I Know What I NEED for Christmas! 800+hp 4.0!

[Dzimm]

https://www.thedrive.com/news/36982/tuner-pushes-the-legendary-jeep-4-0-liter-straight-six-all-the-way-to-861-hp

[Pete M]

yes please!

[fiatslug87]

 For doing it, too bad it's not functional in a vehicle.

[Minuit]

Almost everything in the beginning of that article is wrong.

 

Cool build, though.

[JMO413]

I would like two for Christmas please.

[BeatCJ]

I watched a series of videos on their (Newcomer Racing) dyno results on stroker builds. I have a good 4.2 crank in my garage. Guess it's on my list now. Even 230 hp would be enough to make me happy. I'm not really interested in messing with the computer stuff.

[75sv1]

On 10/10/2020 at 12:34 PM, BeatCJ said:

I watched a series of videos on their (Newcomer Racing) dyno results on stroker builds. I have a good 4.2 crank in my garage. Guess it's on my list now. Even 230 hp would be enough to make me happy. I'm not really interested in messing with the computer stuff.

230 HP is possible with the stock motor. I didn't look at the torque curve on the motor. I do wonder about how that motor would function in the real world. I believe one of the limiting factors in the Jeeps the 4.0L is put in is the exhaust. Two 90 degree bends can not be good. 

[BeatCJ]

230 hp is POSSIBLE, even relatively common, with a stock motor, but not easy. The torque curve for all of Newcomer's motors, like the stock 4.0 is relatively flat. The issue I have with getting 230 out of a stock block is you have to work it pretty hard. I want 230 hp easy, and dead nuts reliable. I think getting there easy takes displacement. 

I don't see a real world application for the Newcomer Motor. I think you are going to have a very hard time cooling it in most any real world application.

Still, as a point of Can it be done, it's pretty cool. 3 hp per cubic inch is pretty impressive.

[89 MJ]

I want like 8 of these. I don't know what for (aside from my MJ), but I want a bunch.

[derf]

7 hours ago, 75sv1 said:

230 HP is possible with the stock motor. I didn't look at the torque curve on the motor. I do wonder about how that motor would function in the real world. I believe one of the limiting factors in the Jeeps the 4.0L is put in is the exhaust. Two 90 degree bends can not be good. 

Horsepower is a number that a lot of people obsess over but it's really a meaningless number in the grand scheme of things.

 

It's really easy to make 230 horsepower in a naturally aspirated 4.0 without a lot of work.  All you need to do is to swap in an aggressive cam that opens up the top end.  Maybe a little port work on the head.  Since horsepower is a function of RPM, all you need to do to up the horsepower is to move the torque curve higher in the RPM range.  Trouble with that is that you lose all your bottom end torque and the motor is not good for street driving or slow trail riding/rock crawling.

 

For a Jeep, I focus on a flat, usable torque curve from as close to off-idle as I can get to up to 4500-5000 RPM.  If I can bump up torque around there and have good idle and throttle response, I'm much happier with the engine.  The peak horsepower number just doesn't matter in that context.

 

My 2012 Wrangler had the 3.6 Pentastar V6.  It was a terrible Jeep engine with the manual transmission.  It didn't start to make usable torque until it reached 2,000 RPM.  So I couldn't crawl worth a darn until I put in the 4 speed Atlas.  It was decent getting up to speed on the highway because I could wrap it out to 6,500 RPM.  So that engine is good for a car but not for a Jeep.  Sure, the high stall torque converter they use with the automatic does help compensate and it's not as terrible as trying to crawl with a manual.  But a better engine wouldn't need to have compensation like that.

 

Regarding the 800+HP engine in the original post, It is interesting to see that they proved the concept.  It's fun to watch people do builds that challenge conventional wisdom.  It really does sound like it wouldn't be practical in any vehicle because of what they did to the coolant passages.  But it's still cool to see that they were able to push the engine like that.

[75sv1]

Derf,

       I agree with your posting. I just didn't want to quote the whole thing. As I understand it, a Dyno records a torque value. From there HP is calculated. Also, HP is a function of time. Torque is applied power. So, with my MB240D's all 72 HP, I can still go 75 to 80 MPH. It just takes me a bit of time to pass some. Also, I believe there are 5 definitions or standards for HP. The two main ones are Brake Specific (flywheel) and blanking on the other taken at the drive wheel. Auto makers use either depending if selling on performance or Insurance. Sort of to your point F1 engines are screaming at over 20K RPM to get their HP. I don't know how many gears they have. From what I read, very twitchy to drive.

[derf]

Up until about 1972, engines were rated with the SAE gross method.  That was the engine by itself.  No belt drive, open headers, no air cleaner.  And it was at the flywheel.  Ot didn't give you a true sense of what it would do in the car.  So they switched in around 1972.

 

The SAE net rating is still at the flywheel but it is the engine as it is installed in the car.  All the accessories like the alternator, power steering pump, water pump, AC compressor are attached.  The factory exhaust is installed, the factory air cleaner is used.  The exact details have been tweaked over the years but the measured ratings are more accurate.  Numbers dropped a good 20-40% when they made the switch.  And then the emissions stuff hit by 1974 and they dropped a bunch more.

 

Then there is the chassis dyno.  It measures the power at the wheels.  That takes the net rating one step further.  It accounts for the parasitic loss from the transmission, transfer case, axle, and tires.  This is usually in the neighborhood of 15-20% lower than the flywheel measurement.  But it's going to be the best predictor of how fast you're going to accelerate.

[75sv1]

My memory is coming back. I think I've seen 'Brake" as at the flywheel and Specific as at the rear wheel. Or drive wheel for FWD. Also, Audi did a number on the competition in the was it TransAm events, late 80's early 90's with the Quatro. They were 200 HP less, and won all the races except the 1st. I remember 2nd in that one. So, some of it is getting the HP to the pavement. 

[BeatCJ]

21 hours ago, derf said:

It's really easy to make 230 horsepower in a naturally aspirated 4.0 without a lot of work.  All you need to do is to swap in an aggressive cam that opens up the top end.  Maybe a little port work on the head.  Since horsepower is a function of RPM, all you need to do to up the horsepower is to move the torque curve higher in the RPM range.  Trouble with that is that you lose all your bottom end torque and the motor is not good for street driving or slow trail riding/rock crawling.

My understanding, exactly. I don't need or want a high rpm engine. I was happy with the 258 in my CJ. More Torque!