User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 20 of 20
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    PARADISE /Naples
    Posts
    8,705
    Thanks (Given)
    60
    Thanks (Received)
    357
    Likes (Given)
    348
    Likes (Received)
    1440
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There Is a guy in town that everyone raves about, my friend worked for him for 25 years, lot of junk yard transmissions with fresh torque converter and silver paint job being replaced as rebuilt, It's a dirty world.
    We have invented the world; WE see

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    St. Cloud, FL
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I hear ya, but the video is claiming 2.6 sec 0-60... not many cars gonna beat you if it's truly running that quick. Also appears to be all wheel drive in the video, when they have it mounted to the dyno.

    Quote Originally Posted by CUDA View Post
    I like low RPM torque the 6.2 has way more, the 5.5 has more HP but on the street give me TORQUE

    The 5.5 is a true race motor twin cam short stroke and micro pistons with high compression but stop light to stoplight 6.2
    2006 Spectre 24' SCS
    2020 Mercury 300 ProXS

    2001 Allison XB2003
    2006 Mercury 250XS

    1988 22' Velocity (sold)

    1995 Allison Grand Sport (sold)
    1998 Mercury Stock 2.5-260 SS

    1990 Velocity 30' - 502's (sold)

    Go Daddy Go! Racing

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Lake Coochiching, Ontario
    Posts
    7,705
    Thanks (Given)
    23
    Thanks (Received)
    269
    Likes (Given)
    472
    Likes (Received)
    1541
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Theoretically a lower revving supercharged motor with more low end torque would be better. But Porsche does OK selling high end naturually aspirated screamers. Both are fun in their own way.

    I don't aspire to a Z06. More power than I could use on the street and keep my license. I'm good enough on the track to use all that power, although maybe with practice.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tourist Trap, Florida
    Posts
    14,700
    Thanks (Given)
    380
    Thanks (Received)
    1280
    Likes (Given)
    5599
    Likes (Received)
    10930
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Not to take anything away from the vette engine, but a ford TRUCK engine went 790 naturally aspirated. I have a F250 with this engine and it's a strong performer. Begs to be modded.. Engine design is doing some cool stuff. This achieved without 4 valve dohc, 5 throttle bodies and all done by 6500rpm. Ford is working backwards with a simplified engine that performs.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzJEKQTPMWA

    83 V-King, 96 Mariner, 200 hp ff block 2.5 w/a 28p choppa
    We gotta clean this liberal mess up, VOTE TRUMP TO MAGA!
    Rebuild thread:
    http://www.screamandfly.com/showthre...-it&highlight=
    http://www.screamandfly.com/showthre...cs.&highlight=
    Videos

  5. Thanks CDave thanked for this post
    Likes CDave liked this post
  6. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Lake Coochiching, Ontario
    Posts
    7,705
    Thanks (Given)
    23
    Thanks (Received)
    269
    Likes (Given)
    472
    Likes (Received)
    1541
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Interesting video. They said that the their test method adds about 70 HP compared to Ford using the SAE standard. But still, a lot of power.

    I wonder why GM went DOHC instead of big displacement pushrod. A big pushrod motor can be more compact then a smaller displacement DOHC and perhaps lighter and less expensive. Fuel economy and emissions? Especially since GM’s truck engines are all pushrod

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Frank Mole Transport