International Full Size Jeep Association
Home Forums Reader's Rigs Tech Library Trail Stories FSJ-List
International Full Size Jeep Association  

Go Back   International Full Size Jeep Association > Tire Kickin' > General FSJ Tech

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81  
Old 02-15-2018, 06:51 AM
Der Kaiser Jeep's Avatar
Der Kaiser Jeep Der Kaiser Jeep is offline
Noob!
 
Join Date: Dec 19, 2015
Location: Austin, Tx
Posts: 13
I have been told you read about horsepower but you drive torque.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 02-15-2018, 09:31 AM
yossarian19 yossarian19 is offline
258 I6
 
Join Date: Nov 13, 2016
Location: Grass Valley, CA
Posts: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil14
If I ask you what the torque output of your engine is at a specific RPM, then that is exactly what I want to know. If I want to know power, then I will ask for that.


aa

Torque @ RPM is only a bit of division away from a horsepower number; it's just a unit conversion. The "Time" component is the M in RPM.

And really - whether it's from a Honda 2 liter on boost or a Cat Diesel - 350 horsepower is 350 horsepower // the same amount of work is being done, it's just the impracticality of redlining the honda before you let out the clutch every gear.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 02-15-2018, 12:33 PM
FSJunkie's Avatar
FSJunkie FSJunkie is offline
The Nigel Tufnel of the FSJ world.
 
Join Date: Jan 09, 2011
Location: Not The Hot Part, Arizona
Posts: 3,765
Torque = Force

Work = Force * Displacement

Power = Force * Displacement / Time = Work * Displacement / Time = Force * Velocity

Horesepower is a measurement of power because the equation for horsepower is Torque * RPM / 5252. RPM is already Displacement/Time, and the 5252 is just a constant to reduce the answer to what James Watt said one horsepower is, otherwise it would just be a number without units.

Force and velocity together produce power. Either one by itself does nothing. Some engines make a lot of force and not a lot of velocity and others make a lot of velocity and not a lot of force. Which one doesn't matter if the drivetrain is geared to take advantage of that particular engine's characteristics because force and velocity can be interchanged by the use of ratios.

Power is what really matters in an engine. Torque and RPM are just factors that produce power. Lots of torque at low RPM will make the same power as little torque at high RPM and will both move the car equally quickly if the drivetrain is geared to use the engines in their power curves.

Which is why I developed my method of integrating the power curve of engines with respect to velocity and comparing them to the integrated power curve of other engines. This calculation shows you the total power produced by that particular engine through that particular RPM range for purposes of comparing it to another engine of a dissimilar power curve.
__________________
'72 Jeep Wagoneer Custom, 360 V8

I love how arguements end as soon as Ristow comments. Ristow is right...again.

Last edited by FSJunkie : 02-15-2018 at 12:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 02-15-2018, 01:30 PM
ZackN920's Avatar
ZackN920 ZackN920 is offline
327 Rambler
 
Join Date: Nov 18, 2015
Location: Stephenson County, IL
Posts: 690


Now y'all are getting into the science of it... It's interesting but i'd rather go with what I can feel





__________________
1990 Grand Wagoneer-"The Crapwagon"
AMC 360, TF727, NP229, 3.31gears, 2" lift
...still kinda rusty

The other's
1987 Dodge Dakota LE 3.9,A999TF,3.90gears(DD)
1994 GMC 'Burban L05-5.7,4L60E,3.73gears(DD)
2001 Jeep Cherokee Sport 4.0,AW4,3.73gears(Limbo)178K
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 02-15-2018, 08:11 PM
yossarian19 yossarian19 is offline
258 I6
 
Join Date: Nov 13, 2016
Location: Grass Valley, CA
Posts: 356
Well if we are going by feel then big cubes & high compression are always the right answer. Throttle response is, for me, where it's at. My Subaru makes more horsepower than my old Jeep I6 - but that Jeep would move out when you goosed it. More cubes, more better.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 02-15-2018, 11:54 PM
Ristow Ristow is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 20, 2006
Location: The Great Googley Moogley Midwest.
Posts: 16,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by yossarian19
Torque @ RPM is only a bit of division away from a horsepower number; it's just a unit conversion. The "Time" component is the M in RPM.

