|
lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
#1058351
08/21/11 11:01 AM
08/21/11 11:01 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,067
Irving, TX
feets
OP
Senior Management
|
OP
Senior Management
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,067
Irving, TX
|
I was just running the numbers for the OD swap in the Imperial. I will be using Edelbrock heads on a stock-ish cam 440 and shoving around a 5300 lb Imperial. It wears 3.23 gears out back. Without OD I'm looking at 2500 rpm for 65 mph and 2900 rpm for 75 mph. With OD I'm looking at 1700 rpm for 65 mph and 2000 rpm for 75 mph. 1700 rpm seems pretty low for a 440 to lug around that much weight. Is that too low for an efficient cruise? Stepping up to 3.55 gears would increase rpm by 250 or so. Please stay away from the "engine should run at peak torque rpm blah blah blah" uneducated BS. We all know that's not true in the real world. If it were true, our cars would get amazing mileage at 4000 rpm. On the up side of things, with the 3.23 and 518 if I could hit 6000 rpm the car would be cruising at 228 mph. Do you think John Force has a spare engine I could borrow? 
We are brothers and sisters doing time on the planet for better or worse. I'll take the better, if you don't mind.
- Stu Harmon
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: feets]
#1058352
08/21/11 11:28 AM
08/21/11 11:28 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 30,424
Florida STAYcation
dOc !
The village idiot's idiot
|
The village idiot's idiot
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 30,424
Florida STAYcation
|
Eddy heads on a pIMP-mobile ? ...  ...are you looking at competeing with that Cleveland IMP ...or is this going to be a cruiser that gets super MPG ? In a non-towing combo ...I would look at a 516 head. And KEEP the 1.60 valve. And toss-in a 2.76 gear.
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: feets]
#1058356
08/21/11 01:48 PM
08/21/11 01:48 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 21,059
Niles , Ohio
therocks
oh wait.but hey.lets see.oh yeah.
|
oh wait.but hey.lets see.oh yeah.
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 21,059
Niles , Ohio
|
My Imps had 2.70 gears.They all cruised allday.Never did get the RPMs but it was low.Rocky
Chrysler Firepower
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: feets]
#1058357
08/21/11 02:27 PM
08/21/11 02:27 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,162
USA
360view
Moparts resident spammer
|
Moparts resident spammer
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,162
USA
|
Prior to adding the OD you could try a few 'real world' experiments by adding a vacuum gauge connected to the intake manifold then driving in top gear at 1700 rpm at whatever mph the current ratios give, up a progression of ever steeper hills, to increase load on the engine. When the vacuum drops below the 6 to 8 inches of Mercury level, you are getting out of the operating region of good fuel economy. You can estimate your horsepower load at different speeds and grades of hills using the stuff found in this article; http://web.archive.org/web/20061123075351/http://www.etrucker.com/content/downloads/ccj0302.pdfnotice it is in pdf format Although the article is focusing on big trucks, the same applies to cars climbing hills This admittedly old (1960s) but 'universal' BSFC graph from the Taylors at MIT for engines shows the 'island' of good fuel economy:  Notice the bottom line of the graph is not rpm but 'average piston speed' in feet per minute which you get by converting your stroke from inches to feet, doubling it since it goes up and then down once per each revolution of the engine shaft, then multiplying by rpm
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: 360view]
#1058358
08/21/11 03:35 PM
08/21/11 03:35 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 247
DuPont, Washington
DZJim
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 247
DuPont, Washington
|
Quote:
Prior to adding the OD
you could try a few 'real world' experiments
by adding a vacuum gauge connected to the intake manifold
then driving in top gear at 1700 rpm at whatever mph the current ratios give,
up a progression of ever steeper hills,
to increase load on the engine.
When the vacuum drops below
the 6 to 8 inches of Mercury level,
you are getting out of the operating region of good fuel economy.
You can estimate your horsepower load
at different speeds and grades of hills
using the stuff found in this article;
http://web.archive.org/web/20061123075351/http://www.etrucker.com/content/downloads/ccj0302.pdf
notice it is in pdf format
Although the article is focusing on big trucks, the same applies to cars climbing hills
This admittedly old (1960s)
but 'universal'
BSFC graph from the Taylors at MIT for engines
shows the 'island' of good fuel economy:
Notice the bottom line of the graph is not rpm
but 'average piston speed' in feet per minute
which you get by converting your stroke from inches to feet, doubling it since it goes up and then down once per each revolution of the engine shaft,
then multiplying by rpm
I didn't crunch through the above, but looks like good info.
Depends...
Cam, carb, manifold, heads?
Grade; uphill even a tiny bit makes big difference. Wind, a little headwind makes a difference. Aerodynamic drag is proportional to the speed squared. 55 mph with 15 mph headwind is 70 mph for drag purposes. Big difference in drag.
Tire type and pressure. Steel on steel is good e.g. railways. Obviously can't do that with your car, but you get the idea. Wheel alignment. Fluid viscosities in trans and axle, synthetics?.
I got a 250cc on/off road bike w/6spd trans. Torque below 4,000 rpm is negligible. It'll cruise along just fine at 55 mph in 6th until I hit a little uphill; have to downshift right away.
Almost same with my Corolla 5spd. BB MOPAR torque is a different story.
My $0.02
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: MoparMarq]
#1058360
08/21/11 04:34 PM
08/21/11 04:34 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 30,424
Florida STAYcation
dOc !
The village idiot's idiot
|
The village idiot's idiot
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 30,424
Florida STAYcation
|
Quote:
Didn't some of the later '70s and '80s B/F/M/J bodies have 2.45 gears and 318s? I may be out in left field here, but seems like with a big block it would be a non-issue.
