cyphur

iTrader: (10)

Ok I understand the need to have both hp and tq, and why. Why is it that these new cams that fit under stock heads make wicked hp #'s, but don't make **** for tq? TSP's new Magic Stick v3 made something like 416rwhp but only 381rwtq in an A4 with a TCI 4400 stall....thats quite a discrepency. Is it due to the restrictions found in the stock heads? Or is it found in the designs of the cams, which are p-t-v clearance friendly? I like the idea of cams that don't beat the hell out of the valvetrain(like the 231/237) but I'm not willing to sacrifice that much torque to acheive that.

blkZ28spt

When you start changing parts (heads/cam) to increase power N/A you move the meat of the powerband up to higher RPM. From what I understand: The improved flow helps more at higher RPM where total volume of air/fuel being flowed is highest. The improved springs/etc allow you to rev higher, and the higher you go the further hp rises relative to torque. 381 is not bad torque at all, you see guys with 400 rwhp on cam only cars all the time on here but they ALWAYS have more hp than torque because the strong part of the powerband is up higher, ie >5,252 rpm. Also, it seems that the bigger the cam (more overlap esp I think) the less efficient it is at lower rpm.

Is that right?

ss rally red

iTrader: (8)

I like to think that my FMS F11 makes both good HP & TQ on stock heads.

cyphur

iTrader: (10)

what are the specs on your cam ss rally red? i have noticed that futural has kept the torque production up with their cams, they seem to have some really good combinations going on. and yes, 381rwtq is good, but there is better out there. why sacrifice it?

BlueSix

Because when you put in the 4.10 gear (or 4.30, or 4.56) that cam's that big need, why would you need so much low end torque. With that much gear you won't see very much time at those low RPM's antways, especially under WOT. The idea of those big cam's is max effort. And a max effort car isn't going to see very much low RPM driving anyways. Ever.

cyphur

iTrader: (10)

Hadn't stopped to think about it that way.

jrp

iTrader: (16)

were not talking about low end tq, the 381 was peak tq most likely at ~4800..

cyphur

iTrader: (10)

granted my original inquiry was directed torwards the discrepencies between peak hp and peak torque, but a cam designed to give up some torque down low to gain peak hp, would that not also end up sacrificing some torque farthur up in the rpm range?