|
Re: SB Head Choices
[Re: razoreyes45k]
#1332195
11/08/12 12:25 PM
11/08/12 12:25 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 25
Texas, USA
razoreyes45k
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 25
Texas, USA
|
I should have been more specific but these are my basic parameters: 1. Aluminum 2. Must be capable of flowing enough cfm to support 422 ci (idealy more than 270 cfm after porting)and accomodate a 2.100" Int. valve w/o shrouding. 3. Reliance on stock-style valve-train design. *** I've ruled out W2's because the engine will be used in either a truck or a van (W2 headers are not designed for use in a VAN/TRUCK. All other Mopar W-Series heads are not considered for similar reasons as stated above. I realize that with the right machining, anything is possible; only, the basic head must provide the foundation to perform the required work to reach these goals.*** {BTW, the 2.100" Intake valve is a recommendation for engines larger than 420 ci and is also supported by the Reher Morrison belief that (52%)(Bore)= Minimum Intake Valve Size. In this case the minimum Intake valve size is 2.132"}. At this point,cost is second in priority to performance. 
Last edited by razoreyes45k; 11/08/12 12:38 PM.
|
|
|
Re: SB Head Choices
[Re: razoreyes45k]
#1332197
11/08/12 03:13 PM
11/08/12 03:13 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,453
So Cal
autoxcuda
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,453
So Cal
|
Quote:
I should have been more specific but these are my basic parameters:
1. Aluminum
2. Must be capable of flowing enough cfm to support 422 ci (idealy more than 270 cfm after porting)and accomodate a 2.100" Int. valve w/o shrouding.
3. Reliance on stock-style valve-train design.
*** I've ruled out W2's because the engine will be used in either a truck or a van (W2 headers are not designed for use in a VAN/TRUCK. All other Mopar W-Series heads are not considered for similar reasons as stated above. I realize that with the right machining, anything is possible; only, the basic head must provide the foundation to perform the required work to reach these goals.***
{BTW, the 2.100" Intake valve is a recommendation for engines larger than 420 ci and is also supported by the Reher Morrison belief that (52%)(Bore)= Minimum Intake Valve Size. In this case the minimum Intake valve size is 2.132"}.
At this point,cost is second in priority to performance.
What is the performance you are looking to achieve?
What are your personal expectations and requirements for a "street driven" car?
|
|
|
Re: SB Head Choices
[Re: autoxcuda]
#1332198
11/09/12 02:39 AM
11/09/12 02:39 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 25
Texas, USA
razoreyes45k
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 25
Texas, USA
|
The short block is currently being amassed, but it will have all new 4340 internals with Diamond forged flat tops and Total Seal Gapless Rings. I'm pausing with cam selection because people have said they have used Roller Cams in A (Pre-Magnum)engines. To my knowledge, a roller lifter link-bar will not clear the block due to the A engine's 59* lifter angle. Although the magazines have published stories claiming the marriage of this combination, I have yet to see close-up pictures and hear explanations regarding the modifications involved to create this. Assuming that much effort is required to fit the link-bars, and not knowing that other people have successfully acconplished this themselves without tapping into water-jackets, I'm inclined at the present to investigate a Hughes Solid Flat-Tappet, slightly longer in duration and under .550 lift using the Chrysler 1.5 RR, suitable with Power Brakes. The '73 340 block has been sonic-checked and magnafluxed,line-honed,torque-plate honed using 520 finishing stones and the bolts are new MP factory replacements. Surfacing the deck will most likely have no more than .010" taken off. CR is aimed around 10:1 to run pump gas and I'm planning to have a few thousandths Compression Distance to accomodate a closed-chamber cylinder head measuring anywhere between 63cc and 70 cc. Elsewhere, the oiling system will be modified to flow through the lifters/pushrods. A bigger pan, HV pump, 360* fully-grooved main bearings, Big bottom-feed style pickup and other related mods to safeguard better than OEM oil distribution. So far, I'd say this will be a solid short-block. I don't know how this engine by design will stand up to the occasional rigors of abuse, but I'm hoping my machining and choice of parts will allow the engine to run a solid 120,000 - 150,000 mainly street-driven miles before it expires. Depending on choice of Head and Cam, 520-550 Gross HP would be a hopefull estimate for such a build. 
