Quote:

---

Just throwing this out there but if you have one set of heads flowing 375 and another set flowing 425 but the intake manifold will only handle 350cfm you may never see an increase. It may even cause turbulence. That's why I LOVE to bolt the manifold on and complete the whole system.

---

Quote:

---

As Monte and others point out, most think I don't have enough cam. I have gotten info from elsewhere (Cammotion)that points in the same direction of faster exhaust lobes, and more at .200 on both sides. As far as fuel goes, I have fed this thing all it wants with the injector, and backed off to the best ET/MPH. I was surprised that it wanted so much more M5. I went from a .112 bypass to a .100. That is 12.1 percent more fuel.

---

Quote:

---

The motor dyno'd 847 hp at 7,000, 760 torque at 5700. The power seems to correlate well with the best ETs, 8.70s to 8.90s depending on tire type and DA, which on a good day is 1400 to 2000. The best on straight alky was 8.77 153 mph with radial 14.5 x 33 slicks. The big bias GoodYears helped traction and consistency, but cost a full .10 in ET. Changing from 5600 to 6500 stall actually picked up about .05 ET, but some of that may be related to the suspension not being optimized at the time. The car 60 fts better now, so maybe a tighter converter would improve ETs some.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The motor dyno'd 847 hp at 7,000, 760 torque at 5700. The power seems to correlate well with the best ETs, 8.70s to 8.90s depending on tire type and DA, which on a good day is 1400 to 2000. The best on straight alky was 8.77 153 mph with radial 14.5 x 33 slicks. The big bias GoodYears helped traction and consistency, but cost a full .10 in ET. Changing from 5600 to 6500 stall actually picked up about .05 ET, but some of that may be related to the suspension not being optimized at the time. The car 60 fts better now, so maybe a tighter converter would improve ETs some.

---

Those heads will support quite a bit more power than 850 hp if you're willing to spend the money. All depends on what your goals are and what the budget is.

Do you know what your installed height is? You should be able to get 2.00 inch installed height which lets you run 0.850 net valve lift. If you put a 1.7 or 1.8 rocker arm on the intake you should be able to get to .850 lift without anyh trouble. The exhaust might work just fine with the 1.55 rockers that you already have.

---

Quote:

---

You are going to have a hard time getting the necessary lift with just 1.55 rocker arms. Rather than a new cam, can you run 1.70 intake rocker arms with your existing cam? That gets you to .850 gross lift on the intake side, speeds up the valve action and gets you a bunch more area under the curve. You would need to check with the cam grinder to see if the lobe works with the higher ratio.

---

Great point. I do have the other cam on the shelf, the RR735 which Isky says will tolerate a 1.70 rocker, but no more. That will give me gross .833 intake lift, .776 exhaust, with lash of .026 and .028. Duration is 280/288/110lsa. I am not sure of the .200 duration.
I would also like to thank everyone that has contributed to this post. This is the kind of input that got me this far (from 10.20s to 8.70s!) and it is greatly appreciated.
Even if my budget doesn't allow me to go as far as is possible, I am sure there is one or more guys out there piling up parts similar and looking for the most they can get out of the $$ they have.

Quote:

---

your post is, "more flow....same power"

did you dyno the motor before and after that stage of head developement(without other changes)?

when you're running 150+MPH......20-30hp can get lost if the car isnt 100%.

i guess what i'm saying is......do you really know what, if any, difference those last mods to the heads had on the power curve?
or are you trying to extrapolate that data from the time slip?

---

Quote:

---

Greg, here's my

without knowing all the details about that last head mod, i'm going to guess that perhaps the heads responded disproportionately well to the install of the bigger intake valve, and that not a lot of additional material was removed upstream of the valve seat.

my feeling is that you're basically maxing out the available port cross section on the running motor, especially with the alky.
you need to run about twice as much alky as gas, and that additional fuel takes up a lot of space in the intake tract, which is going to lower the rpm at which terminal velocity is reached.

my gut feeling is that a more agressive valve action will allow the curve to look better above peak power, but i think its going to be a challenge to significantly raise the terminal rpm.

i dont feel its going to be that easy to make noticably more TQ than you have now, so then the only way to make a big change in HP is to make the TQ hang on better beyond its peak.

---

Quote:

---

Hey Brian, did you mean Greg's motor or mine?? As per my attached dyno sheet my motor gained 71hp from 6,000 to 7,000 rpm.

Cheers,

Arnie

---

Quote:

---

A couple of years back I had 2.300 intake valves put in to increase the flow of my 440-1 heads. These are castings I bought back in 1998. They are cut to 62 CC chambers. I run an almost flat top piston, with a dome of about .060. The flow increase was fairly good for most of the lift numbers, averaging about 6 percent. There was a spot about .300 where the flow barely increased. I run a 283/296/110(edit;112 lobe sep) roller with .775 intake lift, .680 exhaust lift. The exhaust lobe is a mild rate of lift lobe. Induction is a 3X port matched with a Terminator injector running alky. 2 1/8 x 30 x 4 inch headers.
I tried going up in rpm, but going from 7100 to 7300 shifts didn't net me any ET gains.
One thought that came to mind is that the valves may be shrouded by the valve reliefs enough to offset the extra flow?
With 15/1 compression and plenty of exhaust duration, I figure the minor loss of flow on the exhaust shouldn't have hurt as much as the intake flow helped. The valvetrain is Jesel, 7/16 pushrods, Comp 347 springs. That should be getting the job done I would think. Any thoughts on this appreciated.