You beeez in the RIGHT FIELD ...IMO. A 440 with a torque cam and a MPG intake and carb ....1700 should not be a problem. 'Specially on the Texas highways.
I have got a torque-monster in-the-works for my motorhome. I am shooting for 2600 rpm or so running 60 mph ... but I will NOT have the aero of the IMP ...and will have a GVW weight of nearly 16,000 at times.
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: feets]
#1058362
08/21/11 04:59 PM
08/21/11 04:59 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,719
Space Station #5
471Magnum
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,719
Space Station #5
|
Depends on your carburetor somewhat. You'll run rich and your gas mileage will suck if you don't get out of the idle circuit. Really need to be above 2000 rpm for best mileage.
Had a .64 OD and 3.55 gears on my Charger way back when. I was lugging along below 65 mph getting 12 mph. Wind it out to 75 and I'd get 16 mpg. Eventually I put in a set of 4.10's.
-Jim
I can fix it... my old man is a television repairman.
He's got the ultimate set of tools... I can fix it.
Currently Mopar-less
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: 471Magnum]
#1058363
08/21/11 05:59 PM
08/21/11 05:59 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,415
Kalispell Mt.
HotRodDave
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,415
Kalispell Mt.
|
Bigger valves installed properly (deshrouded and good valve job)improves flow even through the same size port, in order for more air to flow through the same port it HAS to have MORE velocity, therefore a bigger valve will have more velocity in the port not less. Any one who beleives otherwise is  it is very elementary physics not rocket science. Velocity at the valve will probably decrease but total flow will go up and that means you can make the same power with a smaller cam and a smaller cam will help MPG. As for gearing, lug the snot out of it. My 5.9 in my 3/4 ton ram turns 1500 at 60 and gets much better MPG in OD than 3rd. You car is slightly more aero dynamic and probably lighter than a jacked up extended cab 4x4 3/4 ton and your engine is definately more powerfull even at those low RPM. You definately do NOT need to be above 2000 for best MPG, mabey best passing power but it is bad for MPG.
I am not causing global warming, I am just trying to hold off a impending Ice Age!
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: HotRodDave]
#1058364
08/21/11 06:50 PM
08/21/11 06:50 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,869
Oregon
hooziewhatsit
master
|
master
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,869
Oregon
|
360View, I crunched some numbers real quick... Assuming a 4" stroker (  ), at 1700 rpms the piston speed is 1133 ft/sec, right in the sweet spot of that graph. Assuming a BMEP of 100 psi, we can figure the needed torque to be roughly 275 ft-lbs, at that 1700 RPMs. bmep link So, does it make sense that if we build an engine with that amount of torque at that rpm, adjust the rest of the gearing as needed to get a good highway speed at that rpm, that we should get the optimal mileage out of it? Of course, depending on the air & rolling resistance, I guess we may still need more power to move along though... Or am I way off  
If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: feets]
#1058366
08/21/11 07:58 PM
08/21/11 07:58 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,151
Cruising!
QuickDodge
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,151
Cruising!
|
Some of the Buick Roadmaster's had 2.56 rear axles with an overdrive transmission. (There transmission's overdrive ratio is nearly identical to the 518's ratio) These cars had 350 engines and weighed about 4200 lbs. I think this gearing put them at around 1300 rpm at 60 mph. I know a guy who is a Roadmaster fanatic. He thinks the 2.56 was a little to much gear. He likes the 2.72(?) or 2.94(?)axle ratio's better. It is very true that gearing the car so it will obtain best fuel economy WILL make the transmission shift in and out of overdrive more frequently. (particularly in the 40-60 mph range) When I'm driving a vehicle with real stiff gears, I manually shift the transmission into third gear until I'm on the highway, then shift into overdrive. If an automatic transmission is making the engine lug, the shift points on the transmission should probably be adjusted. (or manually downshift it) If you want to run real stiff gears a lock up torque converter will be necessary. Otherwise, the torque converter will slip more at low rpms. I believe some higher stall, lock up converters are available. These should help with both performace and economy. Getting the idle mixture set lean will be critcal to achieving good fuel economy at real low rpms. The following article on how to tune a carb for economy is worth a read, even though the carb is on a chevy the same priciples would apply on a Mopar. http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/tech/e...eage/index.htmlPersonally, I'd try a 2.76 to 3.23 ratio depending what I had on hand at the time. I'd guess a 2.92 with a higher stall, lock up converter would be best, but that's a guess, since I've never built anything like an Imperial. A 3.23 would certainly help performance, but would probably hurt highway fuel economy just a bit. It might help around town mileage though? I'm quite interested in building a C-body as a cruiser / summertime driver. When you get this done, I'd be very interested in the results you achieve.
Last edited by QuickDodge; 08/21/11 08:05 PM.
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: 471Magnum]
#1058367
08/21/11 08:25 PM
08/21/11 08:25 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 30,424
Florida STAYcation
dOc !
The village idiot's idiot
|
The village idiot's idiot
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 30,424
Florida STAYcation
|
Quote:
Depends on your carburetor somewhat. You'll run rich and your gas mileage will suck if you don't get out of the idle circuit. Really need to be above 2000 rpm for best mileage.
DEPENDS on what carb you are running ... a small primary venturi with Xcellent fuel mixing is the ticket. And GUESS WHAT carb that is ?
I read some really detailed cyl-head-chat about power and MPG. I think it was a related hi-tech article when I was searching for a lab in the Chicago area that did work on the topic of Tribology ... (the study of friction in a internal combustion engine!)
