5.8L V8 OHV produce 850 HP, so its about 146 HP per litre displacement. what is the key of such naturally aspirated OHV could reach that power to displacement ratio?
Ram air from the speed of the car. Carefully tuning of the pressure waves between the intake and exhaust. Very well designed ports. Radical cams that are optimal for all the above. Exhaust is dumped into a very low pressure area created by the aerodynamics of the spoilers. Very sophisticated compressible fluid dynamics is used throughout the entire car , and engine working in harmony together within the environment it is designed for.
Wish they had a class called freedom class. When you use a production chassis and engine and tire size. Stock suspension type and location and that’s it. Would be cool. Like back in the day.
Im not a nascar purest. Make a radical change. Since so many manufacturers have used a 2.5L over the years, limit engine size to 2.5 but let them use fuel injection over head valves, stuff that is on stock engines in passenger cars, set a limit on how much gas they can burn per race mile, and then let them compete. Ie get the cars closer to "stock" cars that in use today.
I find it funny that they say without the taper spacer the cars only made 850ish HP, but according to that dyno monitor the motor made 860ish with the taper spacer. That leads me to believe the "old" style motors made well over 900HP. Crazy.
+Drokkers I'm inclined to think that the taper plate may actually help with fuel/air distribution to ensure a better more even power from each cylinder.
Over the years, the more NASCAR interfered, the less exciting it got. Now, the viewership numbers are struggling, it's high time to back off and let the guys race.
These guys aren't fooling me. Smaller intakes = less air to the engine, which means DECREASES IN POWER. Much like the restrictor plates for Talladega and Daytona. So now they've gone after robbing the cars of power on ALL THE TRACKS. This sucks. Yet they use fancy words to try to make us "excited about it". What bullshit. What's next? Getting rid of our beloved V8's altogether, and replacing them with wimpy V6's???
because of all the fans (bench-warmers) were complaining about "no competition" from "top sponsored" team... so there we have it and yet people will still complain until they demand a damn NEXTEL hybrid engine 500!
Flame hardened and cryo chilled cam and lifters. Well, I don't think I'll be buzzing my V8 @9000 rpm any time soon. Every thing inside is sooo shiny! Circle track article from the 90's. A team got caught sucking extra air through the carb stud bolt holes. I still recall a Hot Rod article on Roush. A heavily modded 302. "Give the Chevy bums the Roush!" Vasco Jet springs last longer in a roller cam engine. Six years out on this vid. Internet is T.M.I.
madtownmadman NASCAR runs an Ethanol-infused gas now which prematurely knocks at higher compression ratios like a force-inducted engine. They lowered it to 12:1 when they changed the fuel in (I think, don't quote me on the exact year) 2011 before they introduced fuel injection.
madtownmadman Currently (as of 2011) they run E15 ethanol fuel. Before, they ran I believe Sunoco 96 Octane fuel at a higher compression. Oddly, too, E15 gave them a small HP boost which decreased their economy, thus negating the effects of using Ethanol-based fuels, supposedly.
+Frank Brucker I agree. It would be heaps more exciting if they did like australia's touring car series and based the cars on actual vehicles. They wouldn't make 900hp AND teams would select the best production cars to use. Imagine chargers, camaros, mustangs, etc all racing like that!!
The roller cam is going to backfire on NASCAR's "less power" plans. With roller cams you can create more radical cam grinds that allow more horsepower from lower RPM. By the time the Coca-Cola 600 rolls around, the engine builders will have found all the HP NASCAR thought they took away. The True Solution to the Horsepower Problem would be to change to a V-6 engine from a V-8, but the four engine shops would go out of business overnight if they had to throw away all their hundreds of blocks and thousands of cams, cranks and heads.
+Jason L An "actual" production car would not be safe to race. It wouldn't take the strain of racing. As for your suggestion that requiring the engines to last multiple races would slow the cars down, look at Formula/1. They're pulling 600 horsepower out of a 1.6-liter turbocharged V6, and an engine has to last roughly three races because there are 21 Grands Prix on the calendar and you only get eight engines for the whole season.
