|
Re: 587 HP 360
[Re: mshred]
#1361957
01/03/13 07:54 AM
01/03/13 07:54 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 429
Washington
skrews
OP
mopar
|
OP
mopar
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 429
Washington
|
Quote:
Awesome of you to share your combo and listen to the criticism on it! definitely helps guys like me learn something hearing all the different perspectives on how to cut the cake
I will say though that I still think your car runs HARD for what it is, regardless of whether or not there is the opinion it leaves something on the table...Thats only 10:1 compression and 365ci in a 3400lb car going high tens!!! I love it 
I figured it would be cool to share my build too don't see many like it, but I guess you gotta have thick skin to post up anything on this site  . Guess that will teach me to share anything around here.  You encounter all sorts on the internet, some with logical objective input to complete hacks and every thing in between. I wanted to get my street car in the tens with a stock stroke motor on pump gas, and I did. Not the usual 4" crank, W series headed cookie cutter motor that everyone does these days (although I can't deny its the better way to go). I'm sure this motor would run mid to lower 10s in a better chassis, but in my car it does what it does. Doesn't mean the motor isn't making the power, just means the motor is a poor fit to the chassis.
|
|
|
Re: 587 HP 360
[Re: skrews]
#1361958
01/03/13 10:51 AM
01/03/13 10:51 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,160
Texas
dannysbee
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,160
Texas
|
It's all in the presentation. If you had posted it as a stock stroke 10 second 3400 lb street car you would have been recieved in a whole different light. But the claim of 587 hp and running high 10's at 122 in a 3400 car unfortunitly is contradiction that invites this type of post on the Internet. Does your car run good for what it is absolutely. Does it have room for improvement, most new combinations do. At least you got some input for possible improvement in your performance.
Getting old just means you were smarter than some and luckier than others.
|
|
|
Re: 587 HP 360
[Re: dannysbee]
#1361959
01/03/13 10:59 AM
01/03/13 10:59 AM
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,210
robin hood country
deaks
master
|
master
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,210
robin hood country
|
As long as the advice is constructive, you can only move forward. With tinkering, small mods and some good advice from here, my car has gone from mid 10's to the time in my sig. I estimate my car to be close to your hp figure. Mick
69 Dart GTS 440 mopar .590 cam, Edelbrock heads, 3200#
best et 6.45, 106.78, 10.14, 132.88 mph, 1.47 60ft
best 60ft 1.36
|
|
|
Re: 587 HP 360
[Re: skrews]
#1361960
01/03/13 11:09 AM
01/03/13 11:09 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 11,684
W. Kentucky
justinp61
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 11,684
W. Kentucky
|
Quote:
some with logical objective input to complete hacks and every thing in between.
That pretty much suns this place up  . Hard runing 360, keep at it, I like many others are sure theres more in it.
|
|
|
Re: 587 HP 360
[Re: dannysbee]
#1361961
01/03/13 11:12 AM
01/03/13 11:12 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,160
Texas
dannysbee
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,160
Texas
|
The idea run for a car with 122 trap will be 1.51 60' and 10.86. You are real close to thar mark right now. That tells me your converter is in the ball park for the power you are making. I would make sure my fuel system was up to snuff as that would kill the mph. What are your 660' numbers?
Getting old just means you were smarter than some and luckier than others.
|
|
|
Re: 587 HP 360
[Re: dannysbee]
#1361962
01/03/13 12:12 PM
01/03/13 12:12 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,875
Weddington, N.C.
Streetwize
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,875
Weddington, N.C.