It said that in the IDEAL WORLD ... you would want to reduce and expand intake valve and port size based on the rpm range of the engine.
Since this is not possible on any of our-junk ... I am going to reduce intake port size by at least 30% ... in combination with directing the air-fuel mixture to one-side of the port to hopefully enhance the swirl-effect.
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: dOc !]
#1058368
08/21/11 11:14 PM
08/21/11 11:14 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,067
Irving, TX
feets
OP
Senior Management
|
OP
Senior Management
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,067
Irving, TX
|
Thanks for the input so far. I forgot about the Diplomats and their 2.45 rear gears. I had one and it was a pig around town. It did cruise nicely on the highway. I will most likely make the Power Tour with a carburetor. However, I will be reverting back to my old ways and stuffing this in the Imperial.  When I do that, I'll probably switch back to the smaller 900 cfm throttle body. No doubt throttle response would be much better than with the 1700 cfm unit I've currently got on it. There is a slim chance it will be EFI'd for the Tour but that will depend on how the rest of the build is going. Within a year carb tuning should not be an issue.
We are brothers and sisters doing time on the planet for better or worse. I'll take the better, if you don't mind.
- Stu Harmon
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: feets]
#1058369
08/22/11 12:01 AM
08/22/11 12:01 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,723
A collage of whims
topside
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,723
A collage of whims
|
Had a Diplomat coupe years ago: 318 4bbl, lockup converter & OD, most likely a 2.45 gear, 235/70R15s. It was laaaazzy around town, but IIRC 75MPH was something like 17-1800RPM, and it was fine, even on small hills & headwinds. Something like California's Grapevine would have me either giving it some boot or pulling it down a gear.
For a carb I'd want a T-Quad for its small primaries, but why bother if your plans are to run the EFI/Turbo setup? With carbs, I get the best MPG driving with as little throttle as possible; 2 of my EFI cars pull better MPG at the lowest RPM they'll turn & still pull the car, which with a carb would man frequent large throttle openings & low vacuum to maintain speed. The 3rd (it's the least aerodynamic) gets better MPG @ 3000RPM than at 2700. Mystifying? Nope, aero.
My GMC 454 dually (5500 lbs, 4.10, TH400, Gear Vendors = 3.23ish gear) makes its max TQ @ 1700, but that doesn't equate to hwy speeds; 65-70 = 2700RPM. Needs more gear towing uphill, but unladen it's a freakin' locomotive.
Hopefully your turbo setup is sized right so it won't require much RPM. Seems like a really good application for a stroker motor.
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: Twostick]
#1058371
08/22/11 01:53 AM
08/22/11 01:53 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,415
Kalispell Mt.
HotRodDave
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,415
Kalispell Mt.
|
With a scanner hooked up to my 97 ram reading live data and cruise set on 70 MPH on a straight leval road with no wind, it needs a higher throttle angle to maintain 70 in direct than it does in OD, also the overhead console instant readout goes up 3 or 4 mpg when switching the OD on and back down when you turn it off. Also since it is only useing 25% throttle to maintain 70 in OD I bet it could handle even higher gears and get a little better MPG, I am confidant returns would diminish but still be there.
I am not causing global warming, I am just trying to hold off a impending Ice Age!
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: Twostick]
#1058372
08/22/11 02:39 AM
08/22/11 02:39 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 30,424
Florida STAYcation
dOc !
The village idiot's idiot
|
The village idiot's idiot
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 30,424
Florida STAYcation
|
Quote:
Here's my experience with tall geared (don't start Doc) heavy vehicles.
Kevin
K-guy ....I would never debate what you cRaZy CaNaDiAnS might term as heavy or light .... B U T a 2.75 rear-end ratio is a SHORT gear. 
SHORT in numbers  , SHORT in times it turns the axles ... it is a little, itty, bitty gear .... what MORE do you want ? .... 
ORE is stuff in Sears & ROEbuck ONT that turned-around and topsey/turvey ? ..  
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: feets]
#1058373
08/22/11 04:48 AM
08/22/11 04:48 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,847
Oakdale CT
gdonovan
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,847
Oakdale CT
|
Quote:
1700 rpm seems pretty low for a 440 to lug around that much weight. Is that too low for an efficient cruise?
My 2WD Dodge Ram rolls down the interstate around 1800 with a 5.2, I suspect you won't have any problem at all.
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: feets]
#1058374
08/22/11 08:18 AM
08/22/11 08:18 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,719
Space Station #5
471Magnum
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,719
Space Station #5
|
Definitely need to differentiate between fuel injection and carburetion.
You can get the fuel to atomize, mix and distribute evenly at pretty much any rpm with FI.
A carb is going to require some velocity, which is why the idle circuit has to run a bit richer to compensate, more so with a square bore like a Holley.
Shoot for 2000+ rpm and you'll be happy with the throttle response and fuel economy (relatively speaking anyway).
If I make the Power Tour next year, I'll be putting in my 2.76s and rolling about 2200 rpm at 70 mph. Did the same thing in my 440 Six Pack Challenger in 2010 and averaged over 16 mpg. No vacuum advance either. I'd expect better with my T-quad equipped 360/410 stroker in the Road Runner. I got over 14 mph with 3.55s on the way to Nationals this year.
-Jim
I can fix it... my old man is a television repairman.
He's got the ultimate set of tools... I can fix it.
Currently Mopar-less
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: hooziewhatsit]
#1058375
08/22/11 08:52 AM
08/22/11 08:52 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,162
USA
360view
Moparts resident spammer
|
Moparts resident spammer
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,162
USA
|
Quote:
360View, I crunched some numbers real quick...
