Inliners International Forums General Discussion Hi Performance Advice invited

Yeah, That's what I've been saying...

douge,
i would suggest starting a new thread. better for you and others to review later also.
the 1.10 a/r of the exh housing is probably a wise choice from my experience. give me more particulars in the new thread. tom

There were or are Co's that made a 1st & 2nd gear swap for the 700 that were the same gear ratios as the 200 ,,,( I wonder why?,,,could it be a better gear choice/ratio/gear spacing ? )

There are also Co's that make the same gear swaps for the TH350 & TH400,1st & 2nd gears,,,guess what those gear ratios are,,,,you guessed it ,,about the same as the 2004R,,,see a pattern here?

Also, a A/R of of 1.10 in a 292 will run like a pig ( depending on trim wheel also )At low RPMS,,,,Unless you are looking to get some boost pressure after 3500-4000 RPM,then thats a good choice of A/R..

Running a low first gear ratio will not put as much load on a your engine & will not get the turbo to spool up faster,actually just the opposite.

IMO

MBHD

( I wonder why?,,,could it be a better gear choice/ratio/gear spacing ? )

Yet again: substituting "my preference" for "better".
Vanilla is not "better" than chocolate regardless of how many people prefer it, or who they are.
Does anyone here understand what "subjective" means?

I don't think so

Just a guess: there are probably people here who would like to know what justification there could possibly be for ratios other than "as close as possible", because close is better.
Given: GM had some idea what they were doing, and their purpose in selecting parts for what would be essentially a main-stay auto transmission - why wouldn't they just provide closer ratios?
Because closer is not better, closer is different. "Better" depends on the entire vehicle.
Example: a diesel is designed to have good torque with not much peak power. Why bother? A gas engine can have equal torque, and even higher power.
Because diesel torque occurs at low RPM that you use all the time (which is not possible with a NA ignition engine), that's available in any gear without downshifting, that "feels like" a far bigger motor. For engines with a broad and low speed torque curve, losing RPM on shift is less important than covering the widest range of vehicle speeds in MPH.

But vanilla IS better than chocolate.

I would run whichever you can get cheaper and quicker. Remember to factor in driveshaft mods if required. We're cutting cheesecake with a chainsaw here. The differences in performance aren't going to be that noticeable with the power levels we are discussing here.

You can read it however you like.
You sure do like to argue I'll say & many others will agree..

The subject we are talking about pertains to what trans is better his 6 cyl ,not diesels & so on,you just like to ramble & ramble ,bla,bla,bla,bla.

You should get a six cylinder & understand what the torque curve is ,6 cyl's,need a close set of gears ,as not to drop out of the power band,as it does with the crappy gear spacing the 700 does,but you would not know because you do not even own any items we are discussing here,let alone any 6 cylinders.

Just keep reading,maybe you will learn some good info to pass onto us here.
I'm done,waste of time here.

MBHD

[quote=panic
Yet again: substituting "my preference" for "better".
Vanilla is not "better" than chocolate regardless of how many people prefer it, or who they are.
Does anyone here understand what "subjective" means? [/quote]

what the torque curve is ,6 cyl's,need a close set of gears ,as not to drop out of the power band but you would not know because you do not even own any items we are discussing here,let alone any 6 cylinders.

You're right - what's the point. After saying something that ridiculous (every part of that statement is wrong) why would I explain... again.

Thank you, maybe we can get some good info now if your quiet.

get some good info?

Please - take a moment, and explain exactly what mistakes I made.

i have run 2 different 292/ 700r4 combo's. the 1st gear of the 700r4 is too steep for me. if i could get a 200r4 that was built tough, that would be the trans for me.

another good option is to use a th350C and bolt a USGEAR V2OD unit to it. tougher and good ratios with a lockup convertor. tom

the 1st gear of the 700r4 is too steep for me

I know what you mean, the stock 1st gear of my Sportster is way too steep for me, too "nervous", across the intersection and shift, so I "de-tuned" it by raising the axle.
If you never use it in traffic most people are happy with a close ratio box, since the biggest compromise is less 1st gear torque multiplication - and you don't see it frequently enough to be annoying. I drove an L6 250 4 speed Camaro back and forth from Long Island to upstate New York every week (450 miles R/T), and it was a pleasure on Route 80 but a misery in town, swapped it out for a TH350 (I got rid of the A833 in my Belvedere in favor of a 727 for the same reason): if you get stuck in George Washington Bridge traffic on Labor Day even once (10 miles uphill at 1 mph, stopping and starting every 5 feet) you'll wish you had compound low so your left foot could take a break.

GM makes 6 speed auto trans now for a while ,otherwise why not just stay w/a 4 speed w/large gear spacing..,,,why,well,,, to cover the torque bands closer.

Why do they make CVT trans,,to keep the engines in there peak torque bands.