And really - whether it's from a Honda 2 liter on boost or a Cat Diesel - 350 horsepower is 350 horsepower // the same amount of work is being done, it's just the impracticality of redlining the honda before you let out the clutch every gear.

really? so the FACT that the cat will be making over 1000 lbs of torque at it's rated 350 horse power,and the little honda will be making maybe 250lbs means nothing?

the impracticability of redlining the honda has nothing to do with it. the honda will NEVER be making the amount of torque the cat does. so it can not do the same amount of work.

horsepower is nothing more that a math equation. it can't even be explained to the layman in a relateable way, you'll get some stupid story about horses pulling weight up a certain distance in a certain time.engines make torque,and it is mathematically converted to horsepower.

torque is easy. wanna visualize 1000 lbs of torque? take a 12" breaker bar,put one end on a bolt and put 1000lbs on the other end. you have 1000 lbs torque. wanna see where the horsepower comes in? maintain that 1000lbs on the breaker bar,and rotate it 1800 times in a minute. theres your 350 hp rating.

lets do the honda now.

this time you'll only put 250lbs on the breaker bar. and for the 350 horsepower rating you;ll maintain that pressure for 7000 revolutions in a minute.


do you see how the two motors really don't compare power wise? this is why you don';t see honda 2L engines in peterbilts,even tho they might have the "same power" as a 3406 cat. the fact is,they don't have the same power. but they can attain the same number in a mathematical equation regarding torque and time,altho those numbers will be many thousands of rpms between them.


lets go back to this 401 vs 4.0 thing.

the 401 made about 340 lbs of torque. the 4.0 ho made about 225lbs.

so,as stated earlier in this thread.... put em both in the same car,same trans,same rear end and race em. anyone wanna guess which one wins?? even tho according to some they both make "the same power"?


see,it really is about torque. cecil understands this at the technical level. i think zack gets it at a practical level.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hankrod
Ristows right.................again,




Quote:
Originally Posted by Fasts79Chief
... like the little 'you know what's' that you are.


→ Where the kids hang out...

fsjbuilder.org come for the mindless chat,stay for the hand drawn emoticons.

It's like you're unraveling a big cable-knit sweater that someone keeps knitting...and knitting...and knitting...and knitting...
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 02-16-2018, 12:54 AM
FSJunkie's Avatar
FSJunkie FSJunkie is offline
The Nigel Tufnel of the FSJ world.
 
Join Date: Jan 09, 2011
Location: Not The Hot Part, Arizona
Posts: 3,765
I'll give a really practical answer for a change.

I have a 4.0L Grand Cherokee (190 HP) and I have a 360 2bbl Wagoneer (175 HP). Both stock, minus an exhaust system or carburetor change. Transmission gearing is almost identical, but the Grand Cheroke has an overdrive and a higher 3.55 axle over the Wagoneer's 3.31. Tire size is identical, vehicle weight is similar. I've driven both of them many miles.

The Wagoneer is a little quicker off the line but its worse aerodynamics level the playing field at high speed. Their performance is extremely similar under all conditions. They are too close to call without actually having a stopwatch.

The only major difference I notice is at high speed (75 MPH). The Wagoneer requires quite a bit of throttle to maintain this speed because of its aerodynamics, however it does not require much more throttle to maintain this speed up even a major hill. It also does not downshift since it is already at 3000 RPM. It pretty much just quietly chugs along with about the same amount of throttle no matter what you put in front of it.