Assuming a BMEP of 100 psi, we can figure the needed torque to be roughly 275 ft-lbs, at that 1700 RPMs.
So, does it make sense that if we build an engine with that amount of torque at that rpm, adjust the rest of the gearing as needed to get a good highway speed at that rpm, that we should get the optimal mileage out of it?
Of course, depending on the air & rolling resistance, I guess we may still need more power to move along though...
We need the vacuum gauge readings of the actual engine to
'gues-ti-mate'
a BMEP.
1 inch of manifold vacuum showing on the gauge would be 'about' 110 to 120 BMEP at 1700 rpm
6 inches of vacuum showing on the gauge would be less, maybe 50 to 70 BMEP
20 inches of vacuum showing on the gauge would be about zero BMEP,
or what you get idling at 1700 rpm
If you figure up the total square inches of eight pistons on the engine,
you can run your finger down the near vertical lines marked
'HP/SQ In'
to find horsepower at any given BMEP
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: 360view]
#1058377
08/22/11 11:28 AM
08/22/11 11:28 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,415
Kalispell Mt.
HotRodDave
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,415
Kalispell Mt.
|
My 68 cuda with the MPG 318 motor cruising at 1700 would hold about 19 inches of vaccume, it needed another gear real bad for better MPG.
I am not causing global warming, I am just trying to hold off a impending Ice Age!
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: 360view]
#1058378
08/22/11 11:28 AM
08/22/11 11:28 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,067
Irving, TX
feets
OP
Senior Management
|
OP
Senior Management
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,067
Irving, TX
|
The EFI does have an interesting effect. When I cruised from Shreveport to Dallas in the hot rod I was using 17% throttle to hold 70 mph. That was 2700 rpm. I don't remember what the MAP reading was. There's a slim chance I still have that data log.
As for my turbos, they are fairly small for the engine. They spool easily. When cruising the hot rod I could open the throttle the slightest bit and watch the boost start creeping upwards. Less than 1/4 throttle would take the hot rod from 60 to 90 when going around a truck.
Add the resistance of an extra 1500 to 1800 lbs and it will load the turbos a bit more.
We are brothers and sisters doing time on the planet for better or worse. I'll take the better, if you don't mind.
- Stu Harmon
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: chargervert]
#1058380
08/22/11 02:39 PM
08/22/11 02:39 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,711
Moved to N.E. Tennessee
GomangoCuda
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,711
Moved to N.E. Tennessee
|
Quote:
As long as you don't mind that he paints his Keith Black Chrysler designed Hemi engines Ford blue and has the Ford logo cast into the valve covers,in a vain attempt to decieve unknowing NHRA fans into believeing that Ford actually builds an engine that can compete in top fuel/funnycar competition.
Where have you been the last few years. Sure it is similar but it is not a KB Hemi engine with ford on the valve covers. Read the article below from the 2007 SEMA show. In March 2010 they signed a new 5 year contract with Ford to supply these engines and parts to other Ford teams, specifically Bob Tasca. http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/racing/nhra/news/story?id=5033830
===========================================================
The Ford BOSS 500 Nitro Drag Racing Engine:
Racing enthusiasts know that the true heart of a race car is its engine – and Davis wants to make sure that the “heart” that powers NHRA Funny Car Mustangs of John Force Racing is pumping “blue” blood in the future.
Davis and John Medlen of John Force Racing challenged themselves to develop the new Ford BOSS 500, the first modern nitro engine for drag racing. The BOSS 500 was tested on-track for the first time on Oct. 18 and was unveiled for media today.
“We wanted to be in NHRA Funny Car with an engine that we really could call all our own,” Davis said. “I wanted people to see a Ford Mustang race car and know that it’s winning races with true Ford power.”
Davis and Medlen looked at the current nitro engine, discussed where they felt it had weaknesses, and decided to design and build a new engine to address them.
The BOSS 500 is the first nitro drag racing motor designed with analytical tools. It has a strengthened block for better durability and new cylinder heads developed by Ford and Force engineers. The basic design will favor areas such as the main caps register and the main webs in the block. Its engine block also is anodized blue after machining, helping ensure fans and competitors alike know when they’re seeing a Ford nitro engine under the hood.
Most of the external surface areas on the new 500-cubic-inch engine have been redesigned; a new belly pan was designed for better sealing; and the valve covers purposely call back the old Ford BOSS motors. The engine also features Ford main bearings with actual parts numbers in the Ford performance catalog.
“We had three things in mind when we set out on this project,” Davis said. “First, for marketing purposes, we wanted to say that we were putting reality behind the term ‘Powered by Ford.’
“Second, on the technical side, we have always helped out with aero, chassis development and now safety, but we always stopped short of the engine. This project has been a technical exercise for our engineers and the Force team to take the current motor, redesign it and make it
a Ford.
“Finally, we want fans to associate this engine with Ford and Force, but we also know this provides a new revenue opportunity for us,” Davis added. “In Funny Car, the plan is for this to be a John Force Racing-exclusive engine at the start, but we do want to be able to sell it to Top Fuel teams for competition in the near future.”
Davis said that the current plan is for new Force Mustang driver Mike Neff to use the Ford BOSS 500 engine full-time in 2008 as it goes through its development phase. The other Force Mustang drivers – John Force, Ashley Force and Robert Hight – will use the engine after it has been further developed.
Ford and Force Racing also are investigating a team to be the first development operation in Top Fuel, with a measured, commercial rollout to more competitors after it has gone through a prove-out stage in that division.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: CrAzYMoPaRGuY]
#1058383
08/22/11 03:06 PM
08/22/11 03:06 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 30,424
Florida STAYcation
dOc !
