky ,not enough meat there to do much tapping, you have to build aerea up, wound up using aluminum block.
7 now you have your water outlets
8 run water manifolds out of there to front of block
9 build a Y arrangment and build a t'stat housing on top of Y, out of there go to top of rad.
10 Use existing suction pipe as cast on pump
There you have it,I hope you got lots o money!
It's gonna get expensive!!
Engine was motored in Smokatron for flow numbers, lots of hoses and pipes blew off before it was gotten all right!
Then engine was run and everything checked again with engine in "live" condition and of course .It worked, its being used today only in a different configuration.
This was really hi buck ,7am to 2am stuff .
I really woulnt try this.Its crazy!
But you asked a question and I could answer it...So i did...
In the end ,I really think youve studied a lot of stuff and maybe are just a born Gearhead.
But speaking from personal experience, you do have to admit to yourself ,you are just a weeee bit Coo-Coo!!!!
This motor you are building does not fit the application,7 ton motor home.
 
#62 ·
Haha man that post made my day, your a pretty smart fellar ain't ya? Sounds like hardware store stuff to me tho, I cant imagine it costing too much, why I always thought with a drill press, a grinder and a welder, I could do anything right? Your right tho I'm completely gonzo. Heck I was tempted to try the iron duke in that motor home for a brief trial basis... I think they bolt up to the v8 bellhousing right?
 
#63 ·
i thought of something else to say and Im gonna say it.
I think the long/short rod debate will go on forever,I know Smokey used them when Herb Thomas drove the Hudson Hornet, that was really a long time ago,way,way before the 68 camaro.And people said then "Its old stuff,wont work any more" Otto cycle engine has been around a long time,still works the same basic way.
Lots of ways to build engines,lots of ways to get H.P./torque,lots of different opinions.
I learn every day,I live and breathe motors and made a very good living at it and still are,thats why I love this site,I really think we r all in love with machines and are all highly competitive,that's why the debate gets really heated and at times almost resembles a war.
Man you are one crazy cat!!!
Its way beyond harware stuff.
 
#64 ·
Heck I could run a 283 on diesel if I tried I bet, for that matter turpentine...

http://www.rexresearch.com/pantone/pantone.htm

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:GEET_Reactor_by_Paul_Pantone

http://www.teslatech.info/ttstore/articles/geet/geet.htm

Paul Pantone just got out of the looney bin a few monthes ago, been in there for several years, thinking outside the box too much I think. There's lots of stuff on youtube by people running all sorts of motors on all sorts of weird mixtures using this thing.. Claims nearly zero emmisions too..

I better not be too crazy tho, or get too many mpgs, or they might lock me away as well..
 
#65 · (Edited)
Dirty Biker said:
Heck I could run a 283 on diesel if I tried I bet, for that matter turpentine...

http://www.rexresearch.com/pantone/pantone.htm

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:GEET_Reactor_by_Paul_Pantone

http://www.teslatech.info/ttstore/articles/geet/geet.htm

Paul Pantone just got out of the looney bin a few monthes ago, been in there for several years, thinking outside the box too much I think. There's lots of stuff on youtube by people running all sorts of motors on all sorts of weird mixtures using this thing.. Claims nearly zero emmisions too..

I better not be too crazy tho, or get too many mpgs, or they might lock me away as well..
I'll belive it when i have a running one in my shop. Interesting idea, iirc the first "carbs" were just a thing that would vaporize a flamable liquid useing heat, i remember reading that type of carb was used on boardtrack motercycles in the old days.

***!?
There are also some very unusual aspects of an engine running on a highly-tuned GEET reactor, in which the timing has to be changed because an implosion replaces the explosive event.
 
#66 ·
Dirty Biker said:
Then in your opinion Turbolover, In stock form which would the 400 small block be and which would the 283 be?

You continue to over simplify things. There's a lot more to it than displacement. smaller bores allow for better air, fuel and ignition control, but the 283 will have a higher percentage of parasitic losses. There's a lot of things that can come together to make the most of each one, HOWEVER if you consider using them in a rig such as yours then the load dictates a larger engine, as already noted by the fact all larger trucks come with larger sized engines.

I don't know what you're expecting from an sbc in this build but a carbed sbc is only going to give you about 12 MPG in this rig. If you really are after mileage its time to swap in a turbo diesel.
 
#67 ·
I agree with the turbo diesel 100% Turbolover, thats what Im working towards. you said: "smaller bores allow for better air, fuel and ignition control, but the 283 will have a higher percentage of parasitic losses." Parasitic losses from what out of curiousity? Theres alot of factors involved, sure, but in stock form in your thoughts, which is a 400? more of a really efficient engine with low peak power or a really powerful but inefficient engine? What about the 283? In my mind they are kinda opposite right? How many ft/lbs of torque and how many horse power does a stock 400 make out of curiosity? Wiki says 265 horses, but doesnt mention torque or what rpm, it has to be pretty high I would think tho.