The Grand Cherokee's aerodymanics help it cruise on a level road in overdrive with very little throttle, however any major hill causes it to gutlessly bog down until it downshifts and cranks its RPM up to 3500 or so. It then has about the same power as the Wagoneer.....only that 4.0L makes a very loud and irritating sound at that RPM and you cannot wait until you reach the top of the hill so you can upshift to overdrive and hear yourself think again.

And that is where the difference in power curves shows. Both engines make about the same power and performance at high RPM, but the 360 makes more at low RPM than the 4.0L, which enables it churn away at low RPM most of the time with no need or reason to spin any faster. The 4.0L meanwhile, has to downshift and increase its RPM quite often...which is noisy and annoying.

Based on my real-life experience with those two vehicles, a 401 (even a stock one) verses a 4.0L in the same vehicle with the same gearing is no contest. The 401 will be faster than the 4.0L and has a broader power curve that would mean less downshifting for hills. It would chug along and do anything you need it to in pretty much any gear...unlike the 4.0L. That makes it easier to drive. I like big, torquey, low RPM engines for that reason. They quietly do their job with little fuss.
__________________
'72 Jeep Wagoneer Custom, 360 V8

I love how arguements end as soon as Ristow comments. Ristow is right...again.

Last edited by FSJunkie : 02-16-2018 at 01:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 02-16-2018, 09:53 AM
ZackN920's Avatar
ZackN920 ZackN920 is offline
327 Rambler
 
Join Date: Nov 18, 2015
Location: Stephenson County, IL
Posts: 690
Finally! A practical real world example! I pretty much agree with what FSJunkie has to say here with his comparisons. Its rouphly the same between my GW and my dad's 02' GC.
Different story though with my Cherokee, But, you gotta remember. A Cherokee weighs around 3300lbs, and it has the AW4 instead of Chryslers 42RE. My Cherokee also has 3.73 gears. It will hold 4th on any hill that i've been on at 55.
Though, I wouldn't say the 4.0 makes irritating sounds at high RPM's. Actually I think its one of the best sounding 6 bangers, at least with my exhaust. It's all open, with only a glasspack on it. Still not super loud though... It was only super loud when the exhaust fell apart behind the y-pipe after I got it. When that happened, well... It really sounded like a loud POS while any V8 just sounds great, fully uncorked.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ristow
i think zack gets it at a practical level.

Yup, I's aints got no coll-age edumucation over here. I's donts gets all that science mumbo junbo, but I's gets that butt feelin' when i's in ma car


Yea, in seriousness now, more so a practical level. I still need to learn more about the science side to really start grasping it better.
__________________
1990 Grand Wagoneer-"The Crapwagon"
AMC 360, TF727, NP229, 3.31gears, 2" lift
...still kinda rusty

The other's
1987 Dodge Dakota LE 3.9,A999TF,3.90gears(DD)
1994 GMC 'Burban L05-5.7,4L60E,3.73gears(DD)
2001 Jeep Cherokee Sport 4.0,AW4,3.73gears(Limbo)178K
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 02-16-2018, 10:35 AM
babywag's Avatar
babywag babywag is offline
out of order
 
Join Date: Jun 08, 2005
Location: Land of froot loops and cukcoo-nuts, CA
Posts: 8,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by FSJunkie
I have a car made in 1977 with a 232 CID I6 with a factory horsepower rating of 86 SAE Net. It has a 190 CFM 1 barrel carbruetor, 8.0:1 compression, EGR, AIR, TCS...just about every emission control you can think of except for a catalyst. Absolutely completely stock under the hood. I drive it at 7000 feet above sea level where whatever power the engine makes at sea level is reduced by 23%. That rated 86 horsepower at sea level would be 62 horsepower at this altitude. I also have an automatic transmission that the internet experts says wastes 25 horsepower. By that wealth of internet knowledge, I should have 37 horsepower at the wheels at 7000 feet. It is a 3300 pound sedan with a 2.73 axle ratio.