Reducing HP for fan's enjoyment? Ha! Now that's a good one! Nascar's COST reduction excuse seems to be a NO SALE for race teams. I sure see no way any substantial savings could occur. Since when is a race team saving money when it is forced to discard shop full of engines & buy new ones? Engine makers might eventually profit, but race teams seem to eat costs, not savings. Regardless, the roller lifter assembly seems like it would be more expensive than the flat variety. The flat ones appear to be only one part & not an assembly, which would make the flat ones the cheaper of the two, no? Regardless throwing out parts, whether it be a small bin full or pallets full, doesn't equate to saving here either. And, no doubt, adding a spacer, or any part, where previously none existed is an ADDED COST. I still don't get what changed with the cam shaft, but again, throwing out a bin of them to make way for new versions is a cost, not a savings. And (lifter) RELIABILITY is increased by putting a two or 3 part assembly where one part was previously doing the job? At a minimum, I think that is also a questionable, if not a counter intuitive claim. Considering all the new track records this year, I think venue insurance "cost" is the factor truly driving these changes. To me is seems probable that slowing the cars was mandated by insurance companies. In reducing speeds to obtaining affordable insurance Nascar seems to guard it's own interests & profitability, but the cost seems to get passed onto the teams as a result. In the big picture, if teams can not go racing because Nascar can not insure their events, well then YES, buying a few new motors is less costly than having your entire race team become obsolete. And, YES, fan excitement is much higher at a HP decreased race, as compared to NO race! If that is what is happening that's what race fans should be told. Regardless, the corporate media agenda driven PC BS is a big NO SALE!
The teams have probably been begging NASCAR for roller lifters for decades. There are a lot of advantages to them - less friction and higher reliability for two, they don't wear out cams - you only get a few races out of a flat-tappet cam - and the ability to use more extreme cam profiles.
Jim Mowreader There are 38 races in a regular season (including the all-star and assuming speed weeks is one race since teams aren't supposed to change engines during the week). With flat-tappet engines, a team can use an engine for about two races before the cam is shot to hell. Pretty much, that means with flat-tappet, at $100k per block, you're looking at $1,900k or $1.9M a year in engines. Assuming a block can go 3 races on rollers over 2, that's saving a team about $700k a year alone. Not to mention with longer cam times that rollers can offer, the effective compression ratio can still be higher than 12 which cars typically tend to like more than what their paper specs say.
what happened to building HP to outrun the competition? Seems like everytime there is a "improvement", its to slow everybody else but GM ( and now Toyota ) down...I want the Fords to kick ass, not have a good day by coming in 15th place......
+herpherpbrocolli I agree. F1 is boring follow my leader on tracks that need little driving such as braking and gear changing. F! racing needs narrow tracks with tight slow corners and no wide run offs for the fools who don't know how to switch their adrenaline off.
The "restrictor plates" don't restrict jack shit as long as the carburetor or "throttle body" has more "restriction" throughout the several inches of "bore" the air has to pass down after entering the air cleaner and then making a "90-degree turn" to go down into those bores. And since "velocity" has to "increase" for the air to make it through those "restrictions" and the pressure of flowing fluids is "reduced" as velocity increases and the "pressure drop" occurs "above" the "restrictor plate", the net effect is "ram induction" and "charge air cooling" since the temp of the air also "decreases" due to that pressure drop which keeps the carburetor and the fuel inside it cooler and "cooler fuel" is better than "cooler air" for "making power" any day of the week. Fuel can and does "cool" the air automatically as it "absorbs heat" while being "vaporized". And the "restrictor plate" is just like any other "carb spacer" and "increases power" by moving the carb further from the hot engine. Sure its aluminum and a "heat sink" but there are GASKETS between the plate and manifold and plate and carburetor that if made of the "right" material like say...."asbestos"....are able to "direct" heat rising from the engine intake manifold "sideways" right into the "intake air" going right back down into the engine where HEAT IS POWER. And its just common sense to not build "restrictor plate engines" any "larger" than they "need" to be to be "matched" to the "restrictor plates" by using shorter strokes to reduce displacement which has the effects of significantly lightening the crankshaft and keeping the pistons "higher" in their cylinder bores for improved piston/ring "fit" and "stability" and of course reduced piston speeds or the same piston speed at higher rpm compared to "full stroke" engines. The "oversquare" small-block V8 engine running a "large-displacement" small-block cylinder bore with a "small-displacement" stroke and being able to run a significantly lighter "bottom end" for faster "acceleration" and "throttle response" and a lot less engine stress and internal friction and "power loss" and greatly improved "efficiency" keeping heat and fuel-air mixture in the "shorter" cylinders more easily even at "lower" engine speeds is exactly how Chevrolet kicked the dogshit out of Ford in the "5-liter" Trans-Am series with the Chevy DZ302 small-block using the 327/350 4.000" bore and the "small-journal" and "obsolete" 283 3.000" stroke. The first DZ302s were "small journal" engines built from "327 blocks" and when the 350 became a passenger-car engine in "1968" after being a "truck engine" in 1967, both the 327 and 302 became "large journal" engines. 