[Half-Inch Stud]

Suppose 1 engine has 600 HP at 8000 rpm, vs an engine with 570 HP at 6000 RPM.

when a fella plots the HP & TQ of each engine, the 570 HP @ 6000 RPM may jump out as a real gem. I'll pick that 570 HP @ 6000. HIS

[Half-Inch Stud]

Originally Posted by Half-Inch Stud

Suppose 1 engine has 600 HP at 8000 rpm, vs an engine with 570 HP at 6000 RPM.

when a fella plots the HP & TQ of each engine, the 570 HP @ 6000 RPM may jump out as a real gem. I'll pick that 570 HP @ 6000. HIS

This is only clear to the frustrated when plotted. the 570 HP engine is making far more power from 4000-to-6000 whereas the 30 extra Hp from the other engine yielde less power under the RPM range of usage.

If the question was 570 HP @ 6700 versus 600 HP @ 8000; is the choice clearer.

if the 600 Hp was at 18000 RPM the choice should be painly clear. HIS

Gearing & rev range have inertia & take power, yet what is the engine power (HP) across the applied rpm range? Power is power, yet we need POWER over applied rpm range.

TQ converters that really really really work may allow an argument favoring the higher RPM engine. me thinks the really effective converters can be had for the lower rpm engine for better TQ-multiply. so the better converter argument is for another thread. Otherwise, where's that ideal CVT transmission?

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by Half-Inch Stud

This is only clear to the frustrated when plotted. the 570 HP engine is making far more power from 4000-to-6000 whereas the 30 extra Hp from the other engine yielde less power under the RPM range of usage.

If the question was 570 HP @ 6700 versus 600 HP @ 8000; is the choice clearer.

if the 600 Hp was at 18000 RPM the choice should be painly clear. HIS

Gearing & rev range have inertia & take power, yet what is the engine power (HP) across the applied rpm range? Power is power, yet we need POWER over applied rpm range.

TQ converters that really really really work may allow an argument favoring the higher RPM engine. me thinks the really effective converters can be had for the lower rpm engine for better TQ-multiply. so the better converter argument is for another thread. Otherwise, where's that ideal CVT transmission?

I love ya man but you'd be wrong. Example; my converter flashes to 7000 i shift a 8100 and it drops to 7300 on the gear change. How much time do i spend NOT between 7300 and 8100? About .2 seconds if that. So who cares what my engine makes below 7300 as long as I can efficiently get it to 7300. My car sure don't care. If I made the same power and operated the engine between 7800 and 8600 IT WILL PICK THE CAR UP. Couple hundredths at least.

[Half-Inch Stud]

Originally Posted by mike leech

I love ya man but you'd be wrong. Example; my converter flashes to 7000 i shift a 8100 and it drops to 7300 on the gear change. How much time do i spend NOT between 7300 and 8100? About .2 seconds if that...

Mike I am glad to be wrong on this. Reason: Your converter makes my bold generalization WRONG.

Could a dry clutch do that? That is where my point will stick; The Dry Clutch & (quite sadly) most of the TQ converter/combos out there. I feel strongly that about 1/2 the Converters I studied at the Norwalk launch pad were beating the revs to death for a good pull out whereas the other 1/2 pulled the car out (as) quickly with a lower RPM engine and would run a same or quicker time.

So, my point is wrong with you combo, and many other combos. So, is my point wromg most of the time?
Ahaaaaaa

SO, i happen to like TQ converters. Alot. Went "converter" in my teens. Just want to see the Converter technical Specs to be clearly recorded so we know what we're ABLE to buy, or buying. Swapping converters sucks.

We need a real good Thread on Converters, that explains how to MAKE your kind of converter with the Tight feel on the Street. Would be worthy of a Sticky.


In all my years on PY, no TQ Converter Thread has had Quality, nor been worthy.