OK Dane -- We're in agreement. CIS is not "Bad" for street car performance. Not like air-pumps and smog legal exhaust systems are
Bad for performance. So let's just let the CIS thing go.
Quote:
|
What you missed in your "90% calculations" is have more torque low in the rev range with the 3.4 (so as not to bring up C?S again!) than the 3.2 does. That makes a huge difference in drivability. The dyno pretty much spells that out as well.
|
True -- This because at any given rev level below the peak torque engine speed, a larger engine will ALWAYS have more torque then a smaller engine. This is simply a fuction of a larger engine consuming more mixture with each revolution and converting that fuel and air mixture into thermal energy. This is true with any motor.
If you want torque in the normal "driving" range, there is no substitute for cubic inches. Check out the torque numbers for these Ford 7.3 liter diesel engines. Would it be fair to say that these are an improvement over your 3.4 because they make more torque down low were people spend 90% of their driving time? (Note that the torque chart is the upper set of lines)
I bet you that if you could come up with a 6.8 liter 911 engine and hook it up to your C?S system that the torque curve would look pretty similar to the dashed blue line. Would that be a better engine then what you have right now?
Quote:
|
Be happy to post the numbers on a PMO 3.2 short stroke as well so you can point out the limitations of CIS there too
|
Go ahead! It would be interesting to compare and contrast that with 3.2 with Varioram and a 3.2 with the stock CIS.
That would be a fascinating comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of each of those induction systems. If you want to send me the data I'll plot them on the same scale and post the results so that there will be an "apples to apples" comparison.