Moparts Forums >> Unlawfl's Race & Engine Tech

Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)
mopar dave
top fuel


Reged: Jan 04 2007
Loc: flint michigan
another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons
      #7950189 - Sat Dec 07 2013 09:30 AM

just getting some ideas on paper for next rebuild for the 408 and would like some opinions from the guys in the know on this topic.
current 408 uses 230cc port indy head with 11.4 comp and an indy intake for induction.
3.790
1.895stroke
1.250ch
6.400rod
1.688rod ratio

4.000
2.000
1.250ch
6.300rod
1.575rod ratio

4.125
2.062
1.250ch
6.250rod
1.515rod ratio

pistons will be mahle and most likely a custom piston. flat tops for the 4 and 4.125 stroke but a 4cc dome for the 3.79 to make about 13:1 comp on all 3 combos and using a 927 pin. i'd like to have my forged eagle crank offset machined to make to stroke I need. my whole objective here is to build something that will get to the other end of the track the quickest. which would best and why? or would it be best to just rebuild the 408 with 13-13.5 comp and be done? all opinions welcomed. thanks

--------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIxaesJ190U

http://youtu.be/lCZAaN7fFLg


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
b1dartsport
super stock


Reged: Feb 14 2005
Loc: western pennsylvania
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: mopar dave]
      #7950196 - Sat Dec 07 2013 09:39 AM



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
MR_P_BODY
Master


Reged: Jun 13 2003
Loc: Romeo MI
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: mopar dave]
      #7950198 - Sat Dec 07 2013 09:40 AM

Dave... my W-9 heads are about 275 cc runners so I
have to turn up the revs to make them efficient but
I like the revs... depending on the bore I think I
would go with more stroke to make the torque and then
you could cut down on the revs... JMO


--------------------

W-9 9.08 @ 149.6 NOW ON E-85
Mike "Raff"...(180)Watching over us
CAR IS FOR SALE


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mopar dave
top fuel


Reged: Jan 04 2007
Loc: flint michigan
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: mopar dave]
      #7950199 - Sat Dec 07 2013 09:40 AM

also, pistons will be about 450g and will use a roller cam in the .700 lift range. i'm thinking the shorter stroke will eliminate some side loading and with a longer rod for better rod/stroke ratio may produce better power and help the block last longer than a 4.000" stroke.
the 4.125 stroke should make better torque which I need as my best 60' with 408 has been a 1.45. but with a 6.250 rod would give close to same r/s ratio as my current 408 with a 6.123 rod.

--------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIxaesJ190U

http://youtu.be/lCZAaN7fFLg


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mopar dave
top fuel


Reged: Jan 04 2007
Loc: flint michigan
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: MR_P_BODY]
      #7950204 - Sat Dec 07 2013 09:44 AM

mike, that's entered mi mind also. another thought was maybe my heads cannot keep up with my 4" stroke because of the faster piston speed and the 3.79 would slow it down and get a better cylinder fill.

--------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIxaesJ190U

http://youtu.be/lCZAaN7fFLg


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
MR_P_BODY
Master


Reged: Jun 13 2003
Loc: Romeo MI
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: mopar dave]
      #7950209 - Sat Dec 07 2013 09:48 AM

Quote:

mike, that's entered mi mind also. another thought was maybe my heads cannot keep up with my 4" stroke because of the faster piston speed and the 3.79 would slow it down and get a better cylinder fill.




Thats what I dont know... what runner can handle what
piston speed... being that mine are a fair bit bigger
and I have the short stroke my peak torque is at
6200 rpm


--------------------

W-9 9.08 @ 149.6 NOW ON E-85
Mike "Raff"...(180)Watching over us
CAR IS FOR SALE


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Dunnuck Racing
mopar addict


Reged: Mar 18 2007
Loc: Northern Indiana
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: mopar dave]
      #7950217 - Sat Dec 07 2013 09:52 AM Attachment (101 downloads)

Don't get too caught up worrying about side loading. Here is a piston from my 4.125 stroke with 6.250 rods. 5 seasons and almost200 dyno pulls later.

