Gavril Barstow

Nope, i didnt ever seen many straigth six in my life, usualy in some chevy opalas and omegas, and some trucks, where i live is way more common inline 4 (and a few v6 in some pajeros)
--- Post updated ---

´
I did a little research, and said there that it could occur at high rpms when the centrifugal force is throw at it, so isnt better to limit the rpm range to before the point that it occurs?

 

It's also done with extreme power, and inline engines don't have any low-end unless if they are geared like a truck.

 

It is better to limit the RPM to a safe range, but the people who tune 2JZs for 800+hp aren't really into safety

Also, you misread the wikipedia article. The crank throw is the same as the cylinder stroke (just in a different place), and the centrifugal force (which, to be nitpicky, is centrifugal acceleration as technically there's no such thing as centrifugal force) can cause the connecting rods to smash into the crank case walls and damage the engine

 

So that explains why the Barstow V8's don't have so much power compared to actual IRL engines from the same period. The 426 V8 from Chrysler had way more power and torque than the 423 in this game. I think I'm going to make it right for my Barstow F2 mod. 423 hitting 7K RPM? No Problem.

 

7k might be a little tall stock... but 6 to 6.5 would be a reasonable number. Though I've heard of a few big blocks from that era capable of 7k.

 

I thought some of the engines in the 1968 - 1970 Dodge Charger could reach 7K RPM... I may be mistaken though....

 

Yep, which is why I said SOME Can, but that doesn't mean they all did... that would probably really be pushing a 440 but a 383 would probably handle that...

 

Which also explains why those engines weren't the most reliable ones.

 

I would argue that the 383 was the workhorse of that period. A really underrated engine. I don't see what red line values have to do with being reliable though.

 

Exactly. Honda's VTEC engines could rev to over 9,000 RPM, and they were massively reliable.

 

I misread that you were agreeing with me. Haha, sorry about that! I'm a putz!

 

Engine components have a max operating RPM. The larger the components, the heavier they are. And because they are heavier, they have to deal with much larger forces. A 7.2L V8 (a 440) has heavy components. Some of them were capable of reaching 7000 RPM, but when they did, chances of them failing increased due to accelerated rates of metal fatigue. Existing microscopic cracks in the metal would grow larger at those RPMs. Ever heard of a connecting-rod blowing straight thru a cylinder wall? This happens because of a connecting-rod breaking at high-RPMs. And the reason for that has been mentioned earlier in this message. A 383 would handle that EASIER than a 440. That for sure. So a 383 would be more reliable at high-RPMs than a 440. Another factor for reliability is valve float.

Those are small engines with high-grade components. A 2.0L I4 or I6 can easily handle that due to it having much, much lighter components than a 7.2L V8. Another advantage of those engines is the fact that they are much newer.
--- Post updated ---

The reason why Cummins Diesels are more reliable than Honda engines is that of the much lower maximum RPM.

 

I understand how that works and why larger engines can't rev as high generally, but saying they're less reliable because of that isn't fair because in theory, they're usable power would come at a much lower rpm. As I said, a 5.9 liter Cummins will go longer than a honda motor with like a 3.5k rpm rev capacity. I've heard of multiple Chrysler 3.5 liters from the concorde going well over 250k and know a guy who had one for 500k miles. 6.5kish maximum operating speed. Just because an engine can rev higher doesn't always necessarily make it more reliable or we would see drag motors and NASCAR engines running 1 million miles more than their stock counterparts.
--- Post updated ---

You're contradicting your initial argument now anf saying what I've been saying

 

Power and Torque also have a factor in engine reliability. So does air quality. There are a lot more factors to consider for engine reliability. The most important ones being the ones I mentioned earlier as well as fuel quality. You can't put 87 AKI fuel in a 95 AKI required engine. As that engine would knock heavily.

No, I'm not. I said only said that maximum RPMs have a MAJOR effect on engine reliability. Lower maximum RPMs in general means more reliable engines. One reason why diesel engines are often more reliable than gasoline engines.

 

Yes, you are. Maximum RPM doesn't mean anything for reliability. The way you drive has a bigger effect on engine life than the redline. Not to mention, Honda's engines are famous for the high max RPMs, and they're some of the most reliable engines out there. It's not about max RPM, it's about the strength of the engine.

 

Sorry for the bump, but this has been irking me for quite some time... Aside from the fact that I think that all the Barstow engines should at least have 500-1,000 more max RPM stock. I also believe the 353 should be able to rev at least somewhat higher than the 423... Generally even in engines that are in the same block family, the smaller displacement engines rev higher. In fact, most engines that were built with 2 barrels actually revved higher than a lot of their 4 barrel counterparts due to the way they were cam'd. (Yes there were differences in at least the mid 70s motors)

But I largely want to lobby for the change of the 353. That is a remarkably small big block. The smallest big block I know of, not counting the poly 318, is a 361 Chrysler. And not 10-15 years after the production ended of the 361, Chrysler came out with a small block engine that had a displacement of 360 C.I. So I think the 353 would serve better as a large small block than a small big block. Would be nice to have that weight advantage over the big 423 big block, and actually have somewhat comparable power with a stage 2 or 3 supercharger. Or even better. some twin turbskies.

Maybe this should have been put in suggestions, but it's something that's been bothering me for a while. I want to like the 353, but it doesn't handle revs any better than the 423, and it doesn't make a whole lot more power than the 291, so it just feels like a misplaced engine. I'm sure even if you look at GM engines, the 454 probably doesn't rev as high as the 396. Same with Chrysler's 383 vs it's 440.

 

I understand why you think the lower displacement means it should rev higher, however here's the thing:

The rev limit in old carbed engines is both limited by the valvetrain and the distributor. Some distributors cant spin faster than 20k RPM. Meaning that, since there's a single spark per cylinder each 2 strokes, and considering there's 8 cylinders, that distributor would have a limit of 10k RPM in 4cyls and 4k in 8cyls.

I would see it very feasible that while the 353, while being a lower displacement block, contains a lower quality valvetrain and distributor, making it unable to get to higher revs before the distributor ignores a few sparks or the valvetrain cant withstand anymore.

 

Not directly disagreeing with you, but I think you have that distributor logic a bit off.

Since we're talking 4 strokes here, the rotor only turns at half of the crank's speed. Therefore, at 6000rpm the dizzy is only turning 3000rpm.

Spoiler: Crude explination

The engine does not return to TDC#1 until it has spun 720°s (4 strokes, each 180°s long), regardless of how many cylinders it has. Since its only sparking on one of those strokes and the distributor sparks every time the rotor passes a post on the cap, the dizzy needs to turn 360°s for every 720°s of the crank in order to be back at the #1 wire in time for TDC#1 again.

 

You are correct. The dist would be turning at the speed of the crank, not that of the cam, the actual limit would be double what i said.

 

I've ran stock big blocks that rev well past 4k rpms, and Last I heard a stock 383 peak horsepower is around 5,000 to 5,500 rpms. 6,000 rpms should be obtainable before you would see valve float... I don't know why Gavril would make engines with cheap internals in 1969... 1969 saw some of the highest yields in performance in this period. It was 40 years later that they finally came out with some engines that would compare. Horsepower war era. And forged steel cranks. ~1973 US saw a bunch of cast cranks and highly restricted motors.

Of course if it's a Ford engine, I guess it makes sense since they all sputter after you get them slightly above normal operating temp.