MORE TORQUE

just shooting the breeze here...

what would it require to reach N/A 200+ lbs of rwtq on a 200ci and log head?

what makes more torque? (some guestimates)
short duration cam probably in the 254 range??
high lift up to .495, more if possible
long piston stroke
closer lobe centers
CR??

what are the benefits of more torque?
increase of mpg on the freeway
off the line
easier traffic passing, in the 35-60mph traffic
low rpm operation allows higher (numerically lower) gears to improve mroe economy if casually driving
i6 has the wonderful torque curve though the entire rpm range...
spinning tires (smiles, and more tire cost)
enough torque lifts the front tires 8)

What else is really into making so much torque, what could the log head 200ci really acheive in max torque area? could more torque naturally increase hp? what pistons to use for more torque (dished domed flat)? what happens to the HP as the torque increases? after the peak torque is acheived, what would adding the alum head do? and what's the max NA torque the alum head can reach if focused toward torque?

Again just shooting the breeze here for the 200ci, I know the 250 could produce more torque easier but wanna know what thoughts are out there for the N/A 200ci

I know turbo makes torque, but just haven't seen any posts dedicated to N/A torque.. Thanks in advance.

"...what makes more torque?..."

Now That's My kinda talk. Thanks for askin in a more direct way than I've done.
I'd say:
*wedge combustion chambers,
*shortie headers,
*1V carb (W/big throat/boar),
*the '77 + head (I'd assume),
were a few things U left offa ur list I believe (don't have certainty).
I'd like to get a complete list, a lill more on motor engineering theory, and have the list ordered by a gradient of most to least effective of these mods (so I can develop a pricing and sequence of operations plan. It must be staged as I have very low funds). I need the theory explanation because I have only seen "increasing HP" ideas, while I seek tq (1 reason I have the '69 250/4.1) and there are 'overlaps' between the two and some components (& prts of the system like "air in") that should be only upgraded for one rather than the other...

Compression is the biggest Torque improver , but like any one part it takes others to work in conjunction , fuel injection ( read port ) is even more so , BUT you were asking about a Log Head Combo

Oh, good a response:

"...compression but it takes others to work in conjunction..."

Yes, one thing I've come to understand is it's a system (am trained & experienced in human systems, not mechanical, but there's a link). OK so that's number one on the list we suggested? I would have thought cam grind...am now dissuaded of that. Would stroke to piston displacement ratio B 2nd? cam, or what would folks say.

1) compression
2) cam factors?
3)
4)

Any additions to the preceding list, wrong items included?
Thanks lots.

I believe near the top would be the bore to stroke ratio. I believe stroke increases torque, maybe wrong, I always get it confused. But a how much change would make a noticeable change, I have no idea. And it is expensive to change in these engines, for now.

It's already been done, but were are bad people for not doing tha thinking hombre. No-one mentioned the cure all for torque...a GMC 3,4,6 or 8/71 blower, although turbo will do the same job.

See

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=65587&start=50
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=66958
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=66888

a) Best single way to get torque is a narrow included angle BDA Cosworth twin cam cylinder head. There is over 1.39 lb-ft per cube there, so 200 cubes could yield 278 lb-ft at 4000 rpm, maybee less, while still allowing 320 hp at 6000 rpm.
b) port on port carburation or variable path resonant intake manifold, that keeps the rpm at which maximum torque happens down. The idea is to get air speed down to 265ft/sec via small ports at the peak torque rpm.
c)Then variable valve timing, to get as much Simpsons rule area under the curve. That ensures minimal throttle movement to get torque.
d) then jump up compression using six soft head stratergies (listed in previous posts).
e) changes in rod ratio and bore to stroke ratio, like Pontiac 455, A-series Mini 997/Austin Healy Sprite 1098/1275 or VTEC Honda long rod, long stroke with smaller bores.
f) low friction piston and crank to cylinder geometry as per the Aitken cyle engine, and later Toyota Beams engines

Now, you've gone an set the parameters to include a log head, so a) and c) are eliminated options

So you'll rapidly see that b) port on port carburation and d) soft head compression upgrades in tandem with cam, restricted exhast flow verses intake flow head with a NASCAR/Historic C style cam profile, piston, knock sensor ignition retard, and waste spark ignition with very special custom advance curve are the only good options.