4-bolt mains in the center three "webs" only help "tie together" and "reinforce" the bottoms of the cylinder bores where 302 pistons really never "run" anyway. And because the 302 pistons only run in "wet" portions of the cylinders with coolant passages "top to bottom", higher piston speeds and cylinder pressures and temps that go along with better "sealing" and less "loss" of compression and fuel-air mixture and combustion heat and cylinder pressure are "sustainable". Other "oversquare" American V-8s tried to "copy" the success of the SBC engines that are ALL "oversquare" by significant amounts but when those "copies" were crippled by "tall deck" and/or "deep skirt" engine blocks that were originally designed for "undersquare" dimensions, they all failed miserably on a "hp per cubic inch" basis at "reasonable" engine speeds which means they really failed on a "torque per cubic inch" basis since horsepower is a function of speed and torque. The "short" in every dimension Chevy small-block and even big-block architecture with "low" decks keeping the heads as "far apart" as possible and allowing "tall" heads on a "short" overall engine height all made Chevy small-blocks "efficient" and "cheap" enough for money to be spent elsewhere on things like the priority main lube systems and "built-in" fuel pump mounts and "drive" and "splayed valve" architecture for the big-blocks and 4-bolt mains for the small-blocks and every small-block and big-block engine made having at LEAST two-barrel carburetion WITHOUT the "need" for "multiple carburetors" since unlike Ford and Mopar and even other GM divisions, Chevrolet never needed more than a single 4-barrel and only a handful of "outsourced" 4-barrels mainly required by "regulations" and cheaper to "buy" than to "build" since GM's Rochester Division "spread-bore" carburetors were and are far and away superior to any "square-bore" carburetor in "reliability" and "serviceability" and "simplicity" and "versatility" and "durability" as far as "holding a tune". The few factory Chevrolet vehicles/engines that used Holley carburetors are "legendary" for their "performance" in spite of rather than because of their carburetion. The Carter AVS and AFB and "Thermo-Quad" carburetors Mopar used were "similarly successful" but obviously not remotely as "common" or "popular" as the Rochester and "license-built" Carter "Quads" (for a while GMs "in-house" demand for its own carburetors temporarily "outstripped" Rochester's production capacity when Rochester was "experimenting" with its few "half a QuadraJet" and "half a an AFB" and "half an AVS" two-barrels Mopar ended up using extensively on "Slant Six" engines QuadraJets) since Mopar and Carter got on the "spread-bore bandwagon" too late and after too long on the Holley and multi-carb bandwagons and was a far distant "third" in V8 production by the time the "smog era" rolled around. And its "high-performance" V8s like most of Ford's attempts at "high-performance" V8s were equipped with too much "camshaft" and insufficient manifold vacuum to operate an "air-valve secondary" spread-bore 4-barrel with a "tiny" set of primaries and "huge" secondaries "mechanical" in throttle butterfly operation but "vacuum" in "air door" operation. The real hilarity of all the "competition" between "Ford and Chevy" in the "racing" world is that "Chevy" has never had a "factory-backed" racing "program" for several "common sense" reasons but foremost being that its really stupid to "compete" against your own "customers" on "Sunday" if you want them to "buy" on "Monday" the parts and maybe service or "project" vehicles to "race" the following "Sunday". Ford and Mopar eventually figured that out but Ford, ever the "smartest people in the room" via "inheritance" from the "genius" Henry Ford and to this day "controlled" by "Ford family members" just as "determined" to "leave a legacy" as old Henry was and for the same reasons - "success" mainly through "luck" and "self-promotion", decided to try to "trick" the "drag racers" and "sports car crowd" the same way it tried to trick the "NASCAR crowd" by "privatizing" all of its "racing program" and having "Ford dealers" be the "independent" high-performance parts "suppliers" for specific "motorsports" and "regions" while staying out of the "car business" as far as "retail sales" of new Ford cars went and being only in business to "sell racing parts" and "go racing" in the "top-level" and "factory stock" racing events/organizations/classes etc against other supposed "factory-backed" racing teams. Even though Fords main competitor Chevrolet never had such a thing and Chevy "racing parts" started as "factory replacement" parts for existing "passenger cars" and Chevy never built/sold "factory race cars" much less "race-only" engines and "homogolated" vehicles for "competition" and then tried to pass them off as "experimental" and "available" only to the "factory stock" racing "teams" and "race parts dealers". And of course the fact that most of Ford's "experimental" and "competition only" parts/engines/vehicles ended up getting "spanked" in every "competition" where Ford wasn't one of or the primary "sponsors" and "authorities" on "rules" and "regulations" and where Ford had to compete against anybody BUT "hobbyists" buying their own "race parts" with their disposable income from other "professions" outside the "auto industry" had a lot to do with Ford "canceling" one "non-factory" program after another and jumping from "motorsport" to "motorsport" just as soon as "competition" showed up or dried up and/or "profits" from "race part sales" to "race part dealers" was no longer sufficient to cover Ford's primary "expense" for its "competition" and "experimental" programs which then and now is "propaganda". That its arch-rival Chevrolet was "beating" Ford primarily with "truck" parts and engines and before they were "passenger car" engines Chevy's "revolutionary" engines/engine "families" were first "truck engines" while Ford failed miserably to turn its "legendary" V8 from "passenger car" engine TO "truck engine" and thus sealed Fords "fate" as a "victim" of Chevrolet 4-cylinders and 6-cylinders was just insult added to injury. Kind of like the "Edsel" debuting as a "flop" the same year Chevrolet sold its 50 millionth passenger car. Looking at Ford's "NASCAR" engine its the same old shit in a different decade or century. Ford "writing the rules" from a position of "weakness" and ostensibly to "help" some other manufacturer "compete" and then once said rules are "official" using said "weakness" to put itself in the "helpless" category itself and in this case despite having produced more V8 engine "families" than both GM and Mopar combined deciding only a "new" or rather "old" and "obsolete" (compared to its "mod motors" with their "high-tech" OHC and "multi-valve" designs) type of "competition" engine would suffice for the "Car of Tomorrow" Ford ALSO "needed" to remain "competitive" once its only remaining "2-door sedan" was the "Mustang" with its horrible "handling" and "aerodynamics" and "high-tech" mod motor boat anchors under the hood. Is it a "coincidence" NASCAR wants to "limit horsepower" to "around 550" now that "Ford Mustangs" and "Chevy Camaros" will "compete"?