|
Skrews,, What is the grind number of that Cam and what converter is that? The too tight for a 360 might be just right for a certain 414. My own combo will be less than optimized due primarily to the chassis only fitting a 1 5/8" header. Not worth the $$$ to build something custom and I know these already fit...so. I bought the Airwolfs mainly so I could wring another 500 RPM out of the powerband and hopefully keep them for a later project. I did fit the headers with a larger 3 1/2" collector which should help a little but it's still far from Ideal. And with the header limit there's not much point putting a longer duration cam in it, but the Airwolfs do flow about 30 cfm better than my old heads even with the modest lifts....so maybe your cam ( or something similar to it ramped up another 6-8 degrees and installed straight up) with the higher lift but less seat to seat might make as much or more useable torque and power than my longer but lower Cam Motion 266/269 .585/.570 lift. I think on your own motor I'd also be tempted to test a cam with another 6 degrees of .050 duration and put it it at 102, you could probably hit 600 with no appreciable loss of torque on the bottom. A 255 @.050 solid roller is typically just as streetable as a 249 and you can always loosen the lash a tad. The 3.58 stroke is pretty forgiving of a slight 'overcam' much more so than a 340's 3.31" stroke anyway. 249 is not particularly 'big' And the 255 would move the sweet spot up only about 200-300 rpm...Just 'tweaking out loud'. You'll ALWAYS get a point of view on Moparts, but it's up to you to figure out what's useful and what's BS. Some really smart and experienced people on this site...and some that are....well, not so much. Notice I didn't use the word 'opinion', that's because the word (by definition) implies that everyone who gives an opinion is QUALIFIED to HAVE ONE!  
Last edited by Streetwize; 01/03/13 01:27 PM.
|
|
|
Re: 587 HP 360
[Re: Streetwize]
#1361963
01/03/13 01:55 PM
01/03/13 01:55 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,247
Mt. Vernon, Ohio
dartman366
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,247
Mt. Vernon, Ohio
|
Quote:
Skrews,,
What is the grind number of that Cam and what converter is that? The too tight for a 360 might be just right for a certain 414.
My own combo will be less than optimized due primarily to the chassis only fitting a 1 5/8" header. Not worth the $$$ to build something custom and I know these already fit...so. I bought the Airwolfs mainly so I could wring another 500 RPM out of the powerband and hopefully keep them for a later project. I did fit the headers with a larger 3 1/2" collector which should help a little but it's still far from Ideal. And with the header limit there's not much point putting a longer duration cam in it, but the Airwolfs do flow about 30 cfm better than my old heads even with the modest lifts....so maybe your cam ( or something similar to it ramped up another 6-8 degrees and installed straight up) with the higher lift but less seat to seat might make as much or more useable torque and power than my longer but lower Cam Motion 266/269 .585/.570 lift.
I think on your own motor I'd also be tempted to test a cam with another 6 degrees of .050 duration and put it it at 102, you could probably hit 600 with no appreciable loss of torque on the bottom. A 255 @.050 solid roller is typically just as streetable as a 249 and you can always loosen the lash a tad. The 3.58 stroke is pretty forgiving of a slight 'overcam' much more so than a 340's 3.31" stroke anyway. 249 is not particularly 'big' And the 255 would move the sweet spot up only about 200-300 rpm...Just 'tweaking out loud'.
You'll ALWAYS get a point of view on Moparts, but it's up to you to figure out what's useful and what's BS. Some really smart and experienced people on this site...and some that are....well, not so much. Notice I didn't use the word 'opinion', that's because the word (by definition) implies that everyone who gives an opinion is QUALIFIED to HAVE ONE!
I agree with Wise on both counts,,1 the cam tweeking sounds logical to me, but I am still learning the technical aspects of cams and all that go's along with it.
2.It's very hard to read somthing on an open forum like this and know just how a person is trying to get their point across, I have met some of these guys and found in person they are very personable and willing to help in any way,,reading some statements on here you don't always get that warm and fuzzy feeling, I for one appreciate what you are doing because you have gone several steps beyond what I did with my first stock stroke 360, and I mean stock, stock crank, stock rod's, hyper pistons and home ported J heads keep up the good work.
Light travels faster than the speed of sound,,,this is why some people seem bright untill you hear them speak.
|
|
|
Re: 587 HP 360
[Re: skrews]
#1361964
01/03/13 02:10 PM
01/03/13 02:10 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,578
sweden
1Fast340
master
|
master
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,578
sweden
|
Quote:
another pic
good running 360,i realy like stockstroke engines for some oddball reason
i would bet that that engine would aprreciate some more compression (real close to 11:1 if the pumpgas will tollerate it with real good squish)and headers with alitle shorter primarys (around 32"-35" i believe that those hookers are somewher close to 42") not putting your combo down stockstroke smallblocks that is streetable running in the 10īs in a somewhat heavy A-body is good in my book
|
|
|
|
|