So at an aspirational level, somewhere between where you are know and 278 lb-ft at 4000 rpm are the options using b) and d) above. To do e) you then have to look at the Argentine 187, a four bearing engine with narrow bore (170 plus 45 thou) and long 200 stroke. Ford Australia reduced the bore of its 200 cube engines by 68 and 48thou undersized pistons, eventually with rods 180 thou longer.

If you then start getting het up on rules and restrictive on intake carburation, you then start coming back to a loose-low end torque car like a Turismo Carretera Argie TC 188 engine...where you have one 48 IDF 2-bbl, and 380 hp at 9500 rpm on a 9.35:1 compression ratio, and you'll get close to about 260lb-ft at 6500 rpm. That engine has an optimised non log head with roller cam, but that is another aspirational focus for us.

Then you'll just need a six speed gearbox highstall auto gearbox to make it streetable. Its no mistake that the latest 362hp twin cam turbo Ford Falcon uses all the above stratergies except f).

Deano-I get the 8/71 blower part, but what does the rest of mean?

X it's funny u mentioned those posts... I think I see a pattern

we all know that 6 1bbl carbs would be really nice on the 200ci, but most daily drivers aren't going to do that lol... so lets make it more realistic, which includes the vairiable valve timing, and we should probably lower the torque to a usable street too... but the 6000rpm numbers sound good, just most often people just don't aim thier engines that high... this is more towards the avg joe (or jane ) rebuilding thier i6 for more grunt, but with out going radical or going all out for hp.

questions, just shooting the dark here...

could more torque increase hp? say, if you wanted torque out of our little loved 6 cyls, would the increase help the hp? what is really considered to reamp up the torque, more velocity or carb and what's the best route to increase either or both?

I have seen 166tq with my 1bbl, but have also seen 167 tq with a 2bbl and with a difference of 40hp but same tq... whats the best way to increase tq period, like chad mentioned, more torque is more work.

the gearing I'm sure everyone is familiar with, most fo us just use these for comutes, but what if we could increase the effeceny of the comute by increaseing the torque, not where is sits in the rpm band, I mean realisticly where would you rev the engine up to 9800rpm going to work???? I like the 4000 rpm figure better as it's just well more realistic and not so far fetched.

also how would one go about to make the begining of the torque band reach as low as 1100rpm but not any lower, reason I ask, some of my early dyno tests showed 140tq off idle (900rpm) to the tires, that was with a manual trans. 900rpm is not usable except for off the line. it seems my current torque isn't usable at lower than 1600rpm, have to rev it higher.

then the other question I had, as before I had at idle 140tq, now 166tq at 3k rpm, that's not that big of increase per say... just really moved the tq band higher to a more usable range... what really increase was the hp with the cam... went from 68hp to 135hp... that's mostly cam. so is it correct to assume that less duration and higher and longer lift would help the torque to a point?? example, stock cam is ~250 druation, kinda low or probably 180@ .050 and max lift of .275 or even less in most cases. where as the new cam, 264 or 214@ .050 has 300 lift, what would the 258 or 260 be with say .320 lift? or .360 lift??? the higher lift would increase the gulp of air it can get, in low rev's higher spring's wouldnt be as critical, granted you need to make sure no coil bind but the fact would be there.

what kinda of cam grind would you be looking for, or does hp make torque? or torque make hp?

as I'm at 167tq (just being theretical) what else could be done simply to increase tq to say 200rw tq... gearing?? does that have any play on how much tq u have?

sry for my random thoughts/notes, if you can't follow them let me know I'll clean them up in the morning lol...

Read and feed.
List in good American English.

Item 1 was b) create port on port carburation or variable path resonant intake manifold, that keeps the rpm at which maximum torque happens down. The idea is to get air speed down to 265ft/sec via small ports at the peak torque rpm, and allow air speed to get as low as 100 ft/sec at maximum power.