NASCAR ! Soon it will be a driver in a pit box somewhere up high with a remote controller . Maybe we should let google drive the dam things . It should be run what ya brung ! Let them have 2000 horse power and see how they finish . Restrict the amount of tires per car . That's the rule that covers it . And a minimum weight rule around 3400 lbs .with driver .
NASCAR is a joke now.all the rules and all the cars are the same. NASCAR is not NASCAR anymore its just glorified iroc racing. So boring.bring back run what you brung the real true stockcar racing.. I hate iroc all the same cars borring
NASCAR racing is really boring with the tapered spacer package. I watch the racing today and there is barely two lanes to pass where before the was a top and bottom lane to pass. Remove the spacer.
nothing like taking racing out of racing...NASCAR is good at that. let's see how many more wrecks we have since drivers won't have the power to drive out of would be spins. Thank you NASCAR for making me like you less once again.
I'm not sure how less power makes racing more competitive. I realise Roush is stuck with the rule and they have to paint a pretty picture but I don't think anyone buys it. Nascar could get out of the way. That would make it a race. Sprint cup now is what they used to call Iroc racing. Remember? The same exact cookie cutter Camaros zooming around the track. Sort of kills individual ingenuity and independence in the mechanical aspect. I don't know how you call that "stock car racing" in any traditional sense.
It's all just a bullshit ploy to basically "Give" a championship to a certain shitty cup driver who can't live up to his family name. (Cough! "June-Bug!" Cough!) NASCAR has become complete bullshit since they brought out the C.O.T. While changes like sending drivers to the rear of the field for switching cars or engines may be good for competition, robbing a team of its engine department's achievements is complete bullshit. Spend R&D money on engines, and win races. Spend money you don't have on creating a new team, and suffer a few frustrating seasons. NASCAR has become a joke. The whole damn league sucks now.
NASCAR needs to run current production based engines the coyote vs LS
With the old flat tappet cams, did they use zinc in the oil?
that cam at .49 looks like jewellery!
you want excitement? how about no more rain delay's! Just turn on the wipers and come in for rain tires!
5.8L V8 OHV produce 850 HP, so its about 146 HP per litre displacement. what is the key of such naturally aspirated OHV could reach that power to displacement ratio?
the roush yates is a ford motor
Ram air from the speed of the car. Carefully tuning of the pressure waves between the intake and exhaust. Very well designed ports. Radical cams that are optimal for all the above. Exhaust is dumped into a very low pressure area created by the aerodynamics of the spoilers. Very sophisticated compressible fluid dynamics is used throughout the entire car , and engine working in harmony together within the environment it is designed for.
@@daveponder2754 You must have read Phil Smiths book. And Fred Puhn's as well.
They are reducing power because with less down force they went into turn 1 at the michigan test going 230
Nascar has become the Nationwide series. The less horsepower the better. Which makes no sense what so ever.
Have faith Doug and Roush-Yates Engine department will have them Fords up front!
Wish they had a class called freedom class. When you use a production chassis and engine and tire size. Stock suspension type and location and that’s it. Would be cool. Like back in the day.
Roush-Yates, some of the best in the industry FOR SURE.
NASA power.
Im not a nascar purest. Make a radical change. Since so many manufacturers have used a 2.5L over the years, limit engine size to 2.5 but let them use fuel injection over head valves, stuff that is on stock engines in passenger cars, set a limit on how much gas they can burn per race mile, and then let them compete. Ie get the cars closer to "stock" cars that in use today.
I find it funny that they say without the taper spacer the cars only made 850ish HP, but according to that dyno monitor the motor made 860ish with the taper spacer. That leads me to believe the "old" style motors made well over 900HP. Crazy.