Keith

--------------------
Dunnuck Racing Enterprise
Proud sponsor for Monster Mopar Weekend"s
Pro class for 2014


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mopar dave
top fuel


Reged: Jan 04 2007
Loc: flint michigan
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: Dunnuck Racing]
      #7950241 - Sat Dec 07 2013 10:09 AM

wow those look good with that stroke. just seems like a 3.79 and with a 1 688 r/s ratio would eliminate friction and binding to possibly make more power with a small head than a 408 and make the stock block last longer. the factorys use the 3 3/4 stroke in a lot of different engines for a reason and there's a lot of fast motors out there using that stroke. almost like a magic stroke, that's why i'v been stuck on that stroke, but i'm open to all opinions or info here. currently my peak hp is at 6600rpm using a 260/269@50 .700 lift roller.

--------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIxaesJ190U

http://youtu.be/lCZAaN7fFLg

Edited by mopar dave (Sat Dec 07 2013 10:11 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
FastmOp
super gas


Reged: Jan 20 2003
Loc: Hot Rod Ridge
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: mopar dave]
      #7950500 - Sat Dec 07 2013 01:18 PM

Bottom line




There's no replacement for displacement


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Darryls-Demon
super stock


Reged: Jan 13 2008
Loc: Glendale Az
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: mopar dave]
      #7950503 - Sat Dec 07 2013 01:21 PM Attachment (52 downloads)

This is an interesting thread. I am kind of in the same boat I have an X-block and a pair of 59 degree W9 heads. Thinking of going with a 4.125 stroke and hoping the block will go 4.100, but my car is a street-strip deal and I like to run 3.73s in the car.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
MR_P_BODY
Master


Reged: Jun 13 2003
Loc: Romeo MI
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: Darryls-Demon]
      #7950557 - Sat Dec 07 2013 02:19 PM

Quote:

This is an interesting thread. I am kind of in the same boat I have an X-block and a pair of 59 degree W9 heads. Thinking of going with a 4.125 stroke and hoping the block will go 4.100, but my car is a street-strip deal and I like to run 3.73s in the car.




Put a gear in it with OD.. best of both worlds


--------------------

W-9 9.08 @ 149.6 NOW ON E-85
Mike "Raff"...(180)Watching over us
CAR IS FOR SALE


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Darryls-Demon
super stock


Reged: Jan 13 2008
Loc: Glendale Az
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: MR_P_BODY]
      #7950588 - Sat Dec 07 2013 02:51 PM

Quote:

Quote:

This is an interesting thread. I am kind of in the same boat I have an X-block and a pair of 59 degree W9 heads. Thinking of going with a 4.125 stroke and hoping the block will go 4.100, but my car is a street-strip deal and I like to run 3.73s in the car.




Put a gear in it with OD.. best of both worlds





I have looked into doing a OD unit. Looks like one would cost around 3000 dollars and add weight to my already too heavy car.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
MR_P_BODY
Master


Reged: Jun 13 2003
Loc: Romeo MI
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: Darryls-Demon]
      #7950592 - Sat Dec 07 2013 02:57 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

This is an interesting thread. I am kind of in the same boat I have an X-block and a pair of 59 degree W9 heads. Thinking of going with a 4.125 stroke and hoping the block will go 4.100, but my car is a street-strip deal and I like to run 3.73s in the car.




Put a gear in it with OD.. best of both worlds





I have looked into doing a OD unit. Looks like one would cost around 3000 dollars and add weight to my already too heavy car.




I went with the 518 which is MUCH less but does add
weight... the GV is lighter with a 727 than the 518
but it is $3000 plus the drive shaft... I'm sure you
can find a few places to loose the weight


--------------------

W-9 9.08 @ 149.6 NOW ON E-85
Mike "Raff"...(180)Watching over us
CAR IS FOR SALE


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
1967dartgt
top fuel


Reged: Oct 23 2007
Loc: Hilltown Pa
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: MR_P_BODY]
      #7950609 - Sat Dec 07 2013 03:10 PM

How long is the GV unit? Would you get in to driveshaft angle problems on a A body .

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
MR_P_BODY
Master


Reged: Jun 13 2003
Loc: Romeo MI
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: 1967dartgt]
      #7950617 - Sat Dec 07 2013 03:17 PM

Quote:

How long is the GV unit? Would you get in to driveshaft angle problems on a A body .