The village idiot's idiot
|
The village idiot's idiot
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 30,424
Florida STAYcation
|
Quote:
What about a 2.76 gear with an Eddy head.... on a stroked big block?
THIS coming from a cRaZy guy with a little-itty-bitty A engine in a big HUGE and uNaero motorhomely ? ...
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: GomangoCuda]
#1058385
08/22/11 04:19 PM
08/22/11 04:19 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 15,995
RI Deep in the rust belt
chargervert
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 15,995
RI Deep in the rust belt
|
Quote:
Quote:
As long as you don't mind that he paints his Keith Black Chrysler designed Hemi engines Ford blue and has the Ford logo cast into the valve covers,in a vain attempt to decieve unknowing NHRA fans into believeing that Ford actually builds an engine that can compete in top fuel/funnycar competition.
Where have you been the last few years. Sure it is similar but it is not a KB Hemi engine with ford on the valve covers. Read the article below from the 2007 SEMA show. In March 2010 they signed a new 5 year contract with Ford to supply these engines and parts to other Ford teams, specifically Bob Tasca. http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/racing/nhra/news/story?id=5033830
===========================================================
The Ford BOSS 500 Nitro Drag Racing Engine:
Racing enthusiasts know that the true heart of a race car is its engine – and Davis wants to make sure that the “heart” that powers NHRA Funny Car Mustangs of John Force Racing is pumping “blue” blood in the future.
Davis and John Medlen of John Force Racing challenged themselves to develop the new Ford BOSS 500, the first modern nitro engine for drag racing. The BOSS 500 was tested on-track for the first time on Oct. 18 and was unveiled for media today.
“We wanted to be in NHRA Funny Car with an engine that we really could call all our own,” Davis said. “I wanted people to see a Ford Mustang race car and know that it’s winning races with true Ford power.”
Davis and Medlen looked at the current nitro engine, discussed where they felt it had weaknesses, and decided to design and build a new engine to address them.
The BOSS 500 is the first nitro drag racing motor designed with analytical tools. It has a strengthened block for better durability and new cylinder heads developed by Ford and Force engineers. The basic design will favor areas such as the main caps register and the main webs in the block. Its engine block also is anodized blue after machining, helping ensure fans and competitors alike know when they’re seeing a Ford nitro engine under the hood.
Most of the external surface areas on the new 500-cubic-inch engine have been redesigned; a new belly pan was designed for better sealing; and the valve covers purposely call back the old Ford BOSS motors. The engine also features Ford main bearings with actual parts numbers in the Ford performance catalog.
“We had three things in mind when we set out on this project,” Davis said. “First, for marketing purposes, we wanted to say that we were putting reality behind the term ‘Powered by Ford.’
“Second, on the technical side, we have always helped out with aero, chassis development and now safety, but we always stopped short of the engine. This project has been a technical exercise for our engineers and the Force team to take the current motor, redesign it and make it
a Ford.
“Finally, we want fans to associate this engine with Ford and Force, but we also know this provides a new revenue opportunity for us,” Davis added. “In Funny Car, the plan is for this to be a John Force Racing-exclusive engine at the start, but we do want to be able to sell it to Top Fuel teams for competition in the near future.”
Davis said that the current plan is for new Force Mustang driver Mike Neff to use the Ford BOSS 500 engine full-time in 2008 as it goes through its development phase. The other Force Mustang drivers – John Force, Ashley Force and Robert Hight – will use the engine after it has been further developed.
Ford and Force Racing also are investigating a team to be the first development operation in Top Fuel, with a measured, commercial rollout to more competitors after it has gone through a prove-out stage in that division.
So basically for marketing purposes they took the current engine,which is Chrysler/Keith Black designed,and copied it then painted it blue and put Ford valve covers so they could call it"Ford powered" Got it! Thats the same thing Toyota the Waltrips and Bill Davis racing did to Dodge with the Nascar engine! Copyright infringement is the sincerest form of flattery these days isn't it?
Last edited by chargervert; 08/22/11 04:23 PM.
70 Charger R/T SE 472 Hemi
70 Charger R/T convertible
70 Charger R/T V Code Sixpack
69 Charger R/T SE Sunroofcar
68 Charger 383
68 Charger 318
71 Charger R/T
70 Challenger convertible
71 Challenger convertible
71 Cuda 340
09 Challenger R/T Classic
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: feets]
#1058386
08/22/11 04:24 PM
08/22/11 04:24 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 104,346
Garden Grove, CA
OzHemi
Penguin-hating Ginger
|
Penguin-hating Ginger
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 104,346
Garden Grove, CA
|
Quote:
Quote:
What about a 2.76 gear with an Eddy head.... on a stroked big block?
More cubes under those Eddy heads might be helpful at low rpms...?
More cubes = bigger mouth to feed. Fuel consumption is part of the issue.
I already have a 3.23 and everything to put the 518 in the car. When it comes to inches I have turbochargers to multiply the amount of air it breathes.
Just put the car all together and see what it's like....easy enough to always play around with diff ratios once you have everything else in place. 
