My experience with Hellion Top Mount..

[Angrey]

You want horsepower, forget about torque. It's "plummeting" because of the way HP is derived. If you took your own advice and plotted hp vs gear you would see the shifting early is wrong.

I think a lot of people watched that Engineer Explained video and are in your position.

Your shift point of 6500 is going to put that car below its peak torque point where boost is fully built and anyone who's ever drag raced knows that's not where you want to be.

the Y axis of that graph going to 1000 is also distorting your view of the falloff compared to the other

I'll explain no more. Run your car the way you see fit.

Sponsored

 

[robvas]

They actually have calculators for this where you input the curve values for the torque and it'll show you where the optimal shift points are for each gear (depending on the rpm drop).

https://glennmessersmith.com/shiftpt.html

 

[furdfan2018]

Are we really suggesting shifting a coyote at 6500 rpm lmaooo!

This aint no s197 gt500... come on boys.

 

[xr4x4ti]

You don’t want to maximize torque, you want to maximize power under the curve.

ok, for the the sake of the discussion, let’s say you had a CVT between the engine and the wheels. Would you want to program the CVT to hold the engine at peak torque or peak hp for maximum acceleration?

Which option actually puts more torque to the wheels?

Tim

 

[Angrey]

You don’t want to maximize torque, you want to maximize power under the curve.

ok, for the the sake of the discussion, let’s say you had a CVT between the engine and the wheels. Would you want to program the CVT to hold the engine at peak torque or peak hp for maximum acceleration?

Which option actually puts more torque to the wheels?

Tim

Sigh. No you don't. It's torque that places force on your vehicle and causes it to accelerate. You can have all the power in the world and if it doesn't create any torque, it won't accelerate, which is why they make transmissions and torque multiplication.

 

[Angrey]

Are we really suggesting shifting a coyote at 6500 rpm lmaooo!

This aint no s197 gt500... come on boys.

Did you even look at the dyno graph? His dyno graph isn't an S197 GT500 either. The torque drops off the table, which means the acceleration DROPS OFF THE TABLE.

 

[furdfan2018]

Did you even look at the dyno graph? His dyno graph isn't an S197 GT500 either. The torque drops off the table, which means the acceleration DROPS OFF THE TABLE.

Exactly my point.

 

[xr4x4ti]

Sigh. No you don't. It's torque that places force on your vehicle and causes it to accelerate. You can have all the power in the world and if it doesn't create any torque, it won't accelerate, which is why they make transmissions and torque multiplication.

You didn’t answer the question.

 

[robvas]

Where is OP? I'll chip in a gallon of gas to get him to do two dragy hits or 1/4 mile runs, one shifted at 6500 and then one shifted at 7500

 

[Angrey]

Out of curiosity, I mapped the torque profile to 4 different transmissions, MT82 (OG), MT82 (D4), 6R80 and 10R80.

With the wider ratios of the OG MT82, there's only a marginal optimization for a couple of gears and it's not more than a couple hundred rpm lower. As an example, you get more torque by shorting the 3-4 shift at 7200 than you do running it out to 7500.

With the D4, there's no advantage except for 1 gear by 100 rpms (not worth considering).

With the 6R80, it's similar to the D4, only one marginal improvement in one gear and it's by a small amount, not worth considering.

With the 10R80, it gets interesting. Nearly every gear change above 3rd gear benefits from more torque by shorting the shift by 4-500 rpm. (meaning you get MORE TORQUE at the rpm in the next gear than you get continued to rev out in the lower gear).

Let me be clear though, while there's no appreciable ADVANTAGE to short shifting the first 3 trans, in about half the instances, there's no real disadvantage either, the torque drop in the next gear is marginal. You'd probably find that the times/traps are pretty close for either approach.

This is pretty exceptional. MOST power/torque curves don't drop off so drastically, which lends itself to staying in the lower gear as long as possible (to optimize torque multiplication).

Which is why I stated in my first post about it that it would be a CANDIDATE for this type of analysis.
Most of us have wide enough gears and a flat enough torque profile that it doesn't make sense. But in some instances where the shift drops are less and the torque drop is significant, it may actually be faster (and is) to short the redline.

 

[robvas]

Out of curiosity, I mapped the torque profile to 4 different transmissions, MT82 (OG), MT82 (D4), 6R80 and 10R80.

With the wider ratios of the OG MT82, there's only a marginal optimization for a couple of gears and it's not more than a couple hundred rpm lower. As an example, you get more torque by shorting the 3-4 shift at 7200 than you do running it out to 7500.

