Highest HP for a 3rd Gen?

[Agades]

Originally posted by SRadke

I do my driving between 1700 and 2200 rpm. That's where I want my power. I understand it is up higher if I need it but it's nice to not have to go looking. Sometimes I don't have time to shift down before I imbarrass a ricer.



-Scott

I agree

and I would bet at least 90 % of the people using the cummins for every day work are in the same category

I seldom ever break 2400 rpm



if I were a drag racer

or a big "dyno day" guy, that torque mountain would be fine



but Im not

im an every day tow'r and hauler

and need bottom end grunt



maybe at the expense of a clutch

 

[SRadke]

Originally posted by banshee

A clutch will generally hold a little more as RPMs increase to the centripital acceleration (and thus force) of the fingers on the pressure plate. Some of the clutch manufacturers take advantage of this by placing weights on the pressure plate to apply even more force as the engine speeds increase. Centerforce's Dual Friction had these, and their motto was "The higher you rev the harder we hold".

I learned something new today.



-Scott

 

[Garry Verheyden]

I would personally like to see the torque at the higher rpms. My trucks peak torque on the dyno showed at around 2200rpm. When I twisted off my input shaft on holiday towing my 5th wheel, I was at 1900rpm. When I blew through my ceramic clutch, it was at 17-1800rpm. When I fused my dual friction clutch to the flywheel on the dyno It did this below 2000 rpm. I now have a 6 spd with the stock clutch and can slip it at will anywhere below 2400 rpm. But, if I slam it through the gears at 3500 rpm, I can light up the tires in 3rd gear with 35" tires on dry pavement(stock clutch/400+hp). Use whatever theories you want, but I can only see the potential for more drivetrain carnage with low rpm torque. I agree we need to upgrade the low rpm torque from factory levels, but for towing and reliability 1000ft lbs below 2000rpm isn't always a good thing. Just my $. 02

Garry.

 

[qzilla]

Originally posted by Agades

maxin out the dyno:-laf



can you post the chart?

I will see if I can find the chart, that was 18 months ago at least!



Quad

 

[Agades]

cool

 

[KLockliear]

There are two arguments against low RPM torque.



First, it's harder on all the bottom end engine components. The more torque the engine makes down low, the more force is being exerted per stroke. This is what moves the caps around, squishes bearings, etc.



Second, the more power/torque down low usually equates to more smoke. While some people like it, a lot don't. The fueling curve can be made to make more power down low, but it will sacrifice to emissions.

 

[SRadke]

Originally posted by KLockliear

First, it's harder on all the bottom end engine components. The more torque the engine makes down low, the more force is being exerted per stroke. This is what moves the caps around, squishes bearings, etc.

Thanks Kieth. That is the only really good argument I've heard on the subject yet. Well, that and that other save the whales thing.



-Scott