Compression vs Horsepower

some close this shit this idiot (crossroads) is wasting my bandwith

Then do the smart thing and stop clicking the topic, dumbass. Fuck, that was difficult wasn't it? You guys do such a good job of trolling your own board but I thought I'd go ahead and give you some encouragement.

That pig fucker picture made me lol.

No what's difficult is that I'm unable to reach through this computer and dick slap you I'm really done this time..enjoy your life and go fuck yourself..

Crossroads said:

How do you tune that resonant wave?

Click to expand...

Intake runner length. Very possible to get 120% VE.....like Bisi uses on his SOHC D and F motors, carbs at that If you'd done some research you'd found the MIT/NACA papers I talked about, along with the Mopar Max Wedge motors. My stock D15B7 achived over 105% VE with one bolt-on in 1998, I still run that same part today. 119 lb/ft at the crank assuming 15% driveline loss on a Dynojet, not bad for a motor rated at only 98 lb/ft.

You bring Dave @ SMSP into the mix, if he had time he might reply. But he's usually busy building headers. I need to call his cell phone, he's helping me design the header that will work good with my high comp build, but also work with 8-10 psi from the AKSC. Likely I'll have to goto VA with the AKSC so he can build around it.

btw, LFP, you done having fun yet?????

So if I read all of this right, it seems the main point of contention in this whole debate is compression and it's relationship to VE. Crossroads says that you can run lower compression w/ a properly ported head and acheive the same numbers as an engine w/ higher compression and less VE? With that said, wouldn't it make the most sense to have a properly ported head w/ the max. VE possible as well as high compression? Then wouldn't you then get the max benifit of the compression and VE?

IDK if I'm way off on this but I wanted to throw in my .02 to get some clarification. This thread has been pretty informative despite all the side chatter.