+Drokkers I'm inclined to think that the taper plate may actually help with fuel/air distribution to ensure a better more even power from each cylinder.
nope without restrictors it makes over 1000hp actually
Over the years, the more NASCAR interfered, the less exciting it got. Now, the viewership numbers are struggling, it's high time to back off and let the guys race.
And how did this work out for y'all
These guys aren't fooling me. Smaller intakes = less air to the engine, which means DECREASES IN POWER. Much like the restrictor plates for Talladega and Daytona. So now they've gone after robbing the cars of power on ALL THE TRACKS. This sucks. Yet they use fancy words to try to make us "excited about it". What bullshit. What's next? Getting rid of our beloved V8's altogether, and replacing them with wimpy V6's???
because of all the fans (bench-warmers) were complaining about "no competition" from "top sponsored" team...
so there we have it and yet people will still complain until they demand a damn NEXTEL hybrid engine 500!
Flame hardened and cryo chilled cam and lifters. Well, I don't think I'll be buzzing my V8 @9000 rpm any time soon. Every thing inside is sooo shiny!
Circle track article from the 90's. A team got caught sucking extra air through the carb stud bolt holes.
I still recall a Hot Rod article on Roush.
A heavily modded 302. "Give the Chevy bums the Roush!"
Vasco Jet springs last longer in a roller cam engine. Six years out on this vid. Internet is
T.M.I.
tapered spacer? what happened to the restrictor plates??
"Tapered Spacer" is just a pretty term for restrictor plate. This engine package is gonna suck.
Didnt NASCAR engines used to be in the 15:1 compression range?
madtownmadman NASCAR runs an Ethanol-infused gas now which prematurely knocks at higher compression ratios like a force-inducted engine. They lowered it to 12:1 when they changed the fuel in (I think, don't quote me on the exact year) 2011 before they introduced fuel injection.
Whats the octane of the fuel that the ethanol is blended with? Do you know the proportions?
madtownmadman Currently (as of 2011) they run E15 ethanol fuel. Before, they ran I believe Sunoco 96 Octane fuel at a higher compression.
Oddly, too, E15 gave them a small HP boost which decreased their economy, thus negating the effects of using Ethanol-based fuels, supposedly.
mastoner20 E15 is 15% ethanol, by the way. Forgot to include that bit, sorry.
Damn. These bad boys would make 50 or more additional hp on e85 and 40ftlb.
Is this 1890's ? Who uses push rod's..
Is it true that Nascar uses universal engines, they're all the same?
today they are similar they all have similar bore spacing but still slightly different... the differences were much bigger before 2009.
Woohoo FINALLY!! less rpm and more hp. still limited to 12:1, valve sizes, etc remain the same?
Less RPM and Less HP.
Cutting edge stuff here ...
Wouldn't it be more exciting if nascar just let them race. I mean safety regulations but I mean how is it racing when your limited by everything
+Frank Brucker I agree. It would be heaps more exciting if they did like australia's touring car series and based the cars on actual vehicles.
They wouldn't make 900hp AND teams would select the best production cars to use. Imagine chargers, camaros, mustangs, etc all racing like that!!
The roller cam is going to backfire on NASCAR's "less power" plans. With roller cams you can create more radical cam grinds that allow more horsepower from lower RPM. By the time the Coca-Cola 600 rolls around, the engine builders will have found all the HP NASCAR thought they took away.
The True Solution to the Horsepower Problem would be to change to a V-6 engine from a V-8, but the four engine shops would go out of business overnight if they had to throw away all their hundreds of blocks and thousands of cams, cranks and heads.
that's what i thought.
rollers have much larger profiles.
Keep the v6 blasphemy to yourself, please. I see what you're saying, but please, we're American's.
madtownmadman the straight 6 design is far better than the V6 config.
Technically speaking, the V6 isn't the optimal configuration.
+Jim Mowreader The true hp limiter would be making the teams use ACTUAL production cars AND require the engines to last MULTIPLE races.
+Jason L An "actual" production car would not be safe to race. It wouldn't take the strain of racing. As for your suggestion that requiring the engines to last multiple races would slow the cars down, look at Formula/1. They're pulling 600 horsepower out of a 1.6-liter turbocharged V6, and an engine has to last roughly three races because there are 21 Grands Prix on the calendar and you only get eight engines for the whole season.
