Yes I believe in gravity, I also belive in Newtons first law, the law of inertia. The wheelbarrow example was an excellent analogy of the law of inertia, but it has nothing to do with the production of torque. Somebody else stated a heavy crankshaft increases torque, sorry same thing, gives the crankshaft greater inertia but does nothing to increase torque. If it were that easy, all I'd have to do is bolt on the biggest flywheel I could find and I'd have a torque monster. The only thing close to an apples to apples comparison was the comparison of the 292 to the 283. Both engines share the same bore size, but the 292 has a 37.5% longer stroke! Based on the calculations posted previously, when you correct for the difference in displacement, the 3" stroke 283 slightly out torques the 292 with a 4 1/8" stroke. When you don't correct for displacement the 292 wins by 5 lbft, produced from 9 more cubic inches. By the way, the 283/292 numbers were not provided by me, but by someone trying to illustrate just how much more torque the 292 produced. Now the argument was made that the 292 produced torque at a lower RPM and it was because of the longer stroke. A simple cam swap and you could reverse the results between the 2 engines. Peak torque is developed at the point where the engine fills it cylinders the best. This is largely affected by camshaft, head, intake, and exhaust design. The arguments been made a longer stroke accelerates the piston quicker therefore drawing in more air. In reality, swept volume is swept volume. If the engines have the same cubic inches they will displace the same amount of air per intake stroke given consistent cam, head, intake, and exhaust design. Some german mathametician figured all this out in the 1800's but his theories weren't proven true until the last 20 years or so when they could actually be tested with modern sensors and computers, on real engines. Sorry, forgot his name, when I remember it I will post it. So my question is, if stroke is King when it comes to torque production, why does it fail so miserably in the beloved 292 torque monster. A whopping 37.5% increase in stroke for a slight net loss in torque compared to the 283. And please no more wheelbarrow analogies, just some good sound physics this time. And I'm guessing the Cummins is turbocharged. If it can't make 1200 lbft. of torque out of 800 + cubic inches regardless of bore size or stroke length, then it's one weaksuck motor.
John