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: CrAzYMoPaRGuY]
#1058388
08/24/11 11:35 PM
08/24/11 11:35 PM
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 236
Southern CA
Colin Frolick
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 236
Southern CA
|
Feets you know i have a 71 imp, with a 493. it came with 3.23s, i've swapped in 2.76s and it much much MUCH better on the highway (but noticeably weaker from a standstill). i live out in the desert and drive alot at 70-80-90mph on the southern california freeways. it could use even LESS gear and be fine, so when i get to it i have a non-lockup 518, a new "tight" converter, and i want to try 3.73s, those * 0.69 od = a 2.574 final drive. my 65 pontiac tempest ran last with a 455/6-speed/3.23 rear. the trans was 0.76 od, so a 2.45 final drive. 19mpg from Denver to soCal. my new rear end for that car is 3.00:1 so 2.28 final drive. had a c5 z06 corvette, top gear in that car was 1.90:1 final. i know these are quite different (meaning, lighter!) cars but make interesting examples. does your imperial also have an 8 3/4 axle? if so... easy to change!! pics on http://www.flickr.com/photos/hpivonka/sets/72157600005938126/
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: feets]
#1058389
08/25/11 09:59 AM
08/25/11 09:59 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
patrick
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
|
Quote:
I was just running the numbers for the OD swap in the Imperial.
I will be using Edelbrock heads on a stock-ish cam 440 and shoving around a 5300 lb Imperial. It wears 3.23 gears out back.
Without OD I'm looking at 2500 rpm for 65 mph and 2900 rpm for 75 mph.
With OD I'm looking at 1700 rpm for 65 mph and 2000 rpm for 75 mph.
1700 rpm seems pretty low for a 440 to lug around that much weight. Is that too low for an efficient cruise? Stepping up to 3.55 gears would increase rpm by 250 or so.
Please stay away from the "engine should run at peak torque rpm blah blah blah" uneducated BS. We all know that's not true in the real world. If it were true, our cars would get amazing mileage at 4000 rpm.
On the up side of things, with the 3.23 and 518 if I could hit 6000 rpm the car would be cruising at 228 mph.
Do you think John Force has a spare engine I could borrow?
FWIW, my old truck, a '96 ram with a 318/5speed and 4700 lbs, with 3.21 gears and 30" tires (275/60R17) was 2000RPM at 70mph, and the little 318 pulled it along the highway just fine....never had to downshift going up hills above 65mph.
1976 Spinnaker White Plymouth Duster, /6 A833OD
1986 Silver/Twilight Blue Chrysler 5th Ave HotRod **SOLD!***
2011 Toxic Orange Dodge Charger R/T
2017 Grand Cherokee Overland
2014 Jeep Cherokee Latitude (holy crap, my daughter is driving)
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: feets]
#1058390
08/25/11 11:32 AM
08/25/11 11:32 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,386
Pikes Peak Country
TC@HP2
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,386
Pikes Peak Country
|
Quote:
Please stay away from the "engine should run at peak torque rpm blah blah blah" uneducated BS. We all know that's not true in the real world. If it were true, our cars would get amazing mileage at 4000 rpm.
Gee, didn't know it bugged you so much. Thanks for the underhanded compliment.
If you paid attention to what I said in those types of posts, I always used the caveat "within reason" of rpm range, being that even an uneducated BSer can tell that a 4000 rpm torque peak is a stupid place to run a cruise rpm.
I've always said to build so you have as low an rpm torque peak as possible. That is how I built my truck engine. Doing so allowed me to maximize the cruising performance and mileage in the rpm range I most typically use during driving. The fact that my torque peak was within that range was the result. Sometime in the last few months the target chart posted further up above was posted and I started comparing my build info to its data. Interestingly enough, while not in the sweet spot, I am not too far away from it either. So while WOT torque peaks are not an exact indicator of efficiency, combine that with vacuum readings and piston speed and you can get dialed in pretty close to building exactly what you want. So don't wholesale discount the WOT torque peak as an efficiency indicator. It is a fact that torque production and volumetric efficiency go hand in hand. Use that as an additional tool in caclulating the peices you need for the build.
In one of the recent enthusiasts rags they had an article recently regarding the GM 8.1 big blocks. The are really big, inefficient pigs with no aftermarket support until just recently. Dart has taken to building a lot of parts for them lately because some oil field came to them requesting big torque, low rpm motors to replace some of their pump units. Seems they produced some gas engines that make some crazy amount of torque at stupid low rpm range. Performance is almost diesel like. Sounds like a build of this sort may be exactly what your after in a car that cruises at 2000 rpm or lower. I'll try to find it an post up some info if no one else beats me to it.
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: TC@HP2]
#1058391
08/25/11 11:44 AM
08/25/11 11:44 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
patrick
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
|
also, most diplomats/5th ave's typically have 2.24 rear gears...the 2.45 are a little more rare, mainly in cop cars (2.94 available in cop cars, too).
my 5th ave with it's original 318, 2.24 rear and low gear lockup 904 hit 2000 RPM at 75mph, and it was fine for cuising above 55mph....
when I put the 360/XE262, it pulled fine, was a little crabby below 55mph in top gear due to the low revs...
Last edited by patrick; 08/25/11 11:55 AM.
1976 Spinnaker White Plymouth Duster, /6 A833OD
1986 Silver/Twilight Blue Chrysler 5th Ave HotRod **SOLD!***
2011 Toxic Orange Dodge Charger R/T
2017 Grand Cherokee Overland
2014 Jeep Cherokee Latitude (holy crap, my daughter is driving)
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: 360view]
#1058393
08/25/11 06:47 PM
08/25/11 06:47 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I had a '75 Duster with a stock 318 and 2.45 rear gears in high school. Even the weak sister 2 bbl. 318 did a decent job around down and would boil the hides at will.
Where it really shined was a hilly 30 mile section of road that I traveled to a neighboring town most ever Friday night. No problems with 100+ mph sustained speed and the a/c running cold the whole way.