Its only like 6" long and the angle hasnt been a issue...
plenty of the DW guys run the GV... my 518 is probably
a bit longer than the 727 and GV... but when I set
up the engine and trans in the Rampage I set it so
it was pointed straight at the pinion then rolled
in the pinion angle


--------------------

W-9 9.08 @ 149.6 NOW ON E-85
Mike "Raff"...(180)Watching over us
CAR IS FOR SALE


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mopar dave
top fuel


Reged: Jan 04 2007
Loc: flint michigan
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: Darryls-Demon]
      #7950679 - Sat Dec 07 2013 03:58 PM

4.100 might be pushing it on the bore with that stroke. I was thinking 4.040 bore for strength and .060 over would be max. i'd like to get some input on this topic from someone who has tried these different crank combos on a dyno or at the track to get some more real world info. don't want to spend a bunch of money on extra machine work to only find out it runs no better than my currnet 408. Andy, you out there? any other engine builders that can add to this?

--------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIxaesJ190U

http://youtu.be/lCZAaN7fFLg


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
B3422W5
Gettin Hitched!!


Reged: Jan 20 2003
Loc: Portage,michigan
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: mopar dave]
      #7950805 - Sat Dec 07 2013 05:54 PM

Personally, with the heads you have, or W5 heads like I ran, I think the 4 inch crank is plenty, and well suited to both making power, torque, and longetivity, and reliability.
Bigger the bore the better. I also like the longer rod, ran a 6.300 rod.
At 4.100 bore the CP domes were only a hair over 400 grams.
Bumping your compression up like you are talking about with a 4 inch stroke and correct matching components will make more than plenty of torque to make your car 60 foot plenty good.
I know it can be done. I would strongly suggest a better block than you are using so you can reliably run a bigger bore, sticking with your current stroke,and calling Dwayne Porter and having him spec you out the proper roller cam once you get a good shortblock put together.

--------------------
71 Duster with 323" magnum. Pumpgas, iron heads 231@50 hydraulic cam, 3415 race weight. 11.79@ 113.37 so far . More to come.

Edited by B3422W5 (Sat Dec 07 2013 05:56 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
1967dartgt
top fuel


Reged: Oct 23 2007
Loc: Hilltown Pa
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: B3422W5]
      #7951245 - Sat Dec 07 2013 10:49 PM

I used to run a 4.09 bore and a 4 in crank in a stock block with a .620 roller and 12 to 1 compression with Indy 245 heads. It went 9.90s on motor and lived many years.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mopster
member


Reged: Dec 09 2004
Loc: Finland
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: mopar dave]
      #7951361 - Sun Dec 08 2013 01:59 AM

With 3.79" stroke your rpm range will be about 350 higher, and with 4.125" stroke 200 lower. What is best for you depends what rpm range works best with the rest of the combination. Your chassis and the track you race has also a great meaning to this. If you can handle more torque without hooking issues you will most likely be faster with more sroke, assuming the rest of the combination is optimized for that stroke. However, the difference might not be much, and your money could be better invested in somewhere else.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Raymond
member


Reged: Sep 14 2009
Loc: Maryland, USA
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: mopar dave]
      #7951409 - Sun Dec 08 2013 07:07 AM

I have the 3.79 with the 6.4 rods in a w5
motor. N/A the motor made about 700 h.p.
Now with a single turbo it dynoed at 1027 rwhp.
If you are interested i have two sets of mahle
power pack flat top piston for this combo.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
DJVCuda
Master


Reged: Aug 18 2003
Loc: Atco NJ
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: mopster]
      #7951413 - Sun Dec 08 2013 07:12 AM

While I was building my 4.125 striker a guy copied my recipe of one of the milder versions and we compared dyno sheets. This was same top end and cam but 4" vs 4.125

Bottom line the 4.125 made more hp & tq and it made it earlier, longer and seemed to win all around.

If I remember correct as I don't have the info available right now it was about 20 & 20 hp& tq difference.

544 & 566 are coming to mind on the hp levels but that's about all I can recall at this point.

--------------------

12.56 @106 - 1.745 60'
360 - stock 78 small valve heads, 3.23's
8 1/4 & eddy street ram.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mopar dave
top fuel


Reged: Jan 04 2007
Loc: flint michigan
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: Raymond]
      #7951533 - Sun Dec 08 2013 09:20 AM

that sounds like a good combo with 700hp using the 3.79 crank n/a. whats your bore size and what block?
it would take aleast 20hp/tq to make me move away from my current 4" crank.
peak hp is now at 6600, so another 350 wouldn't be a problem.
i'm not a racer, just go to the track a few times per year to play and see what i'v accomplished. get about 100 street miles per year lately.