BTW,,,I never like using a close ratio 4 spd trans"(was not happy"),the take off is just too weak for small 6 cylinders.

Wide ratio was better suited for day to day driving & 1/4 mile racing.

The Muncie 4 spd was a wide ratio,but nothing like the gear spacing of a 700.
Approx same gear spacing range as a TH350 ,,but had 4 gears to fill in the gaps closer instead of just 3 gears..
Again,IMO.

MBHD

How about a pole,

(1)
who would like a auto trans w/wide gear spacing,it would be able to pull tree stumps,take off great in first gear but fall on it's face upon every gear change (fall out of the torque band)& get worse gas mileage.

(2)
Or a trans with not so low a first,does not take off quite as fast as the other trans mentioned, gear spacing is closer ,engines stays in peak torque band ,accelerates faster & gets better gas mileage.

(3)
have a trans that gets the car from point A to point B & really no performance @ all or gas mileage A.K.A. P.G. just kidding,they have they place also.

Just curious.

Thanks


MBHD

M.B.H.D.
I think your above comment is rude and out of line. You are interested in drag racing and I will agree with you that close gear ratios might be better for that purpose but you are short sighted if you think that that is the only way to go, I don't know how many inlines you own or have built but I have been playing with inlines since the 50s, I have raced them, drove them on the street, pulled trailers with them, and I know for a fact that different setups require different ratios, As an example your cam choice, weight of vehicle,and or desired use all play a part in transmission selection. I realize that you think the 200 is the best choice for you and that is fine but it is not the best choice for everyone and this is what most people have been trying to tell you for several months. If you are the only person with good info then why don't you sit down and publish a book with the exact details on how to build the best possible vehicle for every purpose, it would make you very rich. You have some good knowledge to share on this board but you are not the absolute king of six cylinders to my knowledge, so lighten up. Also I have been wondering are you even a paying member of Inliners International or do you just use our Bulletin Board?

I am sorry that the rest of you had to read this but I felt it needed to be said.

M.B.H.D.

Thank you, maybe we can get some good info now if your quiet. [/quote]

This is the comment I am talking about

Foolish error on my part, and not helpful.

Hank was referring to the wide ratio muncie versus the TH350 when he made that statement, both of which have approximately the same 1st gear ratio.

Ooppsss - thanks, and yes, that makes more sense.
Yup -
I apologize, and will remove the mistake.

This is the comment I am talking about [/quote]

Don't understand what this means??

Your comment about drag racing, my car is not a drag race car it is a street car,I never want to make a race only car.

What I am into is fast street cars ,that gets good/desent gas mileage & can take long trips w/it.

I never said I know everything about 6 cyl's.

Not sure what you are talking about rude & out of line??

It sounds like you don't want me to post @ all here.

I have been a paid inliner before a couple times.. So what does that matter?
I have been into 6's since 1982.

I first started membership in about 1984.

I do not have any free time to work on my projects so I just hang out here,if that's OK w/you.

At least I have 6 cyl projects going on & talk about it & post pics when I do get something done.

All IMO,,which means it's my opinion & it also means,it's not the law,I am not the king of 6's.

Hank I am talking about your comment to Panic at the bottom of page 5. I do not want anyone to stop posting here this is why I feel that we should be polite even if we disagree with what is being said. You have shared a lot of good info but you appear to believe that your way is the only way.
I am sorry if I hurt your feelings but I was just stating my opinion.

big bill,

I think you are picking on the wrong person here.

I have never ever said my way is the only way.

I will state my opinion ,I have tried many many different combos.

I never ever said the 200 is the best 6 cylinder,or a 250 for that matter.
Mostly all of my experience is on 250's

I do not see that I am the impolite person here.

Like I said,I will state my opinion,& even try to reinforce my opinion,especially when I am concerned to trying to help another inliner here,if someone has another idea,that's fine, I do not argue w/that person,I just do not like personal attacks torwards myself.

As far as my post goes sorry if you are offended by it,but it seems many people here feel the same that person,including the moderators & administrators,he just likes to stir up the pot,ramble on,give for the most part useless info,& what authority/actual real world experience on inline 6 cylinders does he have,,0,,,he seems to have problems on some other forums as well, he also seems to be an unhappy person & brings the greef over here as well.
Snyed sarcastic remarks are endless.

Also again,my way is not the only way,you can listen to me or you cannot ,either way it does not matter.

I just try to be as helpfull as I can, as so the new guy does not spend thousands of dollars as I have to see what combo works & what does not & all inbetween.


You guys can delete this post,, I spoke my peace.
Thank you

Sincerely MBHD

824 views...seems to have garnered some interest!

mbhd, I agree - "that guy" is a jerk. I was on the receiving end of his comments a couple months ago. I said it then and I'll say it again - I think its time for him to go.

