the out come on 650-700hp

[Dirtymaxx03]

Caleb if I read your post correctly it sounds like you have it opposite.

It takes xxx amount of torque(energy) to keep the truck moving. If you downshift and make that power at a higher rpm, less "torque" is placed on the rods. Likewise if you make that "torque" in overdrive and do not downshift, more load is placed on the rods due to the lower rpm.


Sent from my iPhone.

makes more sense that way to me at least

 

[coker6303]

torque definitely decreases with rpm's like stated above

Lots of opinions and each applications (race, sled, tow, daily driving, etc) will all have a different tuning demand and personal preference.

The theory of lower torque tunes to save rods makes perfect sense from a physics point of view. After all, you don't shift at peak torque, you shift at peak hp (or the range that gives you the largest area under the hp curve - integral).

Can't we all just get along??? we just need a couple of beers and a wide open road/field to play in! :woott:

 

[paint94979]

Caleb if I read your post correctly it sounds like you have it opposite.

It takes xxx amount of torque(energy) to keep the truck moving. If you downshift and make that power at a higher rpm, less "torque" is placed on the rods. Likewise if you make that "torque" in overdrive and do not downshift, more load is placed on the rods due to the lower rpm.


Sent from my iPhone.

That sounds right to me

 

[05_LLY]

Caleb if I read your post correctly it sounds like you have it opposite.

It takes xxx amount of torque(energy) to keep the truck moving. If you downshift and make that power at a higher rpm, less "torque" is placed on the rods. Likewise if you make that "torque" in overdrive and do not downshift, more load is placed on the rods due to the lower rpm.


Sent from my iPhone.

This is the way ive seen it for years, it has worked for me and many many others. but if someone from fleece says it isnt tru it must not be. maybe someday the few fleece things ive purchaced will work....i doubt it but maybe.

 

[SSchmi5519]

Its like riding a bike. YOU are the engine, your legs are the rods.


You can go up the hill pedaling slowly, but straining.

Or you can shift gears and pedal really fast, but with much less stress on your legs. :thumb:

 

[paint94979]

This is the way ive seen it for years, it has worked for me and many many others. but if someone from fleece says it isnt tru it must not be. maybe someday the few fleece things ive purchaced will work....i doubt it but maybe.

LOL I couldn't agree more

 

[carpenca]

Yeah your all right... Im just wasting my time, nothing is being read objectively.

Caleb

 

[SSchmi5519]

Yeah your all right... Im just wasting my time, nothing is being read objectively.

Caleb

I'm not putting you down or anything just presenting my opinion as you did.

In your analogy and question above about Truck A vs B, where B ascends the hill without downshifting, and A downshifts.

Truck B puts more strain on the rods, since it has to produce the same amount of power, in less strokes.

Its like lifting 100lbs onto a table all at once VS. doing 25lbs 4 times.

If your arms are weak they will fail lifting the 100lbs, but can handle 25lbs easily.

 

[catman3126]

Its like riding a bike. YOU are the engine, your legs are the rods.


You can go up the hill pedaling slowly, but straining.

Or you can shift gears and pedal really fast, but with much less stress on your legs. :thumb:

Yep very true now of we could just make our rods stronger by pushing them like ours legs lol

 

[jmaz268]

I don't believe you understanding anything...:roflmao:

Except how to be a homo...:spit:

One moronic thread is enough.....don't need it spilling everywhere.

 

[hondarider552]

I don't believe you understanding anything...:roflmao:

Except how to be a homo...:spit:

Coming from you, that's not much of an insult..


What size is the compressor wheel on a 68mm 4094? :roflmao:

 

[NC-smokinlmm]

What size is the compressor wheel on a 68mm 4094? :roflmao:

About the same as your IQ...:thumb:

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

 

[jmaz268]

Apparently someone is drinking on a school night.

 

[NC-smokinlmm]

Apparently someone is drinking on a school night.

Shame on you...

 

[MarkBroviak]

I'm not putting you down or anything just presenting my opinion as you did.

In your analogy and question above about Truck A vs B, where B ascends the hill without downshifting, and A downshifts.

Truck B puts more strain on the rods, since it has to produce the same amount of power, in less strokes.

Its like lifting 100lbs onto a table all at once VS. doing 25lbs 4 times.

If your arms are weak they will fail lifting the 100lbs, but can handle 25lbs easily.

X2, great way of explaining it. Only downside to rpm is oil temp rising.

 

[jonathancasey19]

I'm not putting you down or anything just presenting my opinion as you did.

In your analogy and question above about Truck A vs B, where B ascends the hill without downshifting, and A downshifts.

Truck B puts more strain on the rods, since it has to produce the same amount of power, in less strokes.

Its like lifting 100lbs onto a table all at once VS. doing 25lbs 4 times.

If your arms are weak they will fail lifting the 100lbs, but can handle 25lbs easily.

Your analogy makes perfect sense in theory. I couldn't agree more; however, what exactly is Gale Banks trying to explain when he says, "The loads on the crankshaft, piston, the piston pin, connecting rod, and rod bearing during all four strokes of a four-cycle engine increase dramatically with increases in stroke (or piston speed)."?

 

[coker6303]

Gale Banks was referring to the increase in velocity (piston speed) from TDC to BDC when you compare a long stroke vs short stroke engine at the same rpm. At the same RPM, the long stroke piston/rod assembly has to travel a lot more distance in the same time when comparing the same RPM.

:thumb:

 

[coker6303]

I did find this, still reading the math involved.

"Engine wear and failure issues...
* Reducing piston acceleration from and toward TCD (point of maximum acceleration) reduces tensile loading of the rod."

 

[jonathancasey19]

Gale Banks was referring to the increase in velocity (piston speed) from TDC to BDC when you compare a long stroke vs short stroke engine at the same rpm. At the same RPM, the long stroke piston/rod assembly has to travel a lot more distance in the same time when comparing the same RPM.

:thumb:

Unless I'm missing something here RPM is directly proportional to piston speed. If RPM decreases (not downshifting), piston speed decreases. Thus, decreasing load on aforementioned parts, according to Gale Banks's quote.

BUT

Doesn't make sense mechanically....

Torque = Force x radius

Is there a greater force created on the connecting rod at lower RPM vs higher RPM? The duration of the powerstroke would be slower. Maybe the connecting rod endures more stress since there's a decrease in velocity? I'm lost.

 

[MarkBroviak]

Unless I'm missing something here RPM is directly proportional to piston speed. If RPM decreases (not downshifting), piston speed decreases. Thus, decreasing load on aforementioned parts, according to Gale Banks's quote.

BUT

Doesn't make sense mechanically....

Torque = Force x radius

Is there a greater force created on the connecting rod at lower RPM vs higher RPM? The duration of the powerstroke would be slower. Maybe the connecting rod endures more stress since there's a decrease in velocity? I'm lost.

Piston speed and RPM are two totally different things. RPM's refer to crankshaft speed/vs. time. Piston speed is refering to acceration of the piston from tdc to bdc. Stroke and rod length are the two main contributors to this info along with piston height. Hope this helps!