Item 2 was d) make a jump up in compression using six soft head stratergies (listed in previous posts, inludes a NASCAR style restrictor plate or Historic C Pan America 87 octane cam, restricted exhast flow verses intake flow head with a custom, piston, knock sensor ignition retard, and waste spark ignition with very special custom advance curve are the only good options).

That will boost torque on a street engine.

And an explanation on how that works in my Mustang project engine

I use three staged 2-bbl carbs sized in my case to make maximum power at about 5100 rpm, maximum torque at 2700 rpm, a 170 chamber size log head for high compression, with restrictive exhasts ports to allow a special cam to build good cylinder pressure, but long enough to reduce cold cranking compression, EDIS-6 Explorer ignition, and a five speed auto to put the torque band where the car needs it.

Good power with a log head needs good carburation, so that was why I was first looking at triple #7508 Holley 2-bbl carbs, which is a work-a-like Weber DGEV 38, and on a 200 yields peak power of 215 hp net at about 5100 rpm, or 137 feet per sec air speed based on 100% volumetric efficiency.

To create great torque, air speed has to be dragged down (idealy to about 265 ft/sec at 2700 rpm in my case). Firstly, by dividing up the 840 cc log into independent runners it ensures each intake recieves the same A/F ratio. With 6 sq in of total carb venturi area using three progressive 32/36 Webers with the venturis bored out to Weber DGEV or Holley 2-bbl 7508 spec allows the peak rpm flow to be the equal of, say, a set of DCOE 38's with 30 mm venturis. At maximum torque, air speed with the staged 32/36's is still a good 145 ft/sec. The primaries raise low rpm air speed, much like a set of Triple Hitachi, SU or Zenith Stromberg 1.75" carbs do when the throttle cracks open on a worked 240Z, Austin Healy 3000, or GTR XU1 Torana.

MPGmustang":od9nk3r4 said:

X it's funny u mentioned those posts... I think I see a pattern

we all know that 6 1bbl carbs would be really nice on the 200ci, but most daily drivers aren't going to do that lol... so lets make it more realistic, which includes the vairiable valve timing, and we should probably lower the torque to a usable street too... but the 6000rpm numbers sound good, just most often people just don't aim thier engines that high... this is more towards the avg joe (or jane ) rebuilding thier i6 for more grunt, but with out going radical or going all out for hp.

Click to expand...

You should see a pattern, because its how Detriot re-invigorated the whole industry when the TPI Camaro, Corvette, port EFI Mustang 5.0 and F150 4.9 i-6 hit town in the mid 80's. The same revolution at GM and Ford happened four years earlier with at Ferrari and then later on all Maseratis, when Bosch injection replaced independent runner Weber carbed engines. They used one huge throttle body to keep air speed to about 130 feet per second, and basically the intake runners did the same job as four IDA 44's would. One throttle, no synchronisation issues, and clean, snatch free power from idle to 5000 rpm or more.

Before GM and Ford Dearborn got into port EFI, Ford Australia predated the 4.9 EFI F150 engine, and proved that EFI can do the same job as a 6V intake.Thats why my 1998 4.0 liter SOHC Explorer and my old 1986 4.1 EFI Fairmont wagon made better torque at 2000 rpm than even my LPG 500 cfm carbed 1984 XE Falcon did.

The 149 hp at 3800 rpm, 240 lb-ft at 2800 rpm EFI Falcon engine, released in 1983, had more torque from 650 to 4800 rpm than the 2-bbl Weber 131 hp at 3800 rpm, 225 lb-ft at 2000rpm. The EFI had an 8.8:1 compression, the 2-bbl had 9.35:1. Any port on port carb engine can match and EFI multipoint engine, and each engine had a standard 256 degree cam. The 2-bbl was inferior at all speeds, especially off idle to 3000 rpm.