--------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIxaesJ190U

http://youtu.be/lCZAaN7fFLg


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mopster
member


Reged: Dec 09 2004
Loc: Finland
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: mopar dave]
      #7951608 - Sun Dec 08 2013 09:56 AM

Going for shorter stroke is a wrong move unless you race in a bad track and you have trouble hooking. If you are looking for more power, playing with different strokes and rod ratios isnīt going to do the trick. Keep the 4" stroke and use the money to increase the airflow and you will be much happier.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mshred
master


Reged: Apr 08 2009
Loc: Toronto
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: mopster]
      #7951615 - Sun Dec 08 2013 10:00 AM

Quote:

Going for shorter stroke is a wrong move unless you race in a bad track and you have trouble hooking. If you are looking for more power, playing with different strokes and rod ratios isnīt going to do the trick. Keep the 4" stroke and use the money to increase the airflow and you will be much happier.




I don't know alot, but I would have to agree with this. In fact, I would be more inclined to go up in stroke instead of down if for nothing other then the extra torque it would create and at less rpm (better longevity of valvetrain parts), but the rest of the setup would have to be optimized.

I think a compression bump with what you already have would work out well

--------------------


For event details, dates and rules check out
http://smalltireracing.wix.com/ssts2014

or follow us on facebook at
https://www.facebook.com/sstsracing


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mopar dave
top fuel


Reged: Jan 04 2007
Loc: flint michigan
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: mopster]
      #7951623 - Sun Dec 08 2013 10:04 AM

I think the car hooks great. could use a double adjustable on the rear to improve 60' abit. It seems the 408 isn't making enough power to move the car for better ET's. car weights 3300 and runs 10.35@130. I estimate 580-600hp off motor.
one reason I believe this is just by changing ignition box from a Mallory hifire6 to an Ice 7amp box and coil, 60' went from a 1.52 to mid 1.4's.

--------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIxaesJ190U

http://youtu.be/lCZAaN7fFLg


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
MR_P_BODY
Master


Reged: Jun 13 2003
Loc: Romeo MI
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: mopar dave]
      #7951661 - Sun Dec 08 2013 10:26 AM

Quote:

I think the car hooks great. could use a double adjustable on the rear to improve 60' abit. It seems the 408 isn't making enough power to move the car for better ET's. car weights 3300 and runs [Email]10.35@130.[/Email] I estimate 580-600hp off motor.
one reason I believe this is just by changing ignition box from a Mallory hifire6 to an Ice 7amp box and coil, 60' went from a 1.52 to mid 1.4's.




If you change just the ignition box and you picked
up that much you had a major problem in the ignition
but your 60' is still off(slow) based on the ET & MPH


--------------------

W-9 9.08 @ 149.6 NOW ON E-85
Mike "Raff"...(180)Watching over us
CAR IS FOR SALE


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mopar dave
top fuel


Reged: Jan 04 2007
Loc: flint michigan
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: MR_P_BODY]
      #7951676 - Sun Dec 08 2013 10:39 AM

yeah, that's why I believe it could use some better shocks. i'v got a ton of vids and the tire is not spinning. the vert works good, it falls back about 700rpm on the shift. sometimes I wonder if something is binding or rubbing together in the trans. been temped to call up john cope and get a brand new 727 from him.
anyway, I do believe the Ice ignitions are something to look at over msd, Mallory for sure as i'v had a bunch.

--------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIxaesJ190U

http://youtu.be/lCZAaN7fFLg


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
MR_P_BODY
Master


Reged: Jun 13 2003
Loc: Romeo MI
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: mopar dave]
      #7951688 - Sun Dec 08 2013 10:48 AM

Quote:

yeah, that's why I believe it could use some better shocks. i'v got a ton of vids and the tire is not spinning. the vert works good, it falls back about 700rpm on the shift. sometimes I wonder if something is binding or rubbing together in the trans. been temped to call up john cope and get a brand new 727 from him.
anyway, I do believe the Ice ignitions are something to look at over msd, Mallory for sure as i'v had a bunch.