Guess what it's 0-60 time and top speed is at 7000 feet and guess what both are at sea level. Go ahead. I've timed it, I know what the numbers are. Lets see how well you think you know my engine based on what you think you know about smog-era engines.

Also, my friend has a 2014 Subaru Outback and I drove it with a stopwatch in my hand. Guess it's 0-60 time at 7000 feet and think about how it compares to my 1977 car I described above. Keep in mind that only one of these cars gets called a "slow emissions-choked piece of junk that cannot get out of its own smoggy way".

Also, my 1972 Wagoneer has a 360 that is totally stock except it has a 2150 carburetor from a 1984 360. Otherwise, stock smog 8.5 compression, stock smog timing.....smoggy smoggy smoggy slow slow slow slow as people tell me. You tell me what my 0-60 time and 1/4 mile time are at 1500 feet above sea level. Go ahead. I ran it at a drag strip, I know the time. I just want to see what people think it is.

This should be fun.

Why not just simply post the info?

My ‘88 from an app using accelerometer & GPS.
Bone stock internals, TBI, headers. 129k engine 1cyl little low on compression.
3.31 gears 30” tires ~4500lbs
9.516 0-60
17.546 @ 76.06
Just mashing go pedal from a dead stop.
It’d probably do better if I wound it up then launched?
Using calc from web(yes realize not 100%, app probably isn’t either. It’s ballpark though)
Your HP is 169.32 from your ET
Your HP is 159.30 from your MPH
Your HP Correction Factor is 1.03
Your Grains of water is 21.89
Your DA (Density Altitude) is 576 feet
Your DA (Density Altitude) is 175 meters
__________________
Tony
'88 GW (aka Babywag) and '90 GW (aka JUNKbucket) both fuel injected
1994 Caprice wagon
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 02-16-2018, 11:35 AM
rang-a-stang's Avatar
rang-a-stang rang-a-stang is offline
304 AMC
 
Join Date: Oct 31, 2016
Location: Camarillo, CA
Posts: 1,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by babywag
... from an app using accelerometer & GPS...
Which app? I'll use it, too. I have one of these but loaned it to a buddy in San Diego so it will take a few days for him to mail it back.
G-Tech performance meter
__________________
11 Nissan Pathfinder Silver Edition 4x4
09 Mazdaspeed3 Grand Touring
79 Cherokee Chief Wide Track, 401, Full 3" Borla exhaust, Headers, Front Shackle Reversal
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 02-16-2018, 11:54 AM
FSJunkie's Avatar
FSJunkie FSJunkie is offline
The Nigel Tufnel of the FSJ world.
 
Join Date: Jan 09, 2011
Location: Not The Hot Part, Arizona
Posts: 3,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by babywag
Why not just simply post the info?

My ‘88 from an app using accelerometer & GPS.
Bone stock internals, TBI, headers. 129k engine 1cyl little low on compression.
3.31 gears 30” tires ~4500lbs
9.516 0-60
17.546 @ 76.06
Because I like watching people guess and I like them to show their hand before I show mine like any good poker player.

1972 Wagoneer, stock rebuilt 360 25,000 miles since rebuild, 1984 MC2150 carbruetor, 2.5" exhaust, tuned to stock with emission controls, TH400 trans w/3.31 gears and 29" tires. Air cleaner in place, no tricks: just mash the gas and go. According to the Kansas International Dragway at ~1300 feet above sea level:

1/8 ET: 11.2155
1/8 MPH: 61.69
1/4 ET: 17.5947
1/4 MPH: 76.67

One heck of a close finish on that 1/4 ET. 0.0487 seconds. Really too close to call. I doubt your GPS app is as accurate as actual drag strip, plus your altitude, temperature, wind, etc. difference to my own, I'd say there are a lot of factors that could change our results one way or another. Very close finish.

