Flat power curves are good right ?

[Rolling_Thunder]

So i always heard that flat power curves are a good thing...         I never thought I would see one this flat...       

[Ghoste]

So what are the other details?

[firefighter3931]

A flat Tq curve is good but the horsepower should climb until it noses over. 



Ron

[Rolling_Thunder]

  

[grouseman]

 

You called it correctly! 

[firefighter3931]

 

You called it correctly! 

Called what correctly ? 



Ron

[grouseman]

The HP profile from a flat torque curve will never 'nose over'.  That only happens when torque drops off. 

[firefighter3931]

The HP profile from a flat torque curve will never 'nose over'.  That only happens when torque drops off. 

Agreed....tq and hp will cross over at 5250rpm but having a big fat tq curve is more desirable. Eventually hp will fall off but the longer you can carry the tq the better it will be. 

Below is a graph illustrating what would be considered a desirable power curve....the engine's tq is pretty flat at 500+ ft lbs from 3600-5400  while the engine continues to build horsepower until it noses over....well past the tq/hp crossover. The black lines represent the "better" dyno pull after the engine was tweaked. The red lines were the original engine combo which was poorly matched (cam too big, wrong intake manifold, not enough static compression) and it showed when the tq took a big dive and never really recovered. 


The "fix" for this build amounted to a 1/2 point increase in static compression, an appropriately specced intake manifold and 30* less duration at .050 valve lift.....and it made appreciably more power everywhere. 



Ron

[Rolling_Thunder]

so what you're telling me is the graph i posted is nowhere near "ideal" ?