Originally Posted by 3240

(Quote=Fourced)
It is impossible for one engine to make twice the torque as another at a given RPM yet both engines make essentially the same HP at that same RPM

Fourced,
I've been thinking about this statement I think that the major flaw in your conclusion is the fact that the AMS engine (2.0l) and my Toda engine (2.3l) can no longer be considered the same engine since mine displaces 15% more than a stock 2.0l.

So, you think there is a major flaw in my conclusion eh?

Let me try to explain it better................... If you had a one cylinder Briggs & Stratton that could make 100 Lb Ft of Torque @ 4000 RPM, .........the HP would be 76.16. (100 x 4000) divided by 5252.
If you had a 12 cylinder, 1200 cubic inch compound supercharged Diesel that made 100 Lb Ft of torque @ 4000 RPM, ........................the HP would be 76.16.

Point being that the slight variation between your engine and the AMS engine means ZERO in terms of how HP or torque are calculated.

I looked up the dyno chart of the Toda Evo in SCC and it made a total of 422whp and 390 ft/lbs of torque. That means that peak torque was 92% of the peak HP number. My car's dyno sheet shows 571 peak WHP and 509 ft/lbs of torque. Peak torque in my case is 90% of peak horsepower. These ratio's are remarkably close and they are the only 2.3l dyno charts that I have to compare. Is it possible that my HP to torque number might be more accurate than you originally believed? Just curious.

I realize that dynos can be extremely variable as can 1/4 mile times due to all of the variables involved. Is trap time a good estimate of total horspower? If so take a look at the attached time slip. This is my first run with this car and it was done on 91 octane (472WHP and 418 ft/lbs of torque). My trap time was 114.3 mph, my 1/4 time was horrible due to a poor launch. I've only made one run with this car so this is all that I have. I have an Exedy twin disk clutch which I'm having a tough time mastering at launch. I may upgrade to the carbon twin disk. Please try not to laugh at this slip. At the same time the trap speed seems very impressive for 91 octane at 6000 ft above sea level. Does this trap speed indicate the accuracy of my 91 octane dyno numbers? Thanks for your response.

Originally Posted by FOURCED

David, would you please elaborate on your experience with strokers.

I think most people realize that the higher rpm available with the stock stroke will always deliver more Peak Power in an "all out" drag application or Dyno Queen, but............

Since EVO's are relatively heavy, 99% of them are daily drivers, quite a few are road raced/autocrossed and they are all fairly gutless- (off boost and with low boost), I think it should come as no surprise that we NEED more low end grunt.

Edit: forgot to add that synch'ed trannies don't like to shift @ high RPM.

I'm curious to know if you feel that the added friction, subsequent wear and reduced revs of a stroker make it unattractive for ANY application. This is the "vibe" I've gotten from your posts on the subject.

Thanks for any and all input,

JDB

P.S. I've always been impressed with your work and I appreciate your willingness to share your time and knowledge around here!