In 1985, the EFI engines cam got changed to 264 degrees, yielding more torgue everywhere than the 1983, but had 164 hp at 4000 rpm,and 247 lb-ft at 3000 rpm. 15 HP more, 7 lb-ft more.

{Due to power being a 5252 factor of torque,and power being PLAN (Pressure, Leverage, Area and N, cycles persecond), torque increase is almost always half the power increase when you alter cam timing and change allother factors to suit.}

The dual runner EFI systems were to ensure that 80 to 90% of the peak torque figure is around from off idle to the power peak. 1.6 Liter EFI Toyota Twin Cams were first,and the Ford empire soon followed suit. The 1993 EF Falcon got it, it yielded no extra power on the best non dual runner pick-up variants, but it did give a flat torque plot. It has remained an Aussie I6 staple,with the latest 4.0 giving 291 lb-ft at the flywheel on 87 octane (91 RON), or 1.2 lb-ft per cubic inch. Its got twice the torque as your 200 from off idle to about 2500 rpm.

Man, I love reading your posts.

okay okay, we can't compare apples and oranges, the 200ci is not in any EFI falcon, they are years apart... and lots of other things too starting with efi... I'm not interested in what other engines use/achieved, they aren't the i6 200ci with a log head... different animals, an elephant and a whale live different lives even though they are both mammals.

I'm talking what addons or simple mods that the backyard joe in the USA understand to improve torque???

I have picked up from your posts X,
EFI (if only available to the log head)
TBI (closest thing we can get to efi)
a 2bbl weber reason is why would this help? is it the velocity of the air over the venturi at the lower speeds?
what kind of cam grind specific for the 200ci log head, the NASCAR style didn't use this engine, but their theory can work and that's what I want to understand.


how can we setup a dual runner on the i6 log? I'm not interested in Toyota's achievements... could a plate for the center be bolted down into the 1bbl hole, then 2 2bbl progressive carbs be placed on the front and rear of the log, consequently 2 i3's... would that be considered dual runner and help achieve max torque?

xctasy":3w1v0wne said:

Good power with a log head needs good carburation, so that was why I was first looking at triple #7508 Holley 2-bbl carbs, which is a work-a-like Weber DGEV 38, and on a 200 yields peak power of 215 hp net at about 5100 rpm, or 137 feet per sec air speed based on 100% volumetric efficiency.

Click to expand...

this is plan and simple geared toward the 200. effectively we won't reach 100% VE, I myself see 85-90% VE most of the time, but that's with ALOT of head work, which I hope most do.

xctasy":3w1v0wne said:

To create great torque, air speed has to be dragged down (idealy to about 265 ft/sec at 2700 rpm in my case). Firstly, by dividing up the 840 cc log into independent runners it ensures each intake recieves the same A/F ratio. With 6 sq in of total carb venturi area using three progressive 32/36 Webers with the venturis bored out to Weber DGEV or Holley 2-bbl 7508 spec allows the peak rpm flow to be the equal of, say, a set of DCOE 38's with 30 mm venturis. At maximum torque, air speed with the staged 32/36's is still a good 145 ft/sec. The primaries raise low rpm air speed, much like a set of Triple Hitachi, SU or Zenith Stromberg 1.75" carbs do when the throttle cracks open on a worked 240Z, Austin Healy 3000, or GTR XU1 Torana

Click to expand...

This is great, I like it, sadly I don't think many ppl are wanting to invest in the log head to make independent runners... unless you just mount them on the log and keep them connected, it's basically a 3x1bbl setup. I believe Kevin has a great project that maximizes this with 1bbl's. some 2bbl's would be interesting to see even if they are funneled down to 1bbl' holes for a dyno test.

sadly I have only seen a turbo'd i6 250ci get 340hp... I highly doubt the 200ci will achieve 300hp N/A... and we want torque, 100hp is easy but more torque is harder.

Maybe I'm rambling on, but just asking what can easily be done. we have the 2bbl conversion, we can bore out the cyl's unless the smaller the bore the better, what about size/shape of compression chamber? does the smaller log help more or does the larger log help most? longer rods and shorter piston's, could those increase the piston travel really affect any dramatic change for torque?