|
|
|
Re: SB Head Choices
[Re: 70AARcuda]
#1332199
11/09/12 03:32 AM
11/09/12 03:32 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 25
Texas, USA
razoreyes45k
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 25
Texas, USA
|
Thank you for posting. I watched the Youtube video and even found another thread from your post highlighting a 620 HP build using Roller lifters on the A Engine. I remember seeing these Airwolf heads advertised through MCG a while back. I attempted an on-line search for information about them but came up mostly empty-handed. The dyno-sheet is very impressive for sure. Is there a website with dealer information or even Flow Bench Data and close-up images of these heads ? 
|
|
|
Re: SB Head Choices
[Re: 70AARcuda]
#1332201
11/09/12 09:33 AM
11/09/12 09:33 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 21,345
Marysville, O-H-I-O
70Cuda383
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 21,345
Marysville, O-H-I-O
|
If you're not going to use any of the "W" heads, then I'd look at Eddy RPM Magnum heads. in the hands of the right porter, they can flow 300 CFM
**Photobucket sucks**
|
|
|
Re: SB Head Choices
[Re: razoreyes45k]
#1332202
11/09/12 10:54 AM
11/09/12 10:54 AM
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 13,185
aZLiViN
J_BODY
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 13,185
aZLiViN
|
Quote:
Thank you for posting. I watched the Youtube video and even found another thread from your post highlighting a 620 HP build using Roller lifters on the A Engine.
I remember seeing these Airwolf heads advertised through MCG a while back. I attempted an on-line search for information about them but came up mostly empty-handed.
The dyno-sheet is very impressive for sure. Is there a website with dealer information or even Flow Bench Data and close-up images of these heads ?
Brian at IMM hooked us up with our roller lifters for our stock block. He's a member here (OU812)
Did you not open the link Tony (AARCuda) posted? Lots of info there from as Airwolf was answering question about the heads right in that thread.
|
|
|
Re: SB Head Choices
[Re: razoreyes45k]
#1332203
11/09/12 11:29 AM
11/09/12 11:29 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,179
Atco NJ
DJVCuda
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,179
Atco NJ
|
Quote:
The short block is currently being amassed, but it will have all new 4340 internals with Diamond forged flat tops and Total Seal Gapless Rings.
I'm pausing with cam selection because people have said they have used Roller Cams in A (Pre-Magnum)engines. To my knowledge, a roller lifter link-bar will not clear the block due to the A engine's 59* lifter angle. Although the magazines have published stories claiming the marriage of this combination, I have yet to see close-up pictures and hear explanations regarding the modifications involved to create this. Assuming that much effort is required to fit the link-bars, and not knowing that other people have successfully acconplished this themselves without tapping into water-jackets, I'm inclined at the present to investigate a Hughes Solid Flat-Tappet, slightly longer in duration and under .550 lift using the Chrysler 1.5 RR, suitable with Power Brakes.
The '73 340 block has been sonic-checked and magnafluxed,line-honed,torque-plate honed using 520 finishing stones and the bolts are new MP factory replacements. Surfacing the deck will most likely have no more than .010" taken off. CR is aimed around 10:1 to run pump gas and I'm planning to have a few thousandths Compression Distance to accomodate a closed-chamber cylinder head measuring anywhere between 63cc and 70 cc.
Elsewhere, the oiling system will be modified to flow through the lifters/pushrods. A bigger pan, HV pump, 360* fully-grooved main bearings, Big bottom-feed style pickup and other related mods to safeguard better than OEM oil distribution.
So far, I'd say this will be a solid short-block. I don't know how this engine by design will stand up to the occasional rigors of abuse, but I'm hoping my machining and choice of parts will allow the engine to run a solid 120,000 - 150,000 mainly street-driven miles before it expires.
Depending on choice of Head and Cam, 520-550 Gross HP
would be a hopefull estimate for such a build.
My build has the roller lifters that drop in - and several head tests.
the biggest thing I would change with your motor would be to tube the lifters for solid and to stud the mains.