I had a Mallory ignition when I first built my car...
that lasted 2 weeks... when I called them they gave
me a bunch of BS and that I was using it in the
wrong environment... as in a race car.... they said
they would fix it for a cost.... I trashed it and
moved on.... as for the trans.. I dont know but the
MPH is there so to me its making the power(and getting
it through the trans)... if it were not the MPH would
be down


--------------------

W-9 9.08 @ 149.6 NOW ON E-85
Mike "Raff"...(180)Watching over us
CAR IS FOR SALE


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mopar dave
top fuel


Reged: Jan 04 2007
Loc: flint michigan
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: MR_P_BODY]
      #7951700 - Sun Dec 08 2013 10:56 AM

yeah mike, but it seems like the combo should be more like 625-650hp with what I have. I agree with the Mallory stuff. i'v had a earley hifire box that broke me down twice a Mallory fuel pump that gave me fits a Mallory unilight that the bushings wore out in no time flat, so I understand where your coming from. I thought the hifire6 was a nice box with a lot of features,guess not. my worst box was a msd digital6. I still have a Jacobs that works great.

--------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIxaesJ190U

http://youtu.be/lCZAaN7fFLg


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
MR_P_BODY
Master


Reged: Jun 13 2003
Loc: Romeo MI
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: mopar dave]
      #7951705 - Sun Dec 08 2013 11:01 AM

Quote:

yeah mike, but it seems like the combo should be more like 625-650hp with what I have. I agree with the Mallory stuff. i'v had a earley hifire box that broke me down twice a Mallory fuel pump that gave me fits a Mallory unilight that the bushings wore out in no time flat, so I understand where your coming from. I thought the hifire6 was a nice box with a lot of features,guess not. my worst box was a msd digital6. I still have a Jacobs that works great.




I have hear more people with problems with the digital 6
boxes than ones that didnt... I wont buy one for that
reason


--------------------

W-9 9.08 @ 149.6 NOW ON E-85
Mike "Raff"...(180)Watching over us
CAR IS FOR SALE


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
b1dartsport
super stock


Reged: Feb 14 2005
Loc: western pennsylvania
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: mopar dave]
      #7951774 - Sun Dec 08 2013 11:31 AM

If you are interested in getting to the other end of the track the quickest and want to continue to use your 360-2 230 cc Indys, there was a combo that was well documented on here and was the fastest 230 cc combo I have ever seen or heard about. I believe the car was an early 70s dart swinger owned by John Pennington. It had a 4.07 bore,Scat 4" crank, Eagle 6.123 H beams,stock block,nothing trick about the short block at all. (no chevy rods,light weight pins or trick ring pack) The heads had 2.15 Ferea intake valves installed and valve job and port and chamber work to take advantage of the larger valves. It had an Indy intake that was port matched and had some minor plenum mods. The cam was an Indy spec cam 279/279 @.50 .680/.680 108 LSA installed at 108. Chambers were 63cc and compression was at 13.5 with an off the shelf piston. Off the shelf wet sump oil pan,vacuum pump,1000 Race Demon Carb,2" Hedman Husler headers,727 with a mid 5000 converter. At 3100# this combo went 9.20s to 9.30s at more than 142 mph. I saw this car run in 2005 and still have not heard of any Indy 360-2 230 that was faster at that weight. As said before I think you would be better off staying with the 4" crank,more compression and focusing on getting the head and cam combo to work better.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mopar dave
top fuel


Reged: Jan 04 2007
Loc: flint michigan
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: b1dartsport]
      #7951811 - Sun Dec 08 2013 11:47 AM

very impressive. who did the heads? my indys are 360-1 ported to 230, so I have the square ports.

--------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIxaesJ190U

http://youtu.be/lCZAaN7fFLg


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
b1dartsport
super stock


Reged: Feb 14 2005
Loc: western pennsylvania
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: mopar dave]
      #7951998 - Sun Dec 08 2013 01:21 PM

I believe the heads were done at a ford shop near John Pennington's home. This combo was freshened by Ryan Johnson at Shadydell speed shop and he posted the combo on here. Ryan was surprised how simple this motor was and how much HP it produced on his Dyno which was a very conservative 670 HP. I think what this shows you that if you pay attention to details,(Heads,Cam) and get the rings to seal well you can make big HP. I believe that Ryan has been doing the 2.15" intake on some of the Indy engines he has been building and likes this head mod.-Randy

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mopar dave
top fuel


Reged: Jan 04 2007
Loc: flint michigan
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: b1dartsport]
      #7952336 - Sun Dec 08 2013 05:30 PM

i'll see if I can find that old thread. sounds interesting.

--------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIxaesJ190U

http://youtu.be/lCZAaN7fFLg


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
b1dartsport
super stock


Reged: Feb 14 2005
Loc: western pennsylvania
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: mopar dave]
      #7952624 - Sun Dec 08 2013 08:02 PM

Dave,If you are still searching for that post I think the title by Ryan was " Most powerful 59* Motor Ever?" or something along those lines.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
B3422W5
Gettin Hitched!!