I hope I'm not too big of a pain in the butt, but I'm learning hence I'm asking. I just don't understand the comparisons to other engines with high power outputs have any effect on our engines, I can see their concepts being incorporated to the i6, but I don't see how their numbers affect the 200ci with a log head.
All in all I really do appreciate the reply's.

xctasy brought up way to increase torque in the 200 with a little effort, supercharging.

A supercharger will give torque at lower rpms than a turbocharger, it is easier to plumb than a turbo (relatively speaking), and the best way to increase power with a log head is boosting.

You can get a scroll type supercharger from a Thunderbird SC Coupe, or one off of a GM 3800.
Or you could look at the Paxton vane type supercharger.

One downside is you have to have access to the crank pulley and room beside the engine to place it.

Just a thought.

i got the supercharger for the 3800 just throwing that out there

There are two quick ways to make more torque: More compression, or more displacement. The former has only a very slight effect on torque, the latter quite a bit. You can simulate both with forced induction. All things being equal, a supercharger or small turbocharger are going to be quick, easy ways to boost torque. If forced induction isn't an option, the only "real" option to dramatically improve torque is to increase displacement. That's the money for making improvements in torque. Everything else is nickles and dimes. That's my $0.02, anyhow!

OK , lets define Easy , the question didn't ask for a dollar amount , BUT , I think that's a given , based on the fact that it was on a Log head engine , Yes BOOST , makes lots of Torque , BUT it will also cost MORE than most have in their cars to start with , That is Why I said Compression , remove the head have it milled replace 300 tops a Blower or Turbo 3000.00 Minimum as any Boost requires lots of other changes , with compression , , a Dist Recurve ( should be done regardless ) and possibly High Octane Gas or a Mix of Pump and Race , and of course there is the No Replacement for Displacement , That is Why I always say go 250 instead of a 200 Torque !! , or 200 instead of a 144/170 .

FalconSedanDelivery":mzp528dp said:

OK , lets define Easy .....That is Why I said Compression , remove the head have it milled replace 300 tops a Blower or Turbo 3000.00 Minimum as any Boost requires lots of other changes...

Click to expand...

Yeah, just said it because both you and I love GMC blowers on Fords (only you've actually got one, natch!).Points noted, supercharging cost is based on how much smarts you have with 6 or 8 rib belt, and its beyound most of us to shade tree one up in the back yard.

(My mate Richard bolted an Castelmain RodShop SC14 Twin blade Ogura to his GM 3800 powered non emissions NZ Commodore, power was up from 177rwhp to 230, basically similar to Eaton M90 from 3800 Thunda Turd SuperCoupe. His costs were 450 U$, and its switched via A/C Terminal. Just like the 205/225/240 L67 GM 3800, only they used a little M62 Eaton before going M90 later.

MPGmustang":mzp528dp said:

I'm talking what addons or simple mods that the backyard joe in the USA understand to improve torque?.

Click to expand...

Simple add-ons are:-
cylinder heads
headers
one, two or three 2-bbl carbs,
or a brace of three progressive 32/36's
efi,
camshaft upgrades
EDIS ignitions.

You can bolt on an Aussie Alloy head Jack Collins style, or the better Classic Inlines head which flows more and can make greater low speed torque. But you've politely said nyet to these.

MPGmustang":mzp528dp said:

I have picked up from your posts X,
EFI (if only available to the log head)
TBI (closest thing we can get to efi)
a 2bbl weber reason is why would this help? is it the velocity of the air over the venturi at the lower speeds?
what kind of cam grind specific for the 200ci log head, the NASCAR style didn't use this engine, but their theory can work and that's what I want to understand.

Click to expand...

Your only cost effective options are improving whats there. By EFI, TBI, or three 2-bbl multiple carbs which can be made to be dual runner with just a few bits of steel ( my NCHO-6v kit).