Just so we can fairly compare apples to apples here: This is the best one I could think of here-
I would think it would be like comparing a 267 to a chevy 265. A 265 has bigger bore shorter stroke, 3.75 bore and 3 inch stroke right? A 267 has small bore long stroke 3.5 inch bore and 3.48 stroke. Gm stopped making them both but for the sake of comparison.. Now there were no emmissions control in 1955-56 so we do not really know if the 265 would have passed or not in 1982.. but the 267 was phased out after the 1982 model year due to inability to conform to emission standards. Whats that mean? Unburned fuel coming out the tail pipe? Any ways, which one would make more low end power? My guess is the 265 torque peak would begin alot earlier in the rpm range, but the 265 would produce more total torque but do it later in the powerband. Now with the right cam and heads and no smog pumps and no catalytic converters who knows maybe the 267 could be a real thumper compared to a 265 but I kinda doubt it. Which one would be the best in my van going down the road at 4100 rpms? I dunno for sure because I didnt try yet but my money is on the 265 tho. If I can build the Chev 302 and get 336 hp@5500 rpm, 360 ft-lbs @4500 rpm I think that would be plenty. (Taken from http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/267-small-block-chevy-2817.html)

I love that article that cobalt posted on the 350 that gm shoulda made, it puts off 400 ft/lb of torque at 2400 rpm and probably lower, the scale doesnt start until 2400. That would be plenty for an rv! With that kind of torque it is not just a race car motor at all. Could be a great truck motor. I wish I had a 400 block and a buncha 100$ dollar bills, I might try that build up.

My point is, how much torque in ft/lbs do you guys think I need to drive a 7 ton motor home down the road? 300ft/lb enough? Wiki says 307 makes that. I could build a 307 or 327. Or do I need 400? How many ft/lb does my bone stock 454 make(so I have a reference)? Can't be much more than 400 can it? Keep in mind I have 5.13 gears and my 454 seems way ridiculously overpowered for a motorhome. Even with all my tools in my van, I can out accelerate my moms 1999 iron duke s10 when its empty up till about 40 mph, and the s10 runs just fine. I am not kidding at all. That first gear is low, the thing jumps when I hit the gas for such a big heavy thing..
 
#68 ·
Dirty Biker said:
I agree with the turbo diesel 100% Turbolover, thats what Im working towards. you said: "smaller bores allow for better air, fuel and ignition control, but the 283 will have a higher percentage of parasitic losses." Parasitic losses from what out of curiousity? Theres alot of factors involved, sure, but in stock form in your thoughts, which is a 400? more of a really efficient engine with low peak power or a really powerful but inefficient engine? What about the 283? In my mind they are kinda opposite right? How many ft/lbs of torque and how many horse power does a stock 400 make out of curiosity? Wiki says 265 horses, but doesnt mention torque or what rpm, it has to be pretty high I would think tho.

Just so we can fairly compare apples to apples here: This is the best one I could think of here-
I would think it would be like comparing a 267 to a chevy 265. A 265 has bigger bore shorter stroke, 3.75 bore and 3 inch stroke right? A 267 has small bore long stroke 3.5 inch bore and 3.48 stroke. Gm stopped making them both but for the sake of comparison.. Now there were no emmissions control in 1955-56 so we do not really know if the 265 would have passed or not in 1982.. but the 267 was phased out after the 1982 model year due to inability to conform to emission standards. Whats that mean? Unburned fuel coming out the tail pipe? Any ways, which one would make more low end power? My guess is the 265 torque peak would begin alot earlier in the rpm range, but the 265 would produce more total torque but do it later in the powerband. Now with the right cam and heads and no smog pumps and no catalytic converters who knows maybe the 267 could be a real thumper compared to a 265 but I kinda doubt it. Which one would be the best in my van going down the road at 4100 rpms? I dunno for sure because I didnt try yet but my money is on the 265 tho. If I can build the Chev 302 and get 336 hp@5500 rpm, 360 ft-lbs @4500 rpm I think that would be plenty. (Taken from http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/267-small-block-chevy-2817.html)

I love that article that cobalt posted on the 350 that gm shoulda made, it puts off 400 ft/lb of torque at 2400 rpm and probably lower, the scale doesnt start until 2400. That would be plenty for an rv! With that kind of torque it is not just a race car motor at all. Could be a great truck motor. I wish I had a 400 block and a buncha 100$ dollar bills, I might try that build up.