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: Pale_Roader]
#1058395
08/26/11 06:05 PM
08/26/11 06:05 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,587
St. John's Newfoundland
440newport
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,587
St. John's Newfoundland
|
Quote:
What rear gears would a 78 Volare 4dr with a factory 360, auto and 8 1/4" have?
If I had to guess I would say 2.45's. All 3 V8 F body 8 1/4's that I've had were 2.45.
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: 440newport]
#1058396
08/27/11 07:12 AM
08/27/11 07:12 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
Pale_Roader
Swears too much
|
Swears too much
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
|
Quote:
Quote:
What rear gears would a 78 Volare 4dr with a factory 360, auto and 8 1/4" have?
If I had to guess I would say 2.45's. All 3 V8 F body 8 1/4's that I've had were 2.45.
Hmmm... thats what i was gathering from the above posts. That would explain the killer mileage i got in that car... i didn't know a 360 could get that kind ov mileage. It wasn't exactly slow off the line either. It really picked up after 30, but off the line i wasn't unimpressed for a bone stock grampa car...
I actually won a couple road races in that car. All i did was lower it with 255/50/VR 15 tires. It had legs... . . .
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: TC@HP2]
#1058397
08/27/11 02:31 PM
08/27/11 02:31 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,067
Irving, TX
feets
OP
Senior Management
|
OP
Senior Management
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,067
Irving, TX
|
Quote:
Quote:
Please stay away from the "engine should run at peak torque rpm blah blah blah" uneducated BS. We all know that's not true in the real world. If it were true, our cars would get amazing mileage at 4000 rpm.
Gee, didn't know it bugged you so much. Thanks for the underhanded compliment.
If you paid attention to what I said in those types of posts, I always used the caveat "within reason" of rpm range, being that even an uneducated BSer can tell that a 4000 rpm torque peak is a stupid place to run a cruise rpm.
That was in no way a compliment. You read that theory somewhere and it stuck in your head. It does not apply to daily driven street vehicles.
DO NOT try to compare stationary engines to vehicle engines. The RPM seldom varies on stationaries and the load is fairly constant, quite the opposite of a street car.
The Imperial made peak torque at 3200 rpm. The car will NOT get it's best mileage at 85 mph. Don't try to convince me otherwise. You'll simply prove yourself a fool. The car is much happier cruising 60 mph at 2200 rpm.
Now, get that garbage out of your head and feel free to excuse yourself from my thread.
We are brothers and sisters doing time on the planet for better or worse. I'll take the better, if you don't mind.
- Stu Harmon
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: Pale_Roader]
#1058398
08/27/11 04:53 PM
08/27/11 04:53 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 173
Milano, Italia
FK5
member
|
member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 173
Milano, Italia
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What rear gears would a 78 Volare 4dr with a factory 360, auto and 8 1/4" have?
If I had to guess I would say 2.45's. All 3 V8 F body 8 1/4's that I've had were 2.45.
Hmmm... thats what i was gathering from the above posts. That would explain the killer mileage i got in that car... i didn't know a 360 could get that kind ov mileage. It wasn't exactly slow off the line either. It really picked up after 30, but off the line i wasn't unimpressed for a bone stock grampa car...
I actually won a couple road races in that car. All i did was lower it with 255/50/VR 15 tires. It had legs... . . .
Did the 360 have a 904 or 727? Whatever the new equivalents (999 or 998) are. The newer 904 variants had the lower first gear just to match up with the highway gears.
I have a 1982 Imperial with the anemic 140 hp efi 318 and 2.24 rear. It isn't too bad off the line because of the lower first gear. It ran great on the highway and could get some crazy mileage 24-26 mpg straight highway. It got about 17-18 mixed and that is in NYC rush hour.
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: DennisH ]
#1058400
08/27/11 05:01 PM
08/27/11 05:01 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,067
Irving, TX
feets
OP
Senior Management
|
OP
Senior Management
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,067
Irving, TX
|
That made me think of the Top Gear episode where Jeremy Clarkson put a Vette in 5th and went from 0 to 175 in a single gear.
We are brothers and sisters doing time on the planet for better or worse. I'll take the better, if you don't mind.
- Stu Harmon
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: feets]
#1058401
08/27/11 06:48 PM
08/27/11 06:48 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 397
Ozona, Texas
Paladin
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 397
Ozona, Texas
|
Feets,
This is something my sons and I have discussed before, as I like keeping "long legs" in my '71 R/T as well as my other vehicles. Here are some random thoughts, for what its worth:
-Someone brought up the early-mid 1990's Roadmasters. The same could be said for the 9C1 Caprices I drove during that era. Though they were in itself a bit lighter, once all of our equipment was added they weighed more than the Roadmaster. These vehicles got some really good gas mileage, high 20s at a steady highway cruise. They had something like a 3.08 rear and that steep TH700R4 overdrive
-A better example might be a Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham of the same era. These came with around a 3.23 towing package and were very close to the weight of your Imperial. Their mileage was not quite as good as the Roadmasters and our Caprices.
-Something to think about in reference to your Imperial is the corresponding aerodynamics. At speeds over 70 MPH, it has been my experience that the drag coefficient and frontal area makes a real difference in fuel mileage. Then again, you are running a 440 V8 with a lot more torque than an LT1 Chebby. Another observation of mine was that engines with peak torque down low are usually more efficent as far as gas mileage goes, if all other things are equal.