Ford, We need that ohv motor replacement the dohc , much Easier to work with and modified
Reducing HP for fan's enjoyment? Ha! Now that's a good one! Nascar's COST reduction excuse seems to be a NO SALE for race teams. I sure see no way any substantial savings could occur. Since when is a race team saving money when it is forced to discard shop full of engines & buy new ones? Engine makers might eventually profit, but race teams seem to eat costs, not savings. Regardless, the roller lifter assembly seems like it would be more expensive than the flat variety. The flat ones appear to be only one part & not an assembly, which would make the flat ones the cheaper of the two, no? Regardless throwing out parts, whether it be a small bin full or pallets full, doesn't equate to saving here either. And, no doubt, adding a spacer, or any part, where previously none existed is an ADDED COST. I still don't get what changed with the cam shaft, but again, throwing out a bin of them to make way for new versions is a cost, not a savings. And (lifter) RELIABILITY is increased by putting a two or 3 part assembly where one part was previously doing the job? At a minimum, I think that is also a questionable, if not a counter intuitive claim.
Considering all the new track records this year, I think venue insurance "cost" is the factor truly driving these changes. To me is seems probable that slowing the cars was mandated by insurance companies. In reducing speeds to obtaining affordable insurance Nascar seems to guard it's own interests & profitability, but the cost seems to get passed onto the teams as a result. In the big picture, if teams can not go racing because Nascar can not insure their events, well then YES, buying a few new motors is less costly than having your entire race team become obsolete. And, YES, fan excitement is much higher at a HP decreased race, as compared to NO race! If that is what is happening that's what race fans should be told. Regardless, the corporate media agenda driven PC BS is a big NO SALE!
The teams have probably been begging NASCAR for roller lifters for decades. There are a lot of advantages to them - less friction and higher reliability for two, they don't wear out cams - you only get a few races out of a flat-tappet cam - and the ability to use more extreme cam profiles.
Jim Mowreader There are 38 races in a regular season (including the all-star and assuming speed weeks is one race since teams aren't supposed to change engines during the week). With flat-tappet engines, a team can use an engine for about two races before the cam is shot to hell. Pretty much, that means with flat-tappet, at $100k per block, you're looking at $1,900k or $1.9M a year in engines. Assuming a block can go 3 races on rollers over 2, that's saving a team about $700k a year alone. Not to mention with longer cam times that rollers can offer, the effective compression ratio can still be higher than 12 which cars typically tend to like more than what their paper specs say.
lol Doug is the most appropriate name ever
Should’ve NEVER put tapered spacers on the cars!!!!
what happened to building HP to outrun the competition? Seems like everytime there is a "improvement", its to slow everybody else but GM ( and now Toyota ) down...I want the Fords to kick ass, not have a good day by coming in 15th place......
God NASCAR sucks. Who wants less power? They're gonna end up like F1 running fucking vacuum cleaners for engines.
lol
@True Story
in 2017 f1 might be running 1000 HP if the FIA allows it and if there are changes in the tire regs
+herpherpbrocolli I agree.
F1 is boring follow my leader on tracks that need little driving such as braking and gear changing. F! racing needs narrow tracks with tight slow corners and no wide run offs for the fools who don't know how to switch their adrenaline off.
i agree!
to me nascar has screwed it up so bad i got where i dont even care to watch it anymore.
limit so much they are on top of each other causing constant horrific wrecks for one.
So again... nascar cuts power since toyota can't make the power.
+svt88 funny thing is that nascar told toyota to detune their engines in 2007
Dude Toyota could easily make an engine with significantly more power than any GM, Ford, or Mopar engine. What have you been reading?
The "restrictor plates" don't restrict jack shit as long as the carburetor or "throttle body" has more "restriction" throughout the several inches of "bore" the air has to pass down after entering the air cleaner and then making a "90-degree turn" to go down into those bores. And since "velocity" has to "increase" for the air to make it through those "restrictions" and the pressure of flowing fluids is "reduced" as velocity increases and the "pressure drop" occurs "above" the "restrictor plate", the net effect is "ram induction" and "charge air cooling" since the temp of the air also "decreases" due to that pressure drop which keeps the carburetor and the fuel inside it cooler and "cooler fuel" is better than "cooler air" for "making power" any day of the week.
Fuel can and does "cool" the air automatically as it "absorbs heat" while being "vaporized". And the "restrictor plate" is just like any other "carb spacer" and "increases power" by moving the carb further from the hot engine. Sure its aluminum and a "heat sink" but there are GASKETS between the plate and manifold and plate and carburetor that if made of the "right" material like say...."asbestos"....are able to "direct" heat rising from the engine intake manifold "sideways" right into the "intake air" going right back down into the engine where HEAT IS POWER.
And its just common sense to not build "restrictor plate engines" any "larger" than they "need" to be to be "matched" to the "restrictor plates" by using shorter strokes to reduce displacement which has the effects of significantly lightening the crankshaft and keeping the pistons "higher" in their cylinder bores for improved piston/ring "fit" and "stability" and of course reduced piston speeds or the same piston speed at higher rpm compared to "full stroke" engines.
