[gtofreek]

Originally Posted by motor-daddy

I couldn't care less how much power he made. My point was that he installed a stroker kit and made less power than a 400 with unported heads and a relatively small (221/229/112) 60916 cam.

I'm not mocking his engine or HP, nor should he take it personally. To each his own. I am merely pointing out from (many) previous debates about this subject that this is another example of a larger CID engine (stroker kit installed) that doesn't make as much power as a smaller engine with stock heads and intake.

Adding ported heads only makes my point even more, as that should make even more power.

Well it's a known fact that in relatively stock configuration, a short stroke engine is always going to HP better than a long stroke engine, all else equal. But, the long stroke engine is going to out torque the short stroke engine. I bet the 400 you speak of didn't make 500 ft. lbs. of torque either. Torque is power too. It all depends on how you look at it. The rest of the combo can dictate which way the go. On the street, a heavy car will accelerate faster with a long stroke engine than it will with a short stroke engine, all else being equal. Horse power is not everything. It's all relevant. After all HP IS [torque x rpm devided by 5252]. All I'm saying is they both have their place. You and I have been down this road many times before so I am not interested in rehashing that on this guys thread, so lets just let it be.

You kind of have the mind set of an old employer of mine. While dynoing his engine, the dyno console had a torque gauge and an rpm scale and my ex-employer said " where's da HP scale?" I said, "there isn't one because the dyno measures engine torque, then you multiply that by the rpm it was attained at and devide by 5252 and that is your HP." He replied " well, I know dat, but where's da HP scale?"