My point is, how much torque in ft/lbs do you guys think I need to drive a 7 ton motor home down the road? 300ft/lb enough? Wiki says 307 makes that. I could build a 307 or 327. Or do I need 400? How many ft/lb does my bone stock 454 make(so I have a reference)? Can't be much more than 400 can it? Keep in mind I have 5.13 gears and my 454 seems way ridiculously overpowered for a motorhome. Even with all my tools in my van, I can out accelerate my moms 1999 iron duke s10 when its empty up till about 40 mph, and the s10 runs just fine. I am not kidding at all. That first gear is low, the thing jumps when I hit the gas for such a big heavy thing..

you have made gross assumptions regarding the 265 and 267. I keep trying to tell you you are WAY over simplifying things and you're getting worse. Nothing is as simple as you think it is.

And forget about torque. Torque is relatively meaningless, its just used to sell magazines and diesel trucks. You need to calculate the amount of power you need, not torque. You can run that Van on a 4 banger strung out to 12,000 RPM and if its making the same power at 60mph as a 400 then they'll work just as well. If you're not willing to change your gears then you need to look at increasing your displacement to get your power up at a given RPM level.

on the 283 your parasitic losses will be about the same amount for a given RPM as your 400, the oiling, cooling, and accessories are all the same- your differing frictional losses on the piston rings for each engine are so close that its insignificant, and you're assuming it makes the most difference.

You're assuming the world is flat just because you can't see beyond the horizon.
 
#69 ·
It says you are from Missouri, then you won't mind me asking you to SHOW ME what you mean when you say Im over simplifying things? Sorry couldn't help it.. :)

I was just trying to compare two motors with the same displacement to compare the potential of each, rather than comparing a 283 to a 400. I appreciate you taking the time to talk with me turbolover, I wish I had some friends like you in real life. I had a good friend that was a certified gm cadillac mechanic and worked at the dealership in Missoula MT, when I lived out there and we would talk about this stuff for hours. You sound just like him, he would tell me the same things you do. I'm sorry if I act like a hard head when I don't fully understand, or that I argue, I am actually learning, it must be a part of my learning process. He really loved the northstar engines and he loved long duration cams. I don't understand the thinking on that, I like simple motors, and cam timing where the lobes don't overlap much... Dual overhead cam and four valves per cylinder on a v8 sounds like a nightmare to me but he is a really smart guy. Go figure.

267 would let you run a crazy cam with all that engine vacuum it could produce with the shorter rods, a 265 would require a much different stratedgy to get the power out of it. I dont need more power tho at any rpm range now, I just think my motor wouldn't last that long if I keep taking road trips at 4100 rpms with the 454. I could get a cam for it that would make the torque peak come in at 3800 rpms and get some good headers. That is the sane thing to do. Am I right? I run more ignition advance around town, and retard the timing when I am cruising at 70, it makes the motor feel more relaxed. I can do it on the fly in this van theres a little door I can open while driving and turn the distributor by hand until it feels just right, I get a solid 9mpg and have tons of power except on the biggest mountains. I wish I had egt gauges and wide band o2 sensor gauge and a cable hooked up to turn the distributor while Im driving like model T trucks had long ago.

You said forget about torque? what about all the suggestions to build a 383 because of the torque? Torque is the twisting force of an engine, and multiplied somehow by the rpm is horsepower correct? Most of the time I need much less power than I use in this 454 tho. Around town, pulling lawn trailer, etc.. And I dont think it takes much power to keep it moving on flat land with no head wind, what 50 horsepower? But it seems turning that giant air pump 454 over at 4100 rpms even with high vacuuum readings is still burning more fuel than a smaller motor would. Am I wrong on that? Why did cadillac come out with that motor that turns off cylinders to get better gas mileage?
 
#70 ·
If you want mileage instead of blowing your money on a rod theory that leads to nowhere spend it on rebuilding the 454 you have and a gear swap. 4000 RPM is high to be cruising and a gear swap could knock that down to 3000 or so. If you do a good rebuild on the 454 you could end up with more power at 3000 RPM then you have now at 4000 RPM.

People who talk about torque don't realize what actually moves the car- power. All of this talk about the 302 keeps making me and many others assume you already have a sbc in there when really you have a BBC.

There are people clicking off 20+MPG with Cadillac 500's- s displacement isn't the problem. The problem is your load- its a LOT.

Really, loaded down to maintain 70 MPH you're probably looking at around 150hp, not 50. 50hp will keep a VW bug with a manual moving at about 80 MPH, you're a lot bigger and heavier.

Forget about chasing after small displacement sbc's. rebuild the 454 you have or go to a 496, or to a turbo diesel. and then do a gear swap or better yet swap to an OD trans.

All of these things have already been suggested and they are the best course of action, not some silly rod theory.

Rods do make a difference, but it is FAR less than what you seem to think it is, and longer is NOT always better. In reality, a shorter rod in the right situation could increase mileage, but it would still be slight (not even a half of a mpg).
 