Always refreshing to see those responsible for rude comments defending themselves ("I never did that, I'm a nice person"), and using, again, personal remarks (""that guy" is a jerk") to do so.
Please - take a moment, and show me exactly when & where I ever made a comment like that?

Hypocrisy is also a favorite: complaining about "Snyed sarcastic remarks", while making one "he seems to have problems on some other forums as well, he also seems to be an unhappy person".

What else? It's a long list.
"the new guy does not spend thousands of dollars"
1. is that relevant?
2. and he knows this because.... how? I made no such statement, and how could he possibly know anything about me other than what I said? In point of fact, R&D is "my day job", and I've spent far more than that - but it has nothing to do with whether you should listen to me - or are we buying subscriptions?
3. "ramble on,give for the most part useless info". This one is easy - he's referring to factually accurate information that is completely beyond his competence such as the entire F head thread (which is why he didn't instantly attack it). How does he reconcile the statement that I talk too much with his other statement that I don't contribute?
4. there are also easily 20 other remarks that disagree, find fault etc. with things I simply did not say ("you would not know because you do not even own any items we are discussing here,let alone any 6 cylinders") - but this distinction was overlooked in the zeal to criticize.
5. "get a six cylinder & understand what the torque curve is ,6 cyl's,need a close set of gears ,as not to drop out of the power band", "A gas engine can have equal torque
,not true/A.K.A. wrong " I'll just leave those hang in the breeze - those here with some engineering background already know what's wrong with it.

Now, we could move on to how "rude", and "bad manners", actually mean in effect saying things you don't like - but this isn't really a discussion, is it? It's a social group, practicing xenophobia.

Hey Panic, remember that the first thing you should do when you find yourself in a hole is to quit diggin'

Meaning: "when me and my friends want to say unpleasant things about you - you should agree with us"?

We should just have a poll here to see if you should be here or not.


MBHD

NO, Panic. What I mean to say is that anytime there is controversy about how things are said (not what is said) you are generally involved. Take that to mean that I find you just generally obnoxious.

Hey MBHD My vote is to boot Panic

M.B.H.D.,

The useful torque band range of the engine in rpm for your referencing engine would be very helpful in this discussion. Of course camshaft, head porting, valve sizing, intake and exhaust configurations are important.

I agree,all are important areas to consider when building a engine & selecting good gearing for a particular application.
Every combo is different also no two engines will be exactly the same.


MBHD

M.B.H.D,

More specifically, for what engine rpm operating band are you optimizing the gearing in this discussion?

We need to know the camshaft specs,compression ratio.

As far as I know, George does not have a cam picked out,we do not know the weight of the car,or rear gear ratio.




MBHD

Hi, everyone. Thanks for all the ideas. I still don't have a cam picked out because I'm busy fixing other projects. I suspect the car's going to weigh 3,500 lbs when finished. It has a Ford 9" pumpkin with 3.50:1 gears. I want to drop the 292 in its engine bay because I want this car to be different from other SBC street rods but still have some grunt.

George
#5355

Do you want to be able to hear the cam lope a little, stock smooth idle,,,or?? So far I am leaning on a camshaft duration between 210- 218 range so far.

You will be just under or right @ 9:1 compression ratio?

MBHD

Hi, Hank. Is the 9:1 compression ratio met, using stock pistons? I'm thinking of using flat marine pistons but I don't know if I really need them since the vehicle is going to be my grandson's street rod, a car with attitude. I don't mind a lope.

George
#5355

Hi George,
we need to know what stall or what type of performance you are looking for.

Good take off,,mileage will suffer a bit around town,but not on the open highway w/a lockup converter.

Low stall,does not take off as good ,better mileage in town driving.

Any info you are hoping to get out of this car is info needed for get a better overall good performing package.

Soo,,basically,,,we need as much info as you can please on what you hope to have.
This was mentioned already,this is for a 194 -250 but Comp will grind whatever you want for a 292.
http://www.compcams.com/Cam_Specs/CamDetails.aspx?csid=61&sb=2

Not sure you feel about running a solid cam,(need to adjust rockers every once in a while) They do make more power & are a faster acting cam,faster ramping on the lobes,& so-on.
Well in general you can get away w/more duration w/a soilid grind.
About 10 degrees you can get away with.

Example: a solid cam with 220 degrees duration will idle about the same as a hydraulic cam with 210 degress duration.

Thanks

MBHD

MBHD, Your 220 solid vs 210 hydraulic example above does not make sense to me. Seems backward. If the 220 solid has faster acting lobes then it should act like an even longer duration (say 230) hydraulic slower acting lobe.

What am I missing? The solid duration figure assumes zero lash?

As a general rule of thumb, for your typical street setup, it is typically recommended by multiple cam manufacturers and turbo installers that I have spoken with that a turbo cam should have a max of about 220 @.050 and an LSA of about 114. That should give you some numbers to shop around with.