I already posted the results for 'optimized shift points' already in the thread, at the top of page 3. And like you just said, 7500rpm was the result, with 7300 rpm shift point for gears 3 and 4 becuase the ratios are so close.

That is a wall of text when you should have just said "You guys were right, I was dead wrong when I said you shouldn't ever rev it more than 6500 rpms"

 

[Angrey]

I already posted the results for 'optimized shift points' already in the thread, at the top of page 3. And like you just said, 7500rpm was the result, with 7300 rpm shift point for gears 3 and 4 becuase the ratios are so close.

That is a wall of text when you should have just said "You guys were right, I was dead wrong when I said you shouldn't ever rev it more than 6500 rpms"

You shorted the profile and used a crude calculator. Furthermore, that calculator doesn't show the delta between the two, and as I pointed out, in nearly EVERY case, the difference between the higher gear and lower gear is less than 100 ft-lbs (against several thousand foot-lbs of total multiplication) and in MANY cases, it's a few ft-lbs (i.e. less than 1/10th of percent).

I wasn't wrong. My point stands. This unique torque profile could be short shifted and either be just as fast or depending on the transmission, faster than revving it out way past OE redline just because you're a gorilla and that's what you heard 1000 times from idiots who don't know any better.

With a 10R, this car is ABSOLUTELY faster by shorting it.

Which again, is unique, because something in his setup is causing the torque to drop drastically. On a typical table top torque setup, shorting doesn't make sense. And in SOME cases, it bears actually looking at the physics and the math to confirm or deny whether bang off the limiter is the correct approach.

 

[robvas]

Stop it with the 10R80 already

He has a 2016 Mustang GT

Also even with the 10R80 you're going to be slower if you shift it at 6500

 

[Angrey]

Stop it with the 10R80 already

He has a 2016 Mustang GT

Also even with the 10R80 you're going to be slower if you shift it at 6500

This will be my last post. I know you don't have the mental faculties to understand this stuff, so I don't know why I bother.

With his OG MT82,

His values for torque after the trans in 3rd gear for 7500 down to 6900 average 1197 ft-lbs. The same 700 rpm in the corresponding drop into 4th (5200-5800) averages 1207 ft-lbs.

Stay with me here Jimbo, THAT IS BECAUSE WHILE 4th GEAR PROVIDES LESS MULTIPLICATION, HIS MOTOR IS MAKING MORE TORQUE LOWER IN THE RPM BAND AND THEREFOR, THE CAR ACCELERATES JUST AS FAST (actually slightly faster) BY SHORTING THE SHIFT.

He's better off to shift at 6900 rpm in 3rd gear. Not only is the average torque under the curve slightly higher, he gets the same forward acceleration without adding another 700 rpm to the top end risk for the motor. He won't be measurably faster either way, but he won't have to beat on his motor to achieve the same results.

I can't spell it out for you any more than I already have. I can present it to you but I can't understand it for you.

 

[Andy13186]

This will be my last post. I know you don't have the mental faculties to understand this stuff, so I don't know why I bother.

With his OG MT82,

His values for torque after the trans in 3rd gear for 7500 down to 6900 average 1197 ft-lbs. The same 700 rpm in the corresponding drop into 4th (5200-5800) averages 1207 ft-lbs.

Stay with me here Jimbo, THAT IS BECAUSE WHILE 4th GEAR PROVIDES LESS MULTIPLICATION, HIS MOTOR IS MAKING MORE TORQUE LOWER IN THE RPM BAND AND THEREFOR, THE CAR ACCELERATES JUST AS FAST (actually slightly faster) BY SHORTING THE SHIFT.

He's better off to shift at 6900 rpm in 3rd gear. Not only is the average torque under the curve slightly higher, he gets the same forward acceleration without adding another 700 rpm to the top end risk for the motor. He won't be measurably faster either way, but he won't have to beat on his motor to achieve the same results.

I can't spell it out for you any more than I already have. I can present it to you but I can't understand it for you.

You have to take the RPM into account, it may make more torque at that RPM but that doesnt matter because its power over time that matters. 1197*6900= 8977500 per min
1207*5800 = 7000600

Basically, making 1197 torque 6900 times per minute is better than making 1207 torque 5800 times per minute which is why horsepower matters more than torque for acceleration. (horsepower is derived from torque and RPM)

and when I said he doesnt have to rev that high earlier in the post I meant like 8k plus.

Optimum acceleration will always be through the highest peak HP powerband not the peak torque powerband.

Sponsored