Gentlemen (and Ladies),
As a newbie to the board, I ask that you indulge me in notifying all of you with whom you are dealing. Motor Daddy is retired military, having served 20 years in the Army, his final detail being a motor pool Sgt. at the Edgewood Arsenal in Aberdeen, MD. Well, the exact location is not important, what is important was the job function, which on paper is the equivalent of being an assistant service manager at a Kia dealership...although unlike the Kia's, Motor Daddy got to play with large diesel trucks, Humvee's, and the like.
Motor Daddy has argued his points ad nauseum on at least two other boards, performanceyears.com and classicalpontiac.com...both boards catering to the Pontiac side of the hobby (with PY catering more to racers and street machiners and CP catering more to restorers). He has used an outdated version of desktop dyno to bolster his opinion that, all things being equal (carb, intake, heads, cam, etc.), a smaller displacement engine will make the exact same power as a larger displacement engine by simply turning the smaller engine higher in rpm that is proportionally equal to the difference in displacement between the two engines (even though John Langer gave him an example of two seperate Pontiac engines of different displacement that were dyno tested using the same carb, intake, heads, cam where the larger engine actually made peak HP 200 rpm higher than the smaller one [and more of it]). He has used this same outdated software to calculate power figures for engines that are physically impossible to assemble (ie - installing AllPontiac.com Tiger heads on a 4.12" bore when they require a minimum 4.25" bore for valve clearance), and the software has always produced a sum.
He uses a tactic of changing the subject matter, or rules of the comparison in midstream (as you fine folks figured out by page two of his rant) in an effort to bolster his argument. Things like using non sequitur comparisons of how HP can be derived without TORQUE (ie - pulling a rope over a pulley, or his famous teeter-totter example) that have nothing to do with the topic of discussion. He either lacks the concept that, in terms of internal combustion engines, HP is derived from TORQUE and RPM...or he chooses to ignore it as Wolfplace suggests. He never sticks to the technical topic, he always argues in circles, and will have you folks dancing the jig (like you have here for 9 pages now).
He believes that Newton's laws of physics are incorrect (no further comment on that one, I'll leave commentary to the rest of you folks).
He fails to grasp the concept that running engines do not operate at or near the RPM in which they make peak HP. Regardless of what gearing is used, when under acceleration, it is physically impossible to hold an engine at the RPM which produces peak HP. There will always be an RPM drop during an upshift, which is where the power curves come into play.
He came here simply looking for vindication, and nothing more. He is not interested in hearing what others with more knowledge and experience have to say on the subject, because in his mind, the matter is already settled. He is merely looking for vindication from these people so he can return to those Pontiac boards and tell the people there that have already written off his theories "I told you so".
Carry on, and have a great day.
will not generate the same ETs (under the same atmospheric conditions) if the shape of the power/torque curves (in the rpm range of interest) vs. rpm is different for the 2 engines. Apologies for the run on sentence.
>> Web Design