The "oversquare" small-block V8 engine running a "large-displacement" small-block cylinder bore with a "small-displacement" stroke and being able to run a significantly lighter "bottom end" for faster "acceleration" and "throttle response" and a lot less engine stress and internal friction and "power loss" and greatly improved "efficiency" keeping heat and fuel-air mixture in the "shorter" cylinders more easily even at "lower" engine speeds is exactly how Chevrolet kicked the dogshit out of Ford in the "5-liter" Trans-Am series with the Chevy DZ302 small-block using the 327/350 4.000" bore and the "small-journal" and "obsolete" 283 3.000" stroke.
The first DZ302s were "small journal" engines built from "327 blocks" and when the 350 became a passenger-car engine in "1968" after being a "truck engine" in 1967, both the 327 and 302 became "large journal" engines. 4-bolt mains in the center three "webs" only help "tie together" and "reinforce" the bottoms of the cylinder bores where 302 pistons really never "run" anyway. And because the 302 pistons only run in "wet" portions of the cylinders with coolant passages "top to bottom", higher piston speeds and cylinder pressures and temps that go along with better "sealing" and less "loss" of compression and fuel-air mixture and combustion heat and cylinder pressure are "sustainable". Other "oversquare" American V-8s tried to "copy" the success of the SBC engines that are ALL "oversquare" by significant amounts but when those "copies" were crippled by "tall deck" and/or "deep skirt" engine blocks that were originally designed for "undersquare" dimensions, they all failed miserably on a "hp per cubic inch" basis at "reasonable" engine speeds which means they really failed on a "torque per cubic inch" basis since horsepower is a function of speed and torque.
The "short" in every dimension Chevy small-block and even big-block architecture with "low" decks keeping the heads as "far apart" as possible and allowing "tall" heads on a "short" overall engine height all made Chevy small-blocks "efficient" and "cheap" enough for money to be spent elsewhere on things like the priority main lube systems and "built-in" fuel pump mounts and "drive" and "splayed valve" architecture for the big-blocks and 4-bolt mains for the small-blocks and every small-block and big-block engine made having at LEAST two-barrel carburetion WITHOUT the "need" for "multiple carburetors" since unlike Ford and Mopar and even other GM divisions, Chevrolet never needed more than a single 4-barrel and only a handful of "outsourced" 4-barrels mainly required by "regulations" and cheaper to "buy" than to "build" since GM's Rochester Division "spread-bore" carburetors were and are far and away superior to any "square-bore" carburetor in "reliability" and "serviceability" and "simplicity" and "versatility" and "durability" as far as "holding a tune".
The few factory Chevrolet vehicles/engines that used Holley carburetors are "legendary" for their "performance" in spite of rather than because of their carburetion. The Carter AVS and AFB and "Thermo-Quad" carburetors Mopar used were "similarly successful" but obviously not remotely as "common" or "popular" as the Rochester and "license-built" Carter "Quads" (for a while GMs "in-house" demand for its own carburetors temporarily "outstripped" Rochester's production capacity when Rochester was "experimenting" with its few "half a QuadraJet" and "half a an AFB" and "half an AVS" two-barrels Mopar ended up using extensively on "Slant Six" engines QuadraJets) since Mopar and Carter got on the "spread-bore bandwagon" too late and after too long on the Holley and multi-carb bandwagons and was a far distant "third" in V8 production by the time the "smog era" rolled around. And its "high-performance" V8s like most of Ford's attempts at "high-performance" V8s were equipped with too much "camshaft" and insufficient manifold vacuum to operate an "air-valve secondary" spread-bore 4-barrel with a "tiny" set of primaries and "huge" secondaries "mechanical" in throttle butterfly operation but "vacuum" in "air door" operation.
The real hilarity of all the "competition" between "Ford and Chevy" in the "racing" world is that "Chevy" has never had a "factory-backed" racing "program" for several "common sense" reasons but foremost being that its really stupid to "compete" against your own "customers" on "Sunday" if you want them to "buy" on "Monday" the parts and maybe service or "project" vehicles to "race" the following "Sunday". Ford and Mopar eventually figured that out but Ford, ever the "smartest people in the room" via "inheritance" from the "genius" Henry Ford and to this day "controlled" by "Ford family members" just as "determined" to "leave a legacy" as old Henry was and for the same reasons - "success" mainly through "luck" and "self-promotion", decided to try to "trick" the "drag racers" and "sports car crowd" the same way it tried to trick the "NASCAR crowd" by "privatizing" all of its "racing program" and having "Ford dealers" be the "independent" high-performance parts "suppliers" for specific "motorsports" and "regions" while staying out of the "car business" as far as "retail sales" of new Ford cars went and being only in business to "sell racing parts" and "go racing" in the "top-level" and "factory stock" racing events/organizations/classes etc against other supposed "factory-backed" racing teams.