At least we both beat the stock 401 (and all the other SUVs in that Popular Science road test) for 0-60 ET. The 2" single exhaust on that 401 is what likely killed it. I noticed a HUGE improvement on my 360 when I went to a 2.5" pipe.
__________________
'72 Jeep Wagoneer Custom, 360 V8

I love how arguements end as soon as Ristow comments. Ristow is right...again.

Last edited by FSJunkie : 02-16-2018 at 12:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 02-16-2018, 12:08 PM
babywag's Avatar
babywag babywag is offline
out of order
 
Join Date: Jun 08, 2005
Location: Land of froot loops and cukcoo-nuts, CA
Posts: 8,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by FSJunkie
Because I like watching people guess and I like them to show their hand before I show mine like any good poker player.

1972 Wagoneer, stock rebuilt 360 25,000 miles since rebuild, 1984 MC2150 carbruetor, 2.5" exhaust, tuned to stock with emission controls, TH400 trans w/3.31 gears and 29" tires. Air cleaner in place, no tricks: just mash the gas and go. According to the Kansas International Dragway at ~1300 feet above sea level:

You beat me in 0-60 ET but I beat you in 1/4 mile time and ET. Chalk up a win for the smogger 360.

At least we both beat the stock 401 (and all the other SUVs in that Popular Science road test) for 0-60 ET. The 2" single exhaust on that 401 is what likely killed it. I noticed a HUGE improvement on my 360 when I went to a 2.5" pipe.

Nice...but
Yours probably weighs a bunch less?
This is a tune to pass smog as well...
I'll have to toss a different .bin @ it and retest it out of curiosity.
It's too bad my '90 has the crappy 2.73 gearing, because that engine is rebuilt and has a RV cam. I pulls much harder than my '88 does.
Those 2.73 gears are just ish...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rang-a-stang
Which app? I'll use it, too. I have one of these but loaned it to a buddy in San Diego so it will take a few days for him to mail it back.
G-Tech performance meter
Car Perfomance Free
Android app, buddy of mine that runs his car @ strip says it's pretty accurate
__________________
Tony
'88 GW (aka Babywag) and '90 GW (aka JUNKbucket) both fuel injected
1994 Caprice wagon

Last edited by babywag : 02-16-2018 at 12:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 02-16-2018, 12:26 PM
Ristow Ristow is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 20, 2006
Location: The Great Googley Moogley Midwest.
Posts: 16,857
i bet his is heavier Tony. he has the closed knuckle front,th400 trans and a D20 case(?)....
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hankrod
Ristows right.................again,




Quote:
Originally Posted by Fasts79Chief
... like the little 'you know what's' that you are.


→ Where the kids hang out...

fsjbuilder.org come for the mindless chat,stay for the hand drawn emoticons.

It's like you're unraveling a big cable-knit sweater that someone keeps knitting...and knitting...and knitting...and knitting...
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 02-16-2018, 12:54 PM
babywag's Avatar
babywag babywag is offline
out of order
 
Join Date: Jun 08, 2005
Location: Land of froot loops and cukcoo-nuts, CA
Posts: 8,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ristow
i bet his is heavier Tony. he has the closed knuckle front,th400 trans and a D20 case(?)....

D30 closed knuckle probably a wash vs. D44 open knuckle?
Manual lists early ones ~3800lbs
__________________
Tony
'88 GW (aka Babywag) and '90 GW (aka JUNKbucket) both fuel injected
1994 Caprice wagon
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 02-16-2018, 04:17 PM
FSJunkie's Avatar
FSJunkie FSJunkie is offline
The Nigel Tufnel of the FSJ world.
 
Join Date: Jan 09, 2011
Location: Not The Hot Part, Arizona
Posts: 3,765
Actually you beat me at 1/4 mile too...barely. I read the numbers a little too quickly and typed my post in haste. I had to go back and edit my post. Re-read it.