430 Build 
|
|
|
Re: SB Head Choices
[Re: DJVCuda]
#1332207
11/09/12 12:35 PM
11/09/12 12:35 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,179
Atco NJ
DJVCuda
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,179
Atco NJ
|
Quote:
VALVE / BORE Ratio
The valve to bore ratio should be:
52-52.5% of the bore for Wedge heads.
53-53.5% for Canted valve, rotated canted valve (Mopar P/S hemi) and true Hemi.
If you decrease intake exhaust ratio down to 70-71% you can move both intake and
exhaust valves over to the exhaust side and increase intake valve size by .5-1%.
Anytime you increase valve size over the above stated Valve/Bore ratio you will see
a small gain in CFM but the discharge coefficient drops and takes your power with it.
An over shrouded valve instills a host of nasty scenario's, the two worst being
decreased discharge coefficient and increased reversion below and above intake
tuned power band.
(according to Darin Morgan)
|
|
|
Re: SB Head Choices
[Re: DJVCuda]
#1332208
11/09/12 12:36 PM
11/09/12 12:36 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 25
Texas, USA
razoreyes45k
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 25
Texas, USA
|
Were your engines dynoed that way on the chasis and/or engine dynomometer ? My engine combo falls inline with your reference and I plan to keep the 1.60 Exhaust size. Yes on the shrouding and I believe the Sunnen VGS-20 will do an adequate job here clearing metal away. Were your heads ported by hand or CNC? Who did your valve-job, did you stick to a 45* seat and 30* Back-cut? There are many determining factors to gain HP and I consider many things involved in both Bottom and Top-end as contributors. The size of the valve may or may not be the most important factor to power but since it is in direct contact to flow, I believe in this case, "size matters" along with the diameter of the valve stem, quality of the valve job and even weight of the valve. Does this all matter in building a hot-rod engine? Maybe or marbe not but if I do find myself at 1/4 mile track and test the limits of this engine, every decision I make now will show itself on the track. 
Last edited by razoreyes45k; 11/09/12 01:02 PM.
|
|
|
Re: SB Head Choices
[Re: razoreyes45k]
#1332210
11/09/12 12:51 PM
11/09/12 12:51 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,826
NY usa
540challenger
master
|
master
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,826
NY usa
|
Quote:
I have more faith in the A Engine Rocker Stands over the Magnum style Rocker Pedestals. I am aware that the Magnum RT (cast)heads flow more air than any other OEM head, consequently making the Eddy Aluminum versions a great buy, but I don't think the Eddy's would accept even a 2.080" Intake valve. I'm looking to use a 2.100" for my 422. Indy used to market the 360-1 that would have made a great choice for strokers. Currently though, 360-1 heads aren't offered new and there is more negative publicity surrounding Indy, discouraging me from considering them as a option. I'm also looking to what HughesEngines has to offer.
The eddy magnum heads use a chevy style rocker not the factory magnum type they are a little different.
|
|
|
Re: SB Head Choices
[Re: 540challenger]
#1332211
11/09/12 12:58 PM
11/09/12 12:58 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 21,345
Marysville, O-H-I-O
70Cuda383
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 21,345
Marysville, O-H-I-O
|
Small block Eddy RPM Magnum heads with "chevy" style rocker arms, and pushrod guide plates. I don't see anything wrong with this combo, but I'll caveot that statement by saying I don't have any experience with .700" lift cams, or super high valve spring pressures... 
**Photobucket sucks**
|
|
|
Re: SB Head Choices
[Re: 540challenger]
#1332212
11/09/12 01:21 PM
11/09/12 01:21 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 25
Texas, USA
razoreyes45k
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 25
Texas, USA
|
You're right about the valve-train setup. I read the article how SAM did a 414 buildup a few years ago using the same heads you mention. The combo worked out great. But here's where I differ: Where SAM opened up the Intake Ports from 176 cc to 190cc, I look to have at least 200cc for my 422. The factory and the Eddy replacement street heads all share the same (cursed) pushrod-pinch that hinders CSA. I don't want that even if it can be sleeved with brass tubes. If I'm going to spend money on NEW aluminum castings, they're going to be better than what the factory offered. I'm also looking at the Eddy Victor and Brodix B1BA Heads as a comparison. Thanks for the nice pic too. 