---

**** I would think you are loosing out on velocity . if the heads are opened up , the intake [and exhaust to some extent] will need to take on the added " potential " airflow. runner size/shape and direct line of sight paths are first order to add or maintain the manifolds " velocity " to match the new volume "potential " of the heads. the idea of added camshaft / rocker ratio supports this as they will trick the VE of your combo in a more narrow point. in any event ,the modifications to the heads will require all other sections to be adjusted accordingly. just my thoughts......

Quote:

---

You are going to have a hard time getting the necessary lift with just 1.55 rocker arms. Rather than a new cam, can you run 1.70 intake rocker arms with your existing cam? That gets you to .850 gross lift on the intake side, speeds up the valve action and gets you a bunch more area under the curve. You would need to check with the cam grinder to see if the lobe works with the higher ratio.

---

Quote:

---

Can a Terminator not be calibrated to run gas?

Kevin

---

Quote:

---

Milodon gear drive. I have three cams, the first two the stats are in this thread, the last one I haven't talked about. When I ordered the pistons, I had that cam on the shelf, so that is the specs I gave for valve reliefs, so it ought to fit. It has a lot of duration, at 290/294/110 (206/208 at .200 lobe lift) with .486 Mopar special lobes on both intake and exhaust from Comp Cams. Comp says those lobes will work with 1.7 rockers. So that cam may eventually go in, maybe after the switch to the tunnelram if I go down that road. That combo would only have about .826 lift, but a lot more duration. The thing that concerns me is that it also has more overlap. It might not be a better cam till after 6500 rpm? Considering that a motor spends over half its time in the first half of each gear, that might be a bit much.

---

Quote:

---

Hi Greg. Unless you went to a custom and well executed manifold, I don't see the reason to change to a TR over what you have now. Thereis as much or more 'wrong' with the INDY TR (I.e. Runner length and plenum volume) as there is with your current set-up. I would consider that blue Cuda in Canada as a good example. And then consider the expense in relation to the returns.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Hi Greg. Unless you went to a custom and well executed manifold, I don't see the reason to change to a TR over what you have now. Thereis as much or more 'wrong' with the INDY TR (I.e. Runner length and plenum volume) as there is with your current set-up. I would consider that blue Cuda in Canada as a good example. And then consider the expense in relation to the returns.

---

---

(I.e. Runner length and plenum volume)

With those two items about all that is in favor of the TR over the 3x running injection, I think I will save my money. Thanks for the input. Untill more info comes along on a better intake, I'll stay with the 3x.
I have posted similar inquaries in the past, but didn't get much feed back. This is great, and thank you all. It won't be till may or June that I get the car out, but hope to post some positive results.

Quote:

---

Hi Greg. Unless you went to a custom and well executed manifold, I don't see the reason to change to a TR over what you have now. Thereis as much or more 'wrong' with the INDY TR (I.e. Runner length and plenum volume) as there is with your current set-up. I would consider that blue Cuda in Canada as a good example. And then consider the expense in relation to the returns.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Hi Greg. Unless you went to a custom and well executed manifold, I don't see the reason to change to a TR over what you have now. Thereis as much or more 'wrong' with the INDY TR (I.e. Runner length and plenum volume) as there is with your current set-up. I would consider that blue Cuda in Canada as a good example. And then consider the expense in relation to the returns.

---

perhaps the Indy TR does have its share of issues......but in two seperate back to back tests(a 540 and a 572), i found it to make 40+hp over an Indy single plane/1150 combo.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Hi Greg. Unless you went to a custom and well executed manifold, I don't see the reason to change to a TR over what you have now. Thereis as much or more 'wrong' with the INDY TR (I.e. Runner length and plenum volume) as there is with your current set-up. I would consider that blue Cuda in Canada as a good example. And then consider the expense in relation to the returns.

---

perhaps the Indy TR does have its share of issues......but in two seperate back to back tests(a 540 and a 572), i found it to make 40+hp over an Indy single plane/1150 combo.

---

It could be that the 1150 was the problem? I know some guys hate that carb. I don't have much data on them, usually use 1050's or 1250's.

---

Brian, not to bust your chops......but....when i read this i kinda went to myself.
why would i bother posting the info if i didnt know the test was valid?
i guess i would have expected you to give me the benefit of the doubt about the validity of the test.
its not like i'm new to dyno testing......ive been running one since 1990.

in any case, the 1150 is a known good carb that i modified years ago that we use on the dyno regularly.
as a reference, on a 900hp 572, it was 18hp better than a known good working HP1050/8896.
the 572 with that 1050 on it run's 8.30's @ 164-165 @ 2700lbs.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Hi Greg. Unless you went to a custom and well executed manifold, I don't see the reason to change to a TR over what you have now. Thereis as much or more 'wrong' with the INDY TR (I.e. Runner length and plenum volume) as there is with your current set-up. I would consider that blue Cuda in Canada as a good example. And then consider the expense in relation to the returns.

---

perhaps the Indy TR does have its share of issues......but in two seperate back to back tests(a 540 and a 572), i found it to make 40+hp over an Indy single plane/1150 combo.

---

It could be that the 1150 was the problem? I know some guys hate that carb. I don't have much data on them, usually use 1050's or 1250's.

---

Brian, not to bust your chops......but....when i read this i kinda went to myself.
why would i bother posting the info if i didnt know the test was valid?
i guess i would have expected you to give me the benefit of the doubt about the validity of the test.
its not like i'm new to dyno testing......ive been running one since 1990.

in any case, the 1150 is a known good carb that i modified years ago that we use on the dyno regularly.
as a reference, on a 900hp 572, it was 18hp better than a known good working HP1050/8896.
the 572 with that 1050 on it run's 8.30's @ 164-165 @ 2700lbs.

---