To the guy asking about a good machine shop in Houston, Owens Racing in Pearland is great. I can't emphasize enough how great they are. Sorry I missed it live.
@EsmondPerformanceEngines Chevy seems to have a thing for engines in that displacement range. Stovebolt HD 261 I-6 - 3.75 x 3.9375 SBC 265 V8 - 3.75 x 3 SBC 262 V8 - 3.671 x 3.1 SBC 267 V8 - 3.5 x 3.48 4.3 (262) V6 - 4 x 3.48 Gen II 4.3 "265" V8 - 3.736 x 3 Gen V 4.3 (262.5) V6 - 3.921 x 3.622 I have a friend with a 55 Chevy Wagon Body on a Caprice Chassis with the Gen II "265" V8 (Actually 263) and 4L60E.
Head-flow per cylinder, sounds to me like the less cylinders at similar displacement would be easier to come up with a low rpm grunt engine vs. a top end screamer. Maybe why Lamborghini's commonly have 10+ cylinders, vs. a farm tractor has few, each serving a pretty specific purpose.
A v8 would automatically have 25 percent more engine head flow even if the per port flow and displacement are exactly the same. Advantage 4.8 in almost all cases. Silly question how sturdy is the bracketry to externally mount an m90?
There’s a few na guys here in oz that have gone nuts trying to get power from the 3800, I’ve seen a few go reasonably well! I worked on a 3800 for speedway it made 265whp,but compared with the later model aluminum 3.6 easily making 300 they’re simply redundant! and the Barra has no issues making 400! I’ve heard of another 3800 just crack 300whp with aluminum heads and a very high compression ratio, and with basic components I’d imagine a diy guy could expect to make a whopping 200hp ish, the engines are cheap garbage and are hardly worth messing with! So why do I persist with this cheap garbage that barely anyone else does? Cos 400hp is 400hp and on 15psi boost with a turbo all those problems go away! and a turbo is pretty easy! But unfortunately so is turning up the boost!
🤗THE SAME DISPLACMENT CHALLENGE BABY. WOW 🤯 THAT I LIKEY.😄 🥳🥳😏 I THINK EIGHTS WASTE .🗑 WHY WOULD AN ENGINEER DESIGN A SEMI TRUCK WITH AN IN LINE 6 VS ANYTHING ELSE, THO IT'S TORQUE PRODUCTION . 🤔SOMETHING TELLS ME THEIRS SOME MECHANICAL CONSENSUS THAT SEEMS TO B KNOLEDGE WE DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND OR OR AWARE OF .🤔 LIKE TO SEE THIS 1N PLAY OUT
@@gk5891torque comes from cylinder pressure and stroke length. That's part of why big trucks run low cylinder counts, they put their displacement into the stroke.
@BuffMyRadius For a given cylinder pressure if you reduce bore area by the same proportion (for the same engine displacement) you increase stroke you get a 1:1 ratio. You can't halve the force while doubling leverage and increase output. In actual engineering test the long stroke engines actually make slightly less torque (although at low rpm the effect is very minimal) due to thrust losses (even when controlling for valve shrouding as much as possible). Smaller bores do have some advantages in heat management (which can effect durabilty) and packaging and the lower the rpm the less their disadvantages are actually a practical concern. For large diesel engines that can be 900 ci, make peak torque down close to 1,000 rpm (controlling destructive harmonics limit them from going much lower) and horsepower as low as 1,400 rpm while operating at 4 times atmospheric pressure and grossing up to 288,000 lb (Heavy Haul) managing heat is critical.
To the guy asking about a good machine shop in Houston, Owens Racing in Pearland is great. I can't emphasize enough how great they are. Sorry I missed it live.
Texon motor company. Used personally for my 4.3 V6. They did a good job.
Thanks for the video!
I'm building a small block Chevy 265. Which just happens to be pretty much the same as the four point three liter v six
@EsmondPerformanceEngines
Chevy seems to have a thing for engines in that displacement range.
Stovebolt HD 261 I-6 - 3.75 x 3.9375
SBC 265 V8 - 3.75 x 3
SBC 262 V8 - 3.671 x 3.1
SBC 267 V8 - 3.5 x 3.48
4.3 (262) V6 - 4 x 3.48
Gen II 4.3 "265" V8 - 3.736 x 3
Gen V 4.3 (262.5) V6 - 3.921 x 3.622
I have a friend with a 55 Chevy Wagon Body on a Caprice Chassis with the Gen II "265" V8 (Actually 263) and 4L60E.
An M112 fitted to the v6 would make an interesting comparison with the M90
Head-flow per cylinder, sounds to me like the less cylinders at similar displacement would be easier to come up with a low rpm grunt engine vs. a top end screamer. Maybe why Lamborghini's commonly have 10+ cylinders, vs. a farm tractor has few, each serving a pretty specific purpose.
Didn't GM answer this with the GXP and Monte Carlo SS going LS4 ?
A v8 would automatically have 25 percent more engine head flow even if the per port flow and displacement are exactly the same. Advantage 4.8 in almost all cases.
Silly question how sturdy is the bracketry to externally mount an m90?
Cam change for the V6 over the v8
There’s a few na guys here in oz that have gone nuts trying to get power from the 3800, I’ve seen a few go reasonably well! I worked on a 3800 for speedway it made 265whp,but compared with the later model aluminum 3.6 easily making 300 they’re simply redundant! and the Barra has no issues making 400! I’ve heard of another 3800 just crack 300whp with aluminum heads and a very high compression ratio, and with basic components I’d imagine a diy guy could expect to make a whopping 200hp ish, the engines are cheap garbage and are hardly worth messing with! So why do I persist with this cheap garbage that barely anyone else does? Cos 400hp is 400hp and on 15psi boost with a turbo all those problems go away! and a turbo is pretty easy! But unfortunately so is turning up the boost!
Reliability wise, though, I'd take the 3800 any day of the week.
The 3800 is also extremely compact, so it swaps places an I6 or OHC v6 would never fit.
🤗THE SAME DISPLACMENT CHALLENGE BABY. WOW 🤯 THAT I LIKEY.😄 🥳🥳😏
I THINK EIGHTS WASTE .🗑 WHY WOULD AN ENGINEER DESIGN A SEMI TRUCK WITH AN IN LINE 6 VS ANYTHING ELSE, THO IT'S TORQUE PRODUCTION . 🤔SOMETHING TELLS ME THEIRS SOME MECHANICAL CONSENSUS THAT SEEMS TO B KNOLEDGE WE DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND OR OR AWARE OF .🤔 LIKE TO SEE THIS 1N PLAY OUT
Inline 6 is the most efficient engine design with good balance. It's about fuel mileage and longevity.
Torque comes from one thing, cylinder pressure.
@@gk5891torque comes from cylinder pressure and stroke length. That's part of why big trucks run low cylinder counts, they put their displacement into the stroke.
@BuffMyRadius For a given cylinder pressure if you reduce bore area by the same proportion (for the same engine displacement) you increase stroke you get a 1:1 ratio. You can't halve the force while doubling leverage and increase output. In actual engineering test the long stroke engines actually make slightly less torque (although at low rpm the effect is very minimal) due to thrust losses (even when controlling for valve shrouding as much as possible).
Smaller bores do have some advantages in heat management (which can effect durabilty) and packaging and the lower the rpm the less their disadvantages are actually a practical concern.
For large diesel engines that can be 900 ci, make peak torque down close to 1,000 rpm (controlling destructive harmonics limit them from going much lower) and horsepower as low as 1,400 rpm while operating at 4 times atmospheric pressure and grossing up to 288,000 lb (Heavy Haul) managing heat is critical.