Finally, and not to steal my younger son's thunder, we just finished a run from Ozona to Annapolis in his '71 Charger SE. It is a 383 Magnum with stock innards, 727, and we installed a 2.76:1 Sure Grip unit in the rear end. It has headers and dual exhuast, a Pertronix ignition with our own advance curve, a Quadrajet I set up for him, and a low restrictive air cleaner. Our best for the trip was 18.7 MPG at around 75 MPH, with a couple of 80-85 MPH bursts.
May God bless America,
Paladin
1971 Dodge Charger R/T
1977 Chrysler Cordoba A35
1979 Dodge Lil� Red Express
1981 Chevrolet Corvette
1985 Chevrolet Corvette
1986 Chevrolet Corvette Roadster
1994 Lincoln Mark VIII
1998 Dodge Ram 2500 Sport V10
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: Paladin]
#1058402
08/27/11 08:55 PM
08/27/11 08:55 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,067
Irving, TX
feets
OP
Senior Management
|
OP
Senior Management
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,067
Irving, TX
|
Cool! The Paladin lives! Good to see you again. Now, I KNOW you only did the 80 to 85 mph runs where it was LEGAL, right? Heaven forbid you should ever break the law. That Charger is looking good. The license plate is fitting. TMF = Tough MF'er. I hope your son is doing well in MD and has the Charger protected from the storm.
We are brothers and sisters doing time on the planet for better or worse. I'll take the better, if you don't mind.
- Stu Harmon
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: FK5]
#1058403
08/28/11 08:10 AM
08/28/11 08:10 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
Pale_Roader
Swears too much
|
Swears too much
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What rear gears would a 78 Volare 4dr with a factory 360, auto and 8 1/4" have?
If I had to guess I would say 2.45's. All 3 V8 F body 8 1/4's that I've had were 2.45.
Hmmm... thats what i was gathering from the above posts. That would explain the killer mileage i got in that car... i didn't know a 360 could get that kind ov mileage. It wasn't exactly slow off the line either. It really picked up after 30, but off the line i wasn't unimpressed for a bone stock grampa car...
I actually won a couple road races in that car. All i did was lower it with 255/50/VR 15 tires. It had legs... . . .
Did the 360 have a 904 or 727? Whatever the new equivalents (999 or 998) are. The newer 904 variants had the lower first gear just to match up with the highway gears.
I have a 1982 Imperial with the anemic 140 hp efi 318 and 2.24 rear. It isn't too bad off the line because of the lower first gear. It ran great on the highway and could get some crazy mileage 24-26 mpg straight highway. It got about 17-18 mixed and that is in NYC rush hour.
I am 99% positive it was a 727. That car was untouched and bone-stock... everything was HD in it. It was a special order car (i bought it from the first owners grandson) and the guy wanted the fastest Mopar car possible in 1978.
I'll say this though... the 70 Challenger project is a go, and after driving a 96 Mustang GT 5spd for the last 4 years and the memories ov that Volare, plus ideas from this thread, the car is getting 2.76 gears in the 8 3/4". I wish i could get higher gears... something around 2.5 for the 8 3/4". At least till i can afford a REAL OD 5 or 6 speed (read: no time soon).
My goal is simple, while fast and stupid powerful is fun (and i have the parts handy to do that) i will drive it more if it gets better mileage. I need to cut down my fleet/clean out my driveway, build or buy a commuter DD, and do SOMETHING with this poor Challenger after sitting 12 years. I'm gonna kill as many birds with one stone as i can. Its light enough it'll still be plenty fast.
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: Pale_Roader]
#1058404
08/28/11 10:12 AM
08/28/11 10:12 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,151
Cruising!
QuickDodge
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,151
Cruising!
|
Running a 3.55 rear axle gear with a 500 or 518 automatic transmissions will give an overall ratio just under 2.5, so you get the performance advantage of a 3.55 and the economy of a 2.45 axle. It's the best of both worlds! (running an 833OD 4 speed will yield a similar result)
Personally, I'd run the 500 trans if it's strong enough for your intended use. (It's based off the 904) These had lock-up converters and they had the lower first gear ratio. With the lower first gear ratio, I'd run a 2.92 or 3.23 instead of a 3.55 gear.
Last edited by QuickDodge; 08/28/11 10:14 AM.
|
|
|
Re: lowest reasonable highway rpm for a 440?
[Re: TC@HP2]
#1058405
09/05/11 10:46 AM
09/05/11 10:46 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 619
nj
JAMESDART
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 619
nj
|
i started to read some, but couldnt make it through all the posts.  my car is probably around 3500 but i dont think a few hundred lbs will make a huge difference. i am running 3.73s and a t56 with .5 od. as long as i keep it above 1,000 rpm its fine. it will hold speed up hills and still be able to accelerate. 65 mph is around 1500, 80 1900 rpm. it really likes 65 mph. plenty of people said rpm that low wouldnt work. right now im running a holley 3310 and i think the secondaries open somewhere between 75-80 and mpg is cut in half. i just figured that out when i took it to work the other night. i kept a small cam thinking i wanted to keep some good torque down low, and its not a strip car. i built it for road trips. took it to the power tour kickoff this year and i got 19 mpg every tank on the highway just 2 weeks after i did the bb and t56 swap, with wife and kid packed up and the trunk packed full of junk. 3,000 mile round trip. the mill is a smogger 400 with fresh rings, bearings, the small summit cam, older rebuit 906 heads shim head gaskets, 383 steel crank balanced for the 400 headers and a performer intake. its pretty much just a stock engine. this was a temporary mill as i wasnt sure how it was going to behave with the .5 od. i didnt want to spend a lot of cash and still have to make changes. i think higher compression would only help along with more cubes. eventually id like to build a 451 for it. ill probably stick with a small cam, i like how tame it sounds.
|
|
|
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}