Last edited by razoreyes45k; 11/09/12 01:40 PM.
|
|
|
Re: SB Head Choices
[Re: razoreyes45k]
#1332215
11/09/12 02:02 PM
11/09/12 02:02 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,271
Overpriced Housing Central
RobX4406
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,271
Overpriced Housing Central
|
For the 520-550HP range you DO NOT need anything exotic. 2.10 intake valve... waste of time! Throw that max hp theory out the window, you aren't playing on that field with your HP goal. A 2.02-2.05-2.08 will feed it fine. Make sure the port is capable. Don't get caught up in a "theory" build, it will likely be a mess and cost you more money than it should. Talk to the guy that built the car craft 620hp stroker, IMM. He can sift through the static to get you something that will run well.
|
|
|
Re: SB Head Choices
[Re: RobX4406]
#1332216
11/09/12 02:13 PM
11/09/12 02:13 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 25
Texas, USA
razoreyes45k
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 25
Texas, USA
|
Thanks for your opinion and testimony. How's your stroker motor working for you ?  BTW, all this tech talk boils down to one thing in my book: Other people may be happy with their engine combos but if a engine builder tells me that using a 2.100" Intake valve for my 422 will be better, I'll use his idea. What I never want to see is the tail-end of a Chevy or Ford after I cross 1,320 ft. 520-550 HP was just an estimate, not a goal. And even if my Mopar loses, the other guy's motor better be on the verge of explosion. Yes, I agree with straight ports, radiusing corners and valve guides,a bowl blend and a good 3 angle valve job too. 
Last edited by razoreyes45k; 11/09/12 02:38 PM.
|
|
|
Re: SB Head Choices
[Re: razoreyes45k]
#1332217
11/09/12 02:34 PM
11/09/12 02:34 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 21,345
Marysville, O-H-I-O
70Cuda383
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 21,345
Marysville, O-H-I-O
|
a lot of the guys on this forum ARE engine builders, professional engine builders who do "max effort, budget is no concern" builds...so don't be so quick to dismiss them and take the word of your local guy as gospel.
who IS your local guy anyway? what are his credentials?
No offense, but you seem to contradict yourself... you say that this is an all out, money is no concern, max hp build...then state that you're only after a mild 500-550 hp.
Box stock edelbrock heads are nearly good enough to get you there for $1500. spend another $500 on porting, and you've got a set of heads that will EASILY make 600 hp., why spend all the time and money worrying about maximum size valves on exotic heads when your hp goals aren't all that high?
are you using an R3 type block? or a stock production block?
**Photobucket sucks**
|
|
|
Re: SB Head Choices
[Re: 70Cuda383]
#1332218
11/09/12 02:57 PM
11/09/12 02:57 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 25
Texas, USA
razoreyes45k
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 25
Texas, USA
|
Whhooowww ......... Hold -on to your hat, Cowboy. You don't have to get emotional here. The election is over and Obamanation will unfortunately continue for now. Politics and emotions aside, I did not say that this is an "all out" motor. If I did, I wouldn't even bother with a production block. K? Since you ask who my "engine man" is, I have none. But if you ask who I listen to, they are: 1. Judd Massinghill 2. Steve Vance 3. Chris Bennett 4. Shawn Hooper 5. Chris Myers 6. John Witt Their credentials? Winners of the 2012 Engine Masters Challenge I started this thread because my build-up stage is still a ways away from the purchase of a set of heads and I'm using the internet to research, fact-find and consult with experienced owners on the best combination of parts and techniques to assemble my project. Nowhere have I berated or demeaned anyone's intelligence or have said that anyone is wrong. If you feel offended, I'm not to blame. I habitually thank people for their input and research claims as throughly as I can. What's wrong with the Eddy's you ask ? I don't know but they don't seem to advocate an Intake valve larger than 2.020". Not saying that it's a bad head, no. Just stating that the stroker motors can handle more according to some experts, namely: Reher Morrison for one. Relax bud. 
