bakerjd

SOLD! haha...I guess I just misinterpreted that quote into thinking originally the HP was 440. It must have been intended to say they reached 440 and decided to push it to 444 hp. Sorry for all of the confusion and thanks for clearing things up for me.

TheDecider

and doing an excellent job



j/k

JIM5.0

That goofy-*** S***eating grin by Jeff Seaman says it all; the TracKey has to be absolute total BADASS!!!! otherwise, any guy with self respect would not let off such an immortal expression like that to be mass-published like that all over the web! He sounds like he as nothing but praise to say about the traKey option.

As for fattening up the torque curve; even if there is a sacrifice of max HP to maybe 430 crank BHP, I will GLADLY take that much of a trade-off to get 444 ft-lbf crank torque!

HP means nothing really because without torque, HP simply would not exist at all. And max HP at a high RPM only gives you an idea that the engine holds onto the torque curve well.
To me, torque is everything, and not peak torque at max RPM, I mean torque throughout the entire RPM bandwidth.

5 Dot 0

So what you're going to believe him and not me???

Check out launch control.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=El7Le_gcRNk

5 Dot 0

HP and torque are both important, they go hand in hand. Look at some of the 5.0 dyno runs with the new Boss intake. As the HP increases sharply at high RPM the torque drops significantly. Also think of a locomotive engine. It has tons of torque but does it go fast? Apples and oranges and it depends on the application. F1 engines rev to like 17,000 rpm. They do that for peak hp not torque. Again they go hand in hand. Me I like high revving engines and I have a lot of experience with motorcycles and karts. I can't wait to get my hands on the Boss. BTW one of the many articles I linked to earlier stated the race teams have been revving the Boss engines to 8,400 with no failures.

bakerjd

meant to say just want to get My facts straight...it's been a long week! haha

and OP, it's not that I didnt' believe you and I'm going with what he says but if that link would have worked and I could have viewed that form you posted earlier i'm sure I would've agreed quicker.

JIM5.0

That's right. Trains make massive torque because they are diesel (much more BTUs per unit mass of fuel) but they cannot turn fast RPMs. Turning fast RPMs on a diesel is often times bad news. Thus they cannot achieve high HP by the RPM factor, they can only get HP numbers through their massive torques for the low RPMs they would be limited to.

The F1 high revers have weenie torque compared to diesels but they make massive HP because they hold onto they very weenie torque at very very high RPMs. They therefore make their HP numbers by massive RPMs, not thier torque.


I am a dreamer. I want massive torque AND I want the engine to hold onto that massive torque into a high redline.

I guess I am old-school: In the days of hot rod massive carb big blocks, you got almost always got more ft-lbf torque than HP or at the very least, you got no less ft-lbf torque for each and every HP.
For example, a 460cid rated at 390 crank BHP more than likely made massive torque of probably 460 ft-lbf. And it held onto that torque to its redline, even though its redline was probably only 5500 RPM. But modders have pushed their big blocks to turn much higher, maybe above even 7K RPM, and they keep that massive 460ft-lbf all the way to than new redline, and thus the HP numbers are also massively increased too.

theACE

Trains take forever to spool or load up RPM wise, yes they have massive torque, but HP is really a moot point with railroads. A 2011 GT500 has more HP than one of my locomotives, but yet it will haul the hell out of the GT500. & Yeah, if a locomotive is running in high RPM's, something really not good is happening, lol.