#71 ·
Turbolover you said: "If you want mileage instead of blowing your money on a rod theory that leads to nowhere spend it on rebuilding the 454 you have and a gear swap. 4000 RPM is high to be cruising and a gear swap could knock that down to 3000 or so. If you do a good rebuild on the 454 you could end up with more power at 3000 RPM then you have now at 4000 RPM."

4000 rpm is not high for a 302, hence the aguement but anyways..

My 454 is almost new, it is a gm factory replacement motor, I found the tag on the driverside of the block. It is already .060 over too. :( It doesnt smoke tho and has equal compression on all the cylinders, the spark plugs look great, the oil pressure is high. Btw, my motor DOES make more power at 3000 rpm than at 4000 rpm. My van is happiest at 42 mph, I could pull a house up a mountain with a trailer with three flat tires. You didn't anwer my "Wouldn't a cam that made my torque peak at 3800 instead of 1800 rpms be better" cam question. Or the cadilac "Why do they turn off cylinders question to get better gas mileage" question. The cadillac idea was dumb for gm granted, maybe it worked maybe not but they sure seemed to think it was worth spending millions on.

Also you said:
"People who talk about torque don't realize what actually moves the car- power."

You mean like horsepower? No offense Turbolover, but I think you have that backwards.

The 454 is not the problem. The rear end is the problem, or not having overdrive is.

I think it would cost 600$ to change the rear end, thats about the same as I could get a overdrive tranny, only the tranny route I could sell my th400 to recoup a little money. Its 6 in one hand, half a dozen in the other.

I want to build a high winding motor because I think they are cool, if you can't tell I am a high winding kinda person... Er.. I am kinda wound up that is... ;)
I will just keep it until I get something to put it in. Cool hobby huh? I can just drive my van (and not spend any money on it) until I trade it for something better. I think I may stick the 350 sbc from my suburban in there before I do tho, since so many people like 454 motors on craiglist I could get 700 bucks or more...
 
#73 ·
Maybe I can put this in terms you might have a better grasp on...Would you expect a 100cc engine turning 8000 rpm to get better mileage than your 750cc turning 3000rpm, in the same bike you have, with you. your girl, and your dog loaded on?? And still have the same get up and go that the 750 has, or the same ability to handle hills??
 
#74 ·
No that particular anaolgy makes sense in a way, except that a 750cc is seven and a half times bigger than a 100cc. My 454 is less than twice as big as a 302. But I would expect a honda cx 500 to get much better gas mileage than a kawasaki 900. A cx 500 cruises at 8000 and redline at 12k rpm btw, on my cross country tour on one I got about 55 mpg loaded to the hilt with a shopping cart basket welded to the frame behind my seat with cast iron skillets and camp stoves and tents and clothes... etc.... At 80 mph the tach is at 8200 rpm, no overdrive. It was a 10,000 mile trip and took three months. I never had a single issue with it, what I great motorcycle a cx500 is!! Honda tested them at the factory during there design by running them at 10,000 rpm for month straight hooked to a dynometer. It is another long rod motor tho.. You guys probably don't wanna hear that I know.. My gt750 suzuki gets 20 mpg btw, its a two stroke, they are happiest running rich. Not a really the best designed motor on the gt750, but a cool motor just the same... Harley guys respect em too.
 
#75 · (Edited)
Its getting to be funny, and guys keep answering you, you play a good game!

Nahh, I was gonna make a comment on how power is measured on a dyno,but dont think I will...
Anyway if we all forgot about torque, all we would have left is horsepower
And just what is the description of horsepower?
C'mon say it,I bet u dont know it.
I guess we can forget about b.m.e.p. too if we are going to forget about torque!!!!
 
#76 ·
For non-biker types, a CX/GL500 Honda was a water-cooled, longitudinal (think Moto Guzzi), pushrod, OHV, 80º V-twin, 4 valve, 10:1 CR, heads 'twisted' 20º that made peak power @ like 9K rpm, and had a redline of like 10K rpm.

There was a 650cc variant as well. Turbo version, too (almost 100 hp).

The NA 500 made maybe 50 hp (turbo made 75 hp or so), would run 110 mph, got 50 mpg. Honda made a turbo version, didn't fare so well in the marketplace, though. Too heavy, expensive and complicated.

I believe in those days Soichiro Honda was just having fun, the ol' man liked to race. Honda came out and whooped up on H-D in AMA(!) dirt track racing, beating the always-reigning H-D 750 V-twins, just for fun.

Honda also built the NR500- a 4-cylinder, oval ceramic piston, 8 vales-per-hole (32 total!) 500cc bike for racing. They wanted a V8, an oval V4 was their answer to the problem.

But I digress. The point I wanted to make, is that reading between the lines, anyone who would own a CX/GL 500 Honda is marching to the beat of a different drummer already. So no one should be too surprised that his take on things automotive is somewhat... "different", shall we say. :D
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top