Last edited by razoreyes45k; 11/09/12 03:21 PM.
|
|
|
Re: SB Head Choices
[Re: razoreyes45k]
#1332219
11/09/12 03:18 PM
11/09/12 03:18 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,271
Overpriced Housing Central
RobX4406
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,271
Overpriced Housing Central
|
Look at DJV's build 2.055 valve and 620hp, Brian 2.08/620hp, Bryce 2.08/630hp.
Still think you need a 2.10 valve?
All have a little different twist to them, but get good power. Would a 2.10 valve be better, I personally doubt it for the level they were going after. Sometimes bigger is not always better as issues arise up stream from the valve that can't effectively be overcome.
Eddy's can take a 2.02-2.08 valve. Most of the aftermarket alum replacement style heads start with a 2.02. It's an OEM factory sizing.
Just food for thought.
It's ultimately up to you and how you spend your money. Like I say, NOBODY will spend your money faster than OTHER people!
My suggestion, pick an HP goal and build to the goal. Max theory sizing is not always necessary and not worth time, money, effort when an easier, less expensive solution is available and proven to work for your goal.
Pick your parts, pay your money.
|
|
|
Re: SB Head Choices
[Re: RobX4406]
#1332220
11/09/12 03:38 PM
11/09/12 03:38 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 25
Texas, USA
razoreyes45k
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 25
Texas, USA
|
Points well made and worth investigating. I did read the Carcraft 620 HP article. Those were Eddy heads but I was adressing another post who was advocating the use of "Airwolf 220" heads who promote that they perform very well. My research affirms your basic claim to the effectiveness of Edelbrock Performers and there's no argument there. I just want to hear from a variety of owners who used different brands. A fair asessment is only logical and is always good for research and recording data. Thank you
Last edited by razoreyes45k; 11/09/12 03:49 PM.
|
|
|
Re: SB Head Choices
[Re: razoreyes45k]
#1332221
11/09/12 07:09 PM
11/09/12 07:09 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 21,345
Marysville, O-H-I-O
70Cuda383
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 21,345
Marysville, O-H-I-O
|
I am relaxed  I wasn't all emotional in my post. All I was saying was that it sounded like you were being quick to dismiss "a bunch of random forum guys" over your engine builder, and I was simply pointing out that the folks on Mopars are not exactly "a bunch of random forum guys who read an article in car craft" I'm also pointing out that your logic isn't making sense. you talk about a maximum sized valve based on some equation in relation to bore size, going for maximum air flow, in what sounds like an all out max power build, but then you turn around and say you're only shooting for a mild 500-550 hp for a street engine. As it's been said, it's your money. you can spend it however you want. If I was building a 340 based stroker, and I wanted a goal of 550 hp...My wallet is also going to have a say in that. I would use a production block, just as you, because it can easily handle the goal of 550. a full on race block is a waste of money for those power goals...but if you got money to blow, why not go with one, right? My head choice, would be mildly ported edelbrock heads or fully ported iron heads like the 2.02 R/T Magnum heads, either option would set me back about $2,000 Or, I could go with some crazy exotic fully CNC'd custom head because again, that would easily deliver 550 hp. see what I'm trying to say? your desire for a 2.100 valve is simply overkill and wasted money for the power level you want. there's a difference between "all out, money is no option, maximum performance" and "being smart with your money and spending only what you need to" At the end of the day, it's your money. Not mine. you can do as you wish! it's a free country!
**Photobucket sucks**
|
|
|
Re: SB Head Choices
[Re: 70Cuda383]
#1332222
11/09/12 10:42 PM
11/09/12 10:42 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 25
Texas, USA
razoreyes45k
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 25
Texas, USA
|
I read your postings and understood you. Maybe you didn't understand me when I mentioned that I was "researching". I get the impression that you are quick to defend your point of view judging by the defensive tone. This is a discussion, whether we are on-line or speaking person to person. Your intention to give me your opinion comes across like you are telling me what to do based on your words "if it were me", "you contradict yourself" etc. Your tone is more commanding than it is inquisitive, thoughtfull and even respectfull which doesn't encourage me to engage you in discusion.
