93' camshaft question

[Tee Rev]

Just simple physics? Yeah, that you have an incomplete grasp of.

No power is actually "lost" through driveline mass, however it affects the measurement of the power precisely as you describe.
But the power didn't actually go anywhere.

and the apparrent loss isn't nearly as great as you think it is.

you've probably been misled by others talking up their stuff the same way.

Just between you and me the picking at your posts isn't nearly what it would be if you have waved a "red flag" like saying (for example) that you had a "3/4 race camshaft" try that one sometime and the fecal material will really splatter as it hits the rotary ventilation device.

AD

Strange, I try to be nice & you decide to be rude? Good on ya ...

I must have managed to touch a nerve if you've decided that insults will help you prove a point!

You're also now using semantics to prove a non existent point. & you're incorrect.

If this were a step test where the engine was stabilized & loaded at set rpm points to take the measurement, the driveline mass wouldn't be an issue, only frictional losses would. The measured values would reflect this.

But this is an acceleration test, power is required to accelerate the mass of the driveline & the power used won't be measured. As a result this test will show lower figures. Or a "loss" (oh heaven forbid .... I used that word!!)

To say the power didn't actually go anywhere is flat out wrong, it was used to accelerate the driveline.

So what exactly is the point you're trying to make?

Oh ya .... I remember ... I have an incomplete grasp of simple physics .... right!!

 

[AllanD]

Ok, where exactly was I rude?
Certainly not my intent but that can so easily change....
don't ASSume the "tone" of words of someone you don't know that well.

Not to mention that the entire rotating weight comes nowhere close to 300lbs.
200lbs would be debatable

People who actually measure and calculate things generally react poorly to
rectally derived figuires.

It "seems to" when you "measure" it on a DynoJet, but "seems to"
and "Does" are two entirely different things.

That's where your grasp of physics falls flat.
And don't argue measurement with a trained metrologist.

The power is still there, but power measurement during acceleration
is from the beginning a fundementally flawed way of measuring power.

THAT is where YOUR grasp of physics falls flat.

people who really want to know power don't test claimed power
by dynometer, but by weighing the car then taking the car out onto
a FLAT test track and measureing the actual coastdown drag
THEN measuring the car's acceleration and top speed.

in BOTH directions to remove the factor of wind direction.

this test method is unambiguous...

AD

 

[Yellowsplash]

I run 33s on 3.73s and manual tranny and from my personal experience and opinion, I agree that gears are much more important than a cam at this point. As said earlier, 4.56 gears would transfer much more of the torque you are needing to the ground. The problem with 33s and 3.73s is that while it might not be bad on a straight stretch of road to get into your power curve, on any type of incline it becomes a struggle. Overcoming heavy tire and wheel combos are much tougher than on a 26" wheel with 3.08 gears....you cant compare the two because its not the same. The numbers might be close on paper, but if you've ever driven a truck with this combo, you would understand. Swap the gears and fall in love with your truck all over again....and enjoy the better gas mileage.