Unrelated from the power discussion, I have to commend you, that is an absolutely beautiful '68. It could have a /6 in there and you should still be proud of that thing!

That would be VERY Impressive vs my E55 AMG which is a supercharged 5.5 liter making 500 hp and pushes my 4200 lb car to only 12.3's and only gets 24 mpg at 70 mph ave speed.

Maybe technology went the wrong way?

Now for the numbers from my engine which seem to have stirred up a lot of conversation.
I am including the numbers from 2000 RPM to 5500, although I shift at 5000 due to the heavy hydraulic roller lifters and light valve springs and try to avoid any valve float.
............... HP TQ
RPM 2000 229 602
RPM 2500 288 606
RPM 3000 348 609
RPM 3500 403 605
RPM 4000 453 594
RPM 4500 499 569
RPM 5000 502 527
RPM 5500 496 474

Vic good looking car... are you worried at all that the thing doesn't make hardly any extra power over 4500? Seems like you are leaving a TON of power on the table there. The cam specs should pull pretty good to about 5800. You might want to address the weak valve springs, if you think that is causing the issue. My cam isn't much bigger and mine junk pulls to 6200 pretty hard. I doubt the torque numbers would change but you'd get more HP and more top end....

He stated in his post that the numbers for his engine were from Desktop Dyno. He wont have the other info Mr. P

Keith

---

I thought he did his preliminary work with the desk top
then had it dynoed

Sounds like he is quoting a chassis dyno. He says the torque # could be skewed because of his converter which certainly makes sense.

Was the 496 done on the same dyno? Same heads cam and intake with 40 odd more cubes should make the same numbers, just at a lower RPM. A different dyno might explain the discrepancy.

Oh and that Charger is gorgeous.

Kevin

Hi torque at low rpms is what the auto industry tries to make. And the recipe is long tubes manifold with FI,and free flowing exhaust tuned if possible to low rpms. Good flowing heads make up for the modest cam in the upper rpms.
It is much easier for a hobbyist to achieve the high torque in somewhat higher rpms, as ram tuning then does not demand insanely long tubes, and commercial headers are on the spot. This is what makes me wonder how the 600 lbs can be achieved with the described combination at those low rpms. (And do not forget: 500++ lbs down below will also kick butt!!) Is the 2-barrel intake path in the 6-p setup so efficient? This is not criticism, but I am not sure if it is correct. Please allow me to make such a comment, as I struggle for the best results myself (knowing how hard it is to hit correctly), and I am always interested in new-thinking. Maybe the desktop dyno has a black spot down low rpms (like calculating high VE due to "ram tuning")?
And, I would really like to get some tips, as I live in a dark side of the world with pumped up gas taxes, and heavily taxed modern cars (but not the old ones!) so making engines this way is somewhat of a target. If, for nothing else, to feel the torque and hear the sweet V8 rumbling.... And, I have been working with Mopars since 1973, but I am not an "expert" (LOL)

Yes, the numbers I used for my own engine do come from Desk Top Dyno, BUT, I have been using this tool for over 12 years in engine design work and know that if you feed it the truth, it tells you the truth within a couple of percentage

Hence my statement that the OP doesn't have other dyno info for his engine,Mr.P
Keith

Nice car. The Desktop Dyno numbers seem high? What inputs are you using? Is the cam installed more advanced than 106 degrees?
When I put the cam, compression, head flow, etc.. info into Dynomation5 simulator (wave action), I get these numbers:
RPM HP TQ
1000 80 418
1200 95 414
1400 112 419
1600 128 421
1800 146 427
2000 169 444
2200 194 464
2400 220 482
2600 246 498
2800 272 511
3000 292 511
3200 308 506
3400 331 511
3600 364 531
3800 402 555
4000 437 574
4200 469 586
4400 494 590 PK TQ
4600 513 586
4800 528 578
5000 540 568
5200 547 553
5400 550 535
5600 550 516
5800 551 499
6000 552 489 PK HP
6200 552 483
6400 546 448
6600 529 421
6800 509 393
7000 482 362

That is a great looking car!

Desk top dyno

Sounds like a great build. My question, what cam could I get that will produce close numbers with same combo but low 9-1 comp. Don't want a roller just hyd.

Not what I wanted to hear so i'll go with higher compression and roller cam, thanks

Interesting numbers, My 9-1 engine wouldn't pull past 5000,mildly ported 452s 900 carb 36 degrees 509 hyd. Gotta be the cam I guess. Ran 7.50 in eight, big 64 savoy, 14/32s TA 3800 vert ,ladder bars. Always figured it was a comp. problem. I Run 93 pump gas.

Camshaft and cylinder heads were the reason it did as well as it did. The 452 heads were flowing in excess of 290 cfm. Later, with 906 heads and the same compression, it was making 694 HP. Both configurations were running on 91 octane. Would it make more with higher compression? Sure!

Oldguy aren't you worried that it doesn't pull above 5k? That cam should work well over 5k. Seems you are leaving a ton of hourses on th etable. why don't you fix the vavle springs. Your MPGs will not go down but your et's sure will.