I am a learner, and in the industry of motorsports competition, one only knows the limits through past triumphs and failures. The guy that wants to know more will eventually find his answer through honesty and a sense of bravery to journey into the unknown, and at the same time, remembering what has worked and what has failed.
I desire not to confine my thinking to what is "acceptable" in most peoples' minds because I know that what is already proven is documented by winners who have already failed thrrough trial and error and have learned from their mistakes and gone on to win. It's this way of thinking that advances ideas to create new limits and henceforth, pushes the "status quo" of the current generation to rethink what is beyond.
I don't know if my thoughts relate to your understanding, and that's fine if you disagree with my point of view. But don't accuse me of being misunderstandale or contradictive when I have initially laid out my interests to be known.
If you don't want to read my earlier posts and continue not understanding the nature of my question, then that's a stumbling block that you bring upon yourself. Don't expect me to engage in discussion with you in the future if you plan to approach me in the same condescending manner which you have already done, because I will not respond to you not out of spite but because of a lack of respect you bring to the discussion. And no legth of time of "knowledge" can change the fact that what keeps people together is mutual respect which you seem not to portray.
Please don't respond to me if you feel you have to have the "last word" to prove yourself. I have no interest to waste my thoughts and time in an argument when I can be learning something. If you do come back and engage in jeer, then your reputation will be solidified with me and the rest of the members here who value rational discussion. You will only be hurting yourself.
Last edited by razoreyes45k; 11/09/12 10:43 PM.
|
|
|
Re: SB Head Choices
[Re: 70Cuda383]
#1332227
11/11/12 02:53 AM
11/11/12 02:53 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,495
Oregon City, OR
Baxter61
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,495
Oregon City, OR
|
Quote:
you've completely misunderstood me in one of my posts, and now seem to have a preconceived notion on my attitude or tone. I'm not being condescending, argumentative, or commanding.
Have a nice day!
Ok, now it sounds like you need a chill pill, take two and repost in the morning.  
|
|
|
Re: SB Head Choices
[Re: razoreyes45k]
#1332228
11/11/12 03:31 AM
11/11/12 03:31 AM
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,271
Overpriced Housing Central
RobX4406
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,271
Overpriced Housing Central
|
Quote:
I followed the link to the Dr. J website. The SBC 220 uses the Brodix head as foundation. The SBM 220 doesn't indicate the same. Who casts the SBM 220 ?
The sb chrysler head is a pro comp casting
|
|
|
Re: SB Head Choices
[Re: dezduster]
#1332229
11/11/12 04:00 AM
11/11/12 04:00 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 25
Texas, USA
razoreyes45k
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 25
Texas, USA
|
I hear what you're saying and it's pretty relative. When I said I planned to use this 422 in a van/truck, it will either be a (SWB Tradesman or SWB D100, both being early 1970's models). The van weighs in at 3,500 lbs. and the truck maybe around 200 lbs. less. Weight aside, the comparison is about equal to an A or E Body.
When you speak of Torque, I understand what you're saying. Torque is our friend especially in street driven vehicles. Proportionately, as TQ goes up, so does HP. When I mentioned that I envisioned the engine lasting 120k-150k miles, it was just a prediction based on the hone-job and the driving style I have. The block is already bored to it's limit, so I know there will not be another rebuild when it expires. If the heads move air and the short block can handle the load, the choice of cam plays a major role in both HP and TQ depending on the type of grind.
Thanks to another poster here, I discovered that it is possible to use a roller cam in Pre-Magnum A engines. The roller will be miles ahead of the flat-tappet in performance. Ramp speed, duration, lift, and overlap will all improve making cam selection less prohibitive especially when deciding on a cam that covers a wide range of characteristics that are good both for low and top end,idle and even fuel consumption. But I ramble. I'm looking for images with 2.08/1.60
combo to see how close the valves are.
