Got torque?

E36 M3 looks slow.......and I don't have this torque you speak of....

Naturally kidding, that car is a good platform, and they can get very rowdy for minimal $$$$. I approve.

Eh, my dodge aries has a better torque to weight ratio than most built diesel trucks... ~350 lb ft in 2200 lbs..

I myself have never owned a supercharged car. So like most of the other stuff ive never owned that means i need to built-not-bought it. With that in mind ive been sitting on a supercoupe m90 for a few years for my roots-blown 6g72 caravan build. 5spd of course.

Torque you say? L98 is the answer. 345ftlbs peak, never drops below 300 from 1500rpm to redline at 5000. ain't got no topend, but it's got torque in spades.

My old '65 came with 480 ft.lbs stock

Aeromoto wrote: My old '65 came with 480 ft.lbs stock

Oh yeah! I had a '65 as well. That thing would decimate a pair of tires.

my dually just dynoed at 750 ft lbs to the wheels. Sure it weighs 7k, but it's still a hoot.

1960s power ratings and 1960s traction sure would have you thinking things are a lot more powerful than they really are..

but yeah, big blocks are fun. It's just too bad that 90% of them wouldnt dyno within 100lb ft of their owners guesses. lol

I'm thinking that by the Challenge, the mighty F2T will be making 400ftlbs+ to the wheels.

I'm a bit excited.

Torque is a beautiful thing.

I chuckled a bit at 310 ft/lbs being considered big torque, my Dad's 5.3 powered 2000 GMC luxo truck makes more than that.

Vigo wrote: 1960s power ratings and 1960s traction sure would have you thinking things are a lot more powerful than they really are.. but yeah, big blocks are fun. It's just too bad that 90% of them wouldnt dyno within 100lb ft of their owners guesses. lol

Depends on the car, from what I understand peak power in the top optioned muscle cars came on much later than stated for insurance reasons, i.e. on an engine dyno it probably did make 300 hp at 4000 rpm, and 500 hp at 6500 rpm, the lower figure being completely believable as peak in 1969. An old Cadillac would put far less to the wheels, those ratings didn't take into account exhaust, air filters, accessories, big 60s slushboxes and rear ends, etc. Easily good for 100hp/100ft lbs of losses, why do you think they got 10 mpg on a good day?

Kenny_McCormic wrote: I chuckled a bit at 310 ft/lbs being considered big torque, my Dad's 5.3 powered 2000 GMC luxo truck makes more than that.

Yeah, my 1997 5.4 conversion van did too at a whopping 380 ft/lbs. It also weighed 7000 pounds. It had a good bit more than 3.8L, didn't get 27mpg and needless to say not near as fun to drive.

Vigo wrote: 1960s power ratings and 1960s traction sure would have you thinking things are a lot more powerful than they really are.. but yeah, big blocks are fun. It's just too bad that 90% of them wouldnt dyno within 100lb ft of their owners guesses. lol

gross vs. net. They were rated gross until '72. Gross numbers are much higher. The old 400 hp / 550 lbft ('70 Eldorado) really isn't as powerful as it sounds...although it's still pretty stout.

Torques. I loves it.

Depends on the car, from what I understand peak power in the top optioned muscle cars came on much later than stated for insurance reasons, i.e. on an engine dyno it probably did make 300 hp at 4000 rpm, and 500 hp at 6500 rpm, the lower figure being completely believable as peak in 1969.

The problem there is the trap speed tells the tale and in reality there werent may big block cars ever made that are even as fast as the v6 Camry people are busy poo-pooing in the thread i just left here.. And the ones that WERE were the highest-optioned performance package motors you could get in cars that weighed the same or less than the camry. NONE of the 5000 lb land yachts ever got close. Im sure they're still entertaining as hell to drive.. I just cant afford the gas bill.