Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorpedo
I honestly don't understand what the confusion here is all about. (Or all the little boys crying to get some attention) A peak that is a little bit later will make it so that I don't have to short shift to get the most out of it, and keeps the power going at the top of second gear where I am commonly at during autocross. I don't mean to sound whiney, it just isn't optimal for my setup.
Am I wrong in saying that if the peak happened later so the drop off was moreso after the limiter kicks in it would be better for high RPM track performance? (awkward sentence, I know) This just seems logical to me, as for many tracks the dips down to 4500 aren't very frequent (at least with our course designers). I'm up for intelligent conversation here folks, but lots of you aren't adding anything. Stop filling the thread with useless posts.
Maybe @ Crawford Performance can chime in and correct me if i'm wrong? (instead of feeding the trolls) |
The problem is you do not understand the concept.
Study this some more:
Assume stock is "
b '88 model". If you want higher rpm power you will have to settle for "
a" which prolongs the power curve later but also lowers the peak power. What crawford has done is "
c", "
d" or "
e" which shifts the power curve towards the lower rpms but also increases the peak power.
What you are asking for is "
e" but shifted later in the rpm band. These power blocks cannot do that for you.