Thanks for your input.
|
|
|
Re: SB Head Choices
[Re: DJVCuda]
#1332234
11/16/12 02:55 AM
11/16/12 02:55 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,025
Las Vegas, NV
dodgeboy11
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,025
Las Vegas, NV
|
Last machine shop I worked at I had the pleasure of building a stroked 360 with some oval port indy heads I ported. Forged scat crank, scat I-beam rods (the cheap ones) and KB flat top pistons at zero deck. I did a moderate port job on the heads and I remember peak flow being 327 cfm @.650". I remember that number because I achieved it on my first try and was a bit upset due to the fact that I spent a week on one port of my RPM LA heads with 2.080" intake valve and a 5/16" stem and managed 317 cfm @.700". Guess when you start with a better design, everything comes easier. But I'm getting off topic. That 408 with the indy heads had a hydraulic erson roller cam and those crap indy rocker arms. I was not pleased with the pushrod angularity because the pushrod seat in the lifter is very high on the hydraulic roller lifters. None the less, this engine produced 575 hp @ about 6200 rpm. It would spin to 6500, but the valvetrain would not support it and power dropped off significantly. Intake was a matching indy single plane, also ported by yours truly. Keep in mind, this was 11.5:1 CR. Maybe not the most ideal for a daily driver. I cannot remember the specifications on the cam, but I want to say it was 258, 266 @ .050" with a 108 lsa and .375" lobe lift. I'm sure I'm not absolutely correct on the specifications, but I know I'm in the ball park.
Block was studded on the mains. It really needed a solid roller and some T&D rocker arms. Ah well, I wasn't the one to put the parts list together, I just worked with what I was given, minus the indy pushrods. Threw them in the trash and ordered Smith Bros...
|
|
|
Re: SB Head Choices
[Re: 69Cuda340S]
#1332236
11/25/12 07:40 AM
11/25/12 07:40 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 25
Texas, USA
razoreyes45k
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 25
Texas, USA
|
Quote:
You can send him a PM here his user name is RyanJ. You can also PM Brian from IMM user name ou812 he can also set you up with what you need including some ARP main studs...
Thanks again for the referral. As I finish mocking up the short-block, I'll contact Ryan for further consultation.
|
|
|
Re: SB Head Choices
[Re: dodgeboy11]
#1332237
11/25/12 08:13 AM
11/25/12 08:13 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 25
Texas, USA
razoreyes45k
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 25
Texas, USA
|
Quote:
Last machine shop I worked at I had the pleasure of building a stroked 360 with some oval port indy heads I ported. Forged scat crank, scat I-beam rods (the cheap ones) and KB flat top pistons at zero deck. I did a moderate port job on the heads and I remember peak flow being 327 cfm @.650". I remember that number because I achieved it on my first try and was a bit upset due to the fact that I spent a week on one port of my RPM LA heads with 2.080" intake valve and a 5/16" stem and managed 317 cfm @.700". Guess when you start with a better design, everything comes easier. But I'm getting off topic. That 408 with the indy heads had a hydraulic erson roller cam and those crap indy rocker arms. I was not pleased with the pushrod angularity because the pushrod seat in the lifter is very high on the hydraulic roller lifters. None the less, this engine produced 575 hp @ about 6200 rpm. It would spin to 6500, but the valvetrain would not support it and power dropped off significantly. Intake was a matching indy single plane, also ported by yours truly. Keep in mind, this was 11.5:1 CR. Maybe not the most ideal for a daily driver. I cannot remember the specifications on the cam, but I want to say it was 258, 266 @ .050" with a 108 lsa and .375" lobe lift. I'm sure I'm not absolutely correct on the specifications, but I know I'm in the ball park.
Block was studded on the mains. It really needed a solid roller and some T&D rocker arms. Ah well, I wasn't the one to put the parts list together, I just worked with what I was given, minus the indy pushrods. Threw them in the trash and ordered Smith Bros...
Wow, those are very impressive flow numbers (to me).
Push-rod pinch area: Do you find that porting through this obstruction, then installing brass sleeves makes less air-restriction, and is it worth doing considering cost/performance ?
Roller/Lifters: Which ones did you use? Would using a differnt roller lifter offer a better result considering the 59* lifter angle?
Intake Manifold: How did your single plane behave in the lower RPM's ?
|
|
|
|
|
