Hemi to be replaced by inline six?

JRscooby wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

Here are the dyno numbers:

2006 Duramax puts out 650 ft/lbs of torque.
2006 Cummins puts out 610 ft/lbs of torque.
So much for the long stroke putting out more torque.

I can hear the fan bois all ready saying that's not fair!! Your Dirty Max is a waaaaaay bigger engine!!! Fine, more facts:

2008 Duramax 6.6 L vs 2008 6.7 Cummins:

2008 Duramax 6.6 L = 650 ft/lbs of torque.
2008 Cummins 6.7 L = 650 ft/lbs of torque.

Well would you look at that? Same exact torque even though the Cummins has a waaaay longer stroke. :B

As somebody that has used a lot of torque out many engines I can see a major problem with the numbers you post; You only list peak, and don't relate it to RPM. This would matter if the engine worked at that RPM. But most useful would to compare the graph of torque output over the RPM range.

So why don't "you" put up the torque graph if you find it useful? People have been saying that bigger stroke makes bigger torque. The numbers above prove that not to be true. The Dirty Max with the waaaaaaay shorter stroke makes way more torque than the Cummins I with a long stroke. Myth busted.

Fine, I will do your work for you:



These two charts tell tail I'm trying to get across.
Both of these Cummins engines have the same bore and stroke. They did not increase the stroke length to get way more torque. Fueling parameters, timing, turbo boost and probable 50 other things changed, but not the stroke length.

Listen to the videos I posted and learn.

BTW I personally think Cummins is doing an outstanding job making the power they do with that long of a stroke. It's hard to make power with a long stroke engine and Cummings is pulling it off. A hard thing to do.