The cam for extra torque and power is the soft head cam profile I’ve discussed at length, that’s really NASCAR and Historic Category C racing technology filtering down to our cars. Examples are the Keith Dorton carbed 289.See http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engi ... e_buildup/
David Vizard makes custom scramble pattern cam designs where each pair of cylinders are given different lobe centres or cam profile changes to avoid fuel mixture going the wrong way as the cam profile is made more radical

Hot Rod.Com Tech Article on Historic C 352 hp two-barrel 289":mzp528dp said:

The custom ground ’shaft from Comp Cams is a mechanical flat-tappet design with NASCAR Winston Cup restrictor-plate lobe profiles to help compensate for the two- barrel carb—see the sidebar for specs.

Ground on a 109 LCA lobe, the cam is basically a Comp Cams #7406 Inlet 244-degree duration at 0.050-inch #7408 exhaust 248-degree duration at 0.050-inch, 0.584-inch lift, flat-tappet lifters, a high intensity 270/272 at lash cam. ( see http://www.hotrod.com/cars/featured/hrd ... -fastback/ and See page 8 of 14, MHF Grind, http://www.compcams.com/catalog/COMP201 ... 39-452.pdf for the parent grind. That should give you some clues

The design reduces seat time to bleed cylinder pressure at low engine speed but bolsters intake flow as revs climb to offset a restrictive intake tract.

Click to expand...

.

This is a typical how to optimise my stock production engine without exotic stuff post

MPGmustang":mzp528dp said:

how can we setup a dual runner on the i6 log? .

Click to expand...

By independent runner conversion, and then using three staged 32/36

MPGmustang":mzp528dp said:

sadly I have only seen a turbo'd i6 250ci get 340hp... I highly doubt the 200ci will achieve 300hp N/A... and we want torque, 100hp is easy but more torque is harder.

Click to expand...

.

9 port Holden 3.3 liter engines with three carbs were making 216 hp at Bathurst in 1971, then 245 in 1972 with carb upgrades and a 12 port head, and 300hp by 1974. So we can make any 200 cube Ford six match that, exceed that, with a stock log head casting. We've got technology, 30 years of cam and port flow detail on our side.

MPGmustang":mzp528dp said:

Maybe I'm rambling on, but just asking what can easily be done. we have the 2bbl conversion, we can bore out the cyl's unless the smaller the bore the better, what about size/shape of compression chamber? does the smaller log help more or does the larger log help most? longer rods and shorter piston's, could those increase the piston travel really affect any dramatic change for torque? .

Click to expand...

.

The above answers what to do next. If torque is king, then get a performance consultant to design a cam around your chosen bolt on gear

You know I at first was put off by your posts , but Ive since learned
to enjoy them , LOL , keep up the good work , would love to visit ( Down Under ) till the Good Day , PS , Ive Recurved 2 428 CJ Distributors for a gentleman in Victoria

so in short answer, to make more torque u aim for hp and move the power band to the lower rpm where u want to use it via gearing

simple way's I've seen to increase torque
advancing the cam,
*bigger/longer gulps of air (via higher ratio rockers and longer cam duration)
high velocity through the carb making best mix (indepenant runners if possible)
highest air flow intake and 65% flow exhaust.
higher compression ratio


In the end, to get more torque, you need to reach for peak HP and lower gearing.

unless u went forced or more cubes...

A better answer to your Big cam and Gulps would to be shooting for a higher velocity intake charge ,BUT not necessarily more overall duration , usually more lift ( think RV cams ) extra duration causes overlap that bleeds off cylinder pressure and REDUCES Torque albeit for more power at a higher rpm because of a slight ram effect , thus the need for High stall converters as a bigger cam kills low end , that's why forced induction makes more Power and Torque ( as does N20 ) the more you stuff in a given space then light off , the more power and Torque, that's why raising compression works ( to a point ) if you cant pack more in squeeze it more .the induction and exhaust also play a part as if you cant get it in squeezing wont help as does the opposite , if it cant get out it hinders the next cycle , hi ratio rockers help because they increase lift and speed up the opining and closing events of the valve train without adding much duration to the equation , remember torque comes first , multiply that times RPM and Time = HP