high rpm makes me happy in my pants

 

Make sure you have a good supply of Lexol.

 

Where did you think Lexol came from?

 

So what happens if you take two motors, one is F20C and the other is same torque curve, but does that in half the rpms, i.e. F20C's torque curve scaled to 4500 rpms, and adjust cam timings, gear ratios, etc, so that basically acceleration is equal.

Assuming it is mostly equal, how would engine response and other characteristics be affected by these variables being changed? I only see off the bat that since the ratios would be widened, engine breaking during cornering would be weaker possibly, affecting balance a bit..

It is just a bit hard to believe that this is all there is to it.. besides shift points, pure acceleration, etc. btw. first post.

 

Well, the problem there is that the F20Cs torque curve is no great prize and as mentioned above HP is a function of torque * RPM so if you had the same max torque and low revs you would have very little HP, and it would be a dog.

If you had a motor that mapped the F20Cs HP curve into 4500 rpms, and the gearing was setup to mimic the AP1 shift points (exact weight of the car, etc, blah, blah, blah.) The two cars would run the 1/4mi in the EXACT same time. (And the 4500RPM car would be easier to drive as you could launch it at a lower RPM.)

As for engine braking, well, that just means you aren't braking hard enough. On a track (Let me emphasize ON THE TRACK.) You try to break with the maximum available grip of the tires and use the brakes to achieve this, it is referred to as Threshold Braking. If you are braking at the limit, the engine offers no additional braking force since the tires just can't give you any more then they are at that moment without letting go. Also about 80-90% of braking is done with the front wheels and the engine drives the rears. So engine braking MIGHT yield up to 5% of the braking to the rear wheels which could offer as little as 10% of the braking force. So a total of 1/2 of 1% (0.5%) of total braking is really coming from the engine. So, not really a factor.

 

Pete. I can't hear the sound of my engine with all that yakkin.

 

Go stuck your head back Under the Hood then.

 

Right, I meant HP curve, doing that to the torque curve would essentially half the HP.

I also see what you're saying about the engine braking, but I still believe that there is a perceivable change in cornering balance. That's all debatable I guess.

But setting this issue aside, what about the responsiveness of the engine? Is there any inherent advantage of responsiveness caused by the increased revs alone?

And am I corrent in assuming if one would try to go about in creating such an engine with all that low end torque, you would require some serious displacement or some other means by which the weight of the engine would increase dramatically? (i.e. I don't think you can't exactly stroke a f20c engine to 5 liters)

 

Well, no you can't stroke an F20C to 5L. The theoretical motor would probably be more like a small block Chevy or the Ford 5.0L Muff-Stain motor from the late 80's early 90's. There are ways to save weight on these motors that really weren't available at the time. For example, all aluminum construction, lightweight cylindar liners, ect. Therein lies the difference in motor technology.