My manual says it weighs 3850 pounds, but I doubt that. That was for a six cylinder with few options. I am a highly optioned V8 and I have things like added skid plates. I bet its easily over 4000.
__________________
'72 Jeep Wagoneer Custom, 360 V8

I love how arguements end as soon as Ristow comments. Ristow is right...again.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 02-16-2018, 05:04 PM
babywag's Avatar
babywag babywag is offline
out of order
 
Join Date: Jun 08, 2005
Location: Land of froot loops and cukcoo-nuts, CA
Posts: 8,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by FSJunkie
Actually you beat me at 1/4 mile too...barely. I read the numbers a little too quickly and typed my post in haste. I had to go back and edit my post. Re-read it.

My manual says it weighs 3850 pounds, but I doubt that. That was for a six cylinder with few options. I am a highly optioned V8 and I have things like added skid plates. I bet its easily over 4000.

My ‘73 didn’t weigh 4k, had to weigh it on a certified scale get CA title.
Earlier ones were lighter than late ones. Throw yours on a scale.
__________________
Tony
'88 GW (aka Babywag) and '90 GW (aka JUNKbucket) both fuel injected
1994 Caprice wagon
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 02-16-2018, 07:03 PM
PlasticBoob's Avatar
PlasticBoob PlasticBoob is offline
All Makes Combined
 
Join Date: Jun 30, 2003
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,936
And they say this forum is dead.
__________________
Rob
1974 Cherokee S, fuel injected 401, Trans-am Red, Aussie locker 'out back'
Click for video

The Southern California FSJ forum
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 02-16-2018, 07:28 PM
FSJunkie's Avatar
FSJunkie FSJunkie is offline
The Nigel Tufnel of the FSJ world.
 
Join Date: Jan 09, 2011
Location: Not The Hot Part, Arizona
Posts: 3,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasticBoob
And they say this forum is dead.
Definitely. I'm really enjoying this thread.
__________________
'72 Jeep Wagoneer Custom, 360 V8

I love how arguements end as soon as Ristow comments. Ristow is right...again.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 02-16-2018, 07:39 PM
Ristow Ristow is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 20, 2006
Location: The Great Googley Moogley Midwest.
Posts: 16,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasticBoob
And they say this forum is dead.

i plan on geting a pole shed built this sumner. my attached garage was turned into a bedroom,so i have no shop at all currently.


when that gets built i'll have some fsj goins on happening again. the J20-Eight-0-mag.

i miss putting 4180's together too.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hankrod
Ristows right.................again,




Quote:
Originally Posted by Fasts79Chief
... like the little 'you know what's' that you are.


→ Where the kids hang out...

fsjbuilder.org come for the mindless chat,stay for the hand drawn emoticons.

It's like you're unraveling a big cable-knit sweater that someone keeps knitting...and knitting...and knitting...and knitting...
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 02-16-2018, 08:22 PM
rang-a-stang's Avatar
rang-a-stang rang-a-stang is offline
304 AMC
 
Join Date: Oct 31, 2016
Location: Camarillo, CA
Posts: 1,659
I'm not exactly sure where we are....

Conversation went from "4.0HO and smoggie 401s make similar power" to "HP vs torque" to "4.0 In a Grand Cherokee vs AMC V8 in a FSJ". So who's gonna start the Diesel vs gasoline portion of this conversation?




__________________
11 Nissan Pathfinder Silver Edition 4x4
09 Mazdaspeed3 Grand Touring
79 Cherokee Chief Wide Track, 401, Full 3" Borla exhaust, Headers, Front Shackle Reversal
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stock Cam timing numbers... 360 and 401 Tinkerjeep General FSJ Tech 26 04-11-2013 01:56 PM
The 401 revisited Elliott General FSJ Tech 20 12-14-2003 11:41 AM
401 misconceptions Ranger General FSJ Tech 14 12-07-2003 04:38 PM
401 flexplate ibnfe General FSJ Tech 13 11-07-2002 12:21 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
corner corner