Pro's N Con's More HP then "needed"

draggbody · Sep 14, 2009

i have to agree w/ JJ about the propane... it is the most simple thing in the world to diagnose, i mean it can be fully disasembled completly w/ a flat head screwdriver... like any component you buy, you cant fix it/ if you dont understand how it works... JAB, i assure you there is nothing wrong w/ your propane setup other than your lack of understanding, dont take it the wrong way, its just like people that talk trash about EFI, usually there is nothing wrong w/ it other than the installers lack of knowledge... i work on FI vehicles everyday, mostly drivability problems, so i have a good understanding of both propane and FI, w/ that said, FI is fundamentally a superior setup, but, if you have a problem, who has the parts to fix one on the trail... propane is simple, the only thing that can go wrong w/ them is a diaphram, and they are cheap enough to just keep full rebuild kits as spares... i have only ever had one problem w/ a diapham and i used some brake cleaner and rtv to fix it....

gomer pyle · Sep 26, 2009

just because you have more hp doesn't mean you have to use it, but it sure is nice if you ever need it
there is nothing wrong with propane, and it doesn't weigh anymore than fi

KXCRAWLER13 · Sep 27, 2009

whoommmm powwww with no exhaust

GStone · Sep 28, 2009

gen 2 or keep what ya got. I've sold 10-15 6.0/5.3/LS1's dirt cheap in the last year. Just sold a LS2 drop out (complete harness,computer all accesories) for less then $2500. The 5.3/6.0 are less than half of that complete.

miles4areason · Oct 1, 2009

WHOOOOOPOW booyang

PsDad · Oct 1, 2009

XJKRAWLER: GOOD INFO ON RUNNING PROPANE, EVEN US OLD DOGS CAN LEARN A THING OR TWO NOW AND THEN. :dblthumb:

HotRodpayton · Oct 2, 2009

I think the monster truck vids that Cole posted should answer any Q's of should you use more HP> Now I wish I had more motor than my little stock motor for sure.

J.A.B · Oct 2, 2009

draggbody said:
JAB, i assure you there is nothing wrong w/ your propane setup other than your lack of understanding, dont take it the wrong way, its just like people that talk trash about EFI, usually there is nothing wrong w/ it other than the installers lack of knowledge...

I agree 100% - I did not know **** about it and that bothered me. I kinda wish I would have bolted it on and ran the motor before I sold the set up just to see how it would do especially after the coin I just dropped on this Mass-Flow system. However the main reason I went FI was the ease of being able to get gas anywhere verses chasing down places to fill bottles and having to carry them around with me all the time.

PsDad · Oct 2, 2009

A 600hp small block would be a dandy motor for a mud whomper (or a rock whomper) , but it's torque peak would be at a higher rpm range than would make sense for a crawler. Throttle response would be compromised due to the lowered intake velocity (mach #), BSFC (fuel required per horsepower) will be much higher, and volumetric efficiency would be much lower at midrange rpms. Engine life will be reduced by the necessity of turning higher rpms to produce usable torque, and the higher idle speed required for a long duration cam will necessitate using a high stall speed torque converter producing much higher transmission temps and shorter trans life. As for Gen1 or 2, it really doesn't make any difference, the same rules apply. Nascar engines produce over 2 HP/cu. in., but only have to live for a few hundred miles. Top Fuel engines produce over 16 HP/cu. in. and frequently don't live for 1000 feet! 'Scuse me fer gettin' windy, but I really love this stuff and I almost always learn something from hearing other folks' opinions!!

blacksheep10 · Oct 3, 2009

PsDad said:
A 600hp small block would be a dandy motor for a mud whomper (or a rock whomper) , but it's torque peak would be at a higher rpm range than would make sense for a crawler. Throttle response would be compromised due to the lowered intake velocity (mach #), BSFC (fuel required per horsepower) will be much higher, and volumetric efficiency would be much lower at midrange rpms. Engine life will be reduced by the necessity of turning higher rpms to produce usable torque, and the higher idle speed required for a long duration cam will necessitate using a high stall speed torque converter producing much higher transmission temps and shorter trans life. As for Gen1 or 2, it really doesn't make any difference, the same rules apply. Nascar engines produce over 2 HP/cu. in., but only have to live for a few hundred miles. Top Fuel engines produce over 16 HP/cu. in. and frequently don't live for 1000 feet! 'Scuse me fer gettin' windy, but I really love this stuff and I almost always learn something from hearing other folks' opinions!!

I guess the arguement for the Gen III stuff was that when talking about 600 horse, you can get a vette engine and tweak slightly and have that power number without huge duration, ridiculous compression, and a short life span. The lower end out of the box will hold it too, instead of splayed main caps and crmo cranks and rods, etc.

patooyee · Oct 3, 2009

I've also heard about and seen some dynos on the newer gen engines that indicate that the sacrifice of low-end power is no longer necessary to get the high-end power like it was on the older generation engines. In addition, newgen builders will tell you that large cams are not necessary to get these power numbers. I couldn't tell you the physics of why this is just that it is apparently a result of all of the revolutionary design architecture of the blocks / heads. You obviously know more about engine building than I ...

Not a lot of dyno machines measure before 3000rpm so dynos lower than that are few and far between. All I can say though is that in my research about the engines I saw several 600 peak hp dynos where it was 200 - 300 ft/lbs around 2000 rpm. That's some pretty serious torque that early.

J. J.