Even though Fords main competitor Chevrolet never had such a thing and Chevy "racing parts" started as "factory replacement" parts for existing "passenger cars" and Chevy never built/sold "factory race cars" much less "race-only" engines and "homogolated" vehicles for "competition" and then tried to pass them off as "experimental" and "available" only to the "factory stock" racing "teams" and "race parts dealers".
And of course the fact that most of Ford's "experimental" and "competition only" parts/engines/vehicles ended up getting "spanked" in every "competition" where Ford wasn't one of or the primary "sponsors" and "authorities" on "rules" and "regulations" and where Ford had to compete against anybody BUT "hobbyists" buying their own "race parts" with their disposable income from other "professions" outside the "auto industry" had a lot to do with Ford "canceling" one "non-factory" program after another and jumping from "motorsport" to "motorsport" just as soon as "competition" showed up or dried up and/or "profits" from "race part sales" to "race part dealers" was no longer sufficient to cover Ford's primary "expense" for its "competition" and "experimental" programs which then and now is "propaganda".
That its arch-rival Chevrolet was "beating" Ford primarily with "truck" parts and engines and before they were "passenger car" engines Chevy's "revolutionary" engines/engine "families" were first "truck engines" while Ford failed miserably to turn its "legendary" V8 from "passenger car" engine TO "truck engine" and thus sealed Fords "fate" as a "victim" of Chevrolet 4-cylinders and 6-cylinders was just insult added to injury. Kind of like the "Edsel" debuting as a "flop" the same year Chevrolet sold its 50 millionth passenger car.
Looking at Ford's "NASCAR" engine its the same old shit in a different decade or century. Ford "writing the rules" from a position of "weakness" and ostensibly to "help" some other manufacturer "compete" and then once said rules are "official" using said "weakness" to put itself in the "helpless" category itself and in this case despite having produced more V8 engine "families" than both GM and Mopar combined deciding only a "new" or rather "old" and "obsolete" (compared to its "mod motors" with their "high-tech" OHC and "multi-valve" designs) type of "competition" engine would suffice for the "Car of Tomorrow" Ford ALSO "needed" to remain "competitive" once its only remaining "2-door sedan" was the "Mustang" with its horrible "handling" and "aerodynamics" and "high-tech" mod motor boat anchors under the hood.
Is it a "coincidence" NASCAR wants to "limit horsepower" to "around 550" now that "Ford Mustangs" and "Chevy Camaros" will "compete"?
Wow, at this rate they will have fuel injection in only 20 years or so.
+James Stevens THEY HAVE IT NOW DIDN'T YOU NOTICE THE FUEL RAILS ON THE MOTOR ON THE DYNO ?
+aj9270 i think he meant direct fi
+aj9270 i think he meant direct fi
+James Stevens They have it now and haven't had it previously because of rules.
aj9270
its not direct injection
Seems to me that competition for power with engines with the same displacement is and should be part of the competition. The new rules suck.
NASCAR ! Soon it will be a driver in a pit box somewhere up high with a remote controller . Maybe we should let google drive the dam things . It should be run what ya brung ! Let them have 2000 horse power and see how they finish . Restrict the amount of tires per car . That's the rule that covers it . And a minimum weight rule around 3400 lbs .with driver .
WHY not just have women drivers in bikinis that would make it more interesting and a whole lot more competitive
Great idea, I love that one.
NASCAR is a joke now.all the rules and all the cars are the same. NASCAR is not NASCAR anymore its just glorified iroc racing. So boring.bring back run what you brung the real true stockcar racing.. I hate iroc all the same cars borring
NASCAR racing is really boring with the tapered spacer package. I watch the racing today and there is barely two lanes to pass where before the was a top and bottom lane to pass. Remove the spacer.
nothing like taking racing out of racing...NASCAR is good at that. let's see how many more wrecks we have since drivers won't have the power to drive out of would be spins. Thank you NASCAR for making me like you less once again.
I'm not sure how less power makes racing more competitive. I realise Roush is stuck with the rule and they have to paint a pretty picture but I don't think anyone buys it. Nascar could get out of the way. That would make it a race. Sprint cup now is what they used to call Iroc racing. Remember? The same exact cookie cutter Camaros zooming around the track. Sort of kills individual ingenuity and independence in the mechanical aspect. I don't know how you call that "stock car racing" in any traditional sense.
Tapered spacers are so worthless and that’s why we see bad racing and horrible engine sounds these days bc horsepower is so low
It's all just a bullshit ploy to basically "Give" a championship to a certain shitty cup driver who can't live up to his family name.
(Cough! "June-Bug!" Cough!)
NASCAR has become complete bullshit since they brought out the C.O.T.
While changes like sending drivers to the rear of the field for switching cars or engines may be good for competition, robbing a team of its engine department's achievements is complete bullshit.
Spend R&D money on engines, and win races.
Spend money you don't have on creating a new team, and suffer a few frustrating seasons.
NASCAR has become a joke. The whole damn league sucks now.