Reged: Jan 20 2003
Loc: Portage,michigan
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: MR_P_BODY]
      #7952743 - Sun Dec 08 2013 09:06 PM

Quote:

Quote:

I think the car hooks great. could use a double adjustable on the rear to improve 60' abit. It seems the 408 isn't making enough power to move the car for better ET's. car weights 3300 and runs [Email]10.35@130.[/Email] I estimate 580-600hp off motor.
one reason I believe this is just by changing ignition box from a Mallory hifire6 to an Ice 7amp box and coil, 60' went from a 1.52 to mid 1.4's.




If you change just the ignition box and you picked
up that much you had a major problem in the ignition
but your 60' is still off(slow) based on the ET & MPH






Exactly.... Ignition in working order over another in working order should basically result in little to nothing difference in ET or 60 foot either one.

--------------------
71 Duster with 323" magnum. Pumpgas, iron heads 231@50 hydraulic cam, 3415 race weight. 11.79@ 113.37 so far . More to come.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
B3422W5
Gettin Hitched!!


Reged: Jan 20 2003
Loc: Portage,michigan
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: mopar dave]
      #7952754 - Sun Dec 08 2013 09:19 PM

Quote:

yeah mike, but it seems like the combo should be more like 625-650hp with what I have. I agree with the Mallory stuff. i'v had a earley hifire box that broke me down twice a Mallory fuel pump that gave me fits a Mallory unilight that the bushings wore out in no time flat, so I understand where your coming from. I thought the hifire6 was a nice box with a lot of features,guess not. my worst box was a msd digital6. I still have a Jacobs that works great.




With the dinky 260@ 50 cam your running and just over 11 to 1 compression your not gonna come close to making 650 horse with that combo. Sorry, but just telling you the truth.
You know my d combo, which I figure made an honest 650 running at your weight or a hair more. It was about 5 tenths and 5 mph quicker than you are . So a very big difference from where your at.
If you are really looking to make power, you need to really step things up in the camshaft and compression departments, assuming the heads are real good.
Otherwise your just nibbling at the edges of truly stepping things up and improving your ET.
It can make that power and still see street duty( drove mine way more than 100 miles a summer) you just need to decide on what you want the car to run and use parts that will allow it to do so.

--------------------
71 Duster with 323" magnum. Pumpgas, iron heads 231@50 hydraulic cam, 3415 race weight. 11.79@ 113.37 so far . More to come.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mopar dave
top fuel


Reged: Jan 04 2007
Loc: flint michigan
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: B3422W5]
      #7952842 - Sun Dec 08 2013 10:36 PM

yeah, I know. the 260 cam is in their to match the 11:1 compression and I did make improvements in ET going that route. 2 tenths improvement. the next combo will obviously get a bigger cam to match the 13:1+ compression. ran a best of 10.35@130 and 10.39@131. this thread was started to just get some direction on next combo with this block. the results of the leak down test shows I can run this combo another season, but it will have huslers a vacuum pump and a davinci dominator and I may have sanchez take a look at the heads for the next combo though.

--------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIxaesJ190U

http://youtu.be/lCZAaN7fFLg


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mopar dave
top fuel


Reged: Jan 04 2007
Loc: flint michigan
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: b1dartsport]
      #7953044 - Mon Dec 09 2013 08:01 AM

found the thread. thanks

--------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIxaesJ190U

http://youtu.be/lCZAaN7fFLg


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
B3422W5
Gettin Hitched!!


Reged: Jan 20 2003
Loc: Portage,michigan
Re: another 3.79 vs 4.00 vs 4.125 sb stroke comparisons [Re: mopar dave]
      #7953148 - Mon Dec 09 2013 09:30 AM

Dave, I think your car runs extremely good. Think you have maximized your combo and it runs as well as it should.
You should be proud of the numbers it lays down

--------------------
71 Duster with 323" magnum. Pumpgas, iron heads 231@50 hydraulic cam, 3415 race weight. 11.79@ 113.37 so far . More to come.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)



Extra information
34 registered and 104 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  moparts, tboomer, SanityLost, Al_Alguire, 70Cuda383, LTDan, Eric, Hotwheelsjr, not_a_charger 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 2054

Rate this topic

Jump to

Contact Info | Privacy statement main index

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.2