Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power?
#1517162
10/14/13 07:38 AM
10/14/13 07:38 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,020 Frostbitefalls MN (Rocky&Bullw...
gregsdart
OP
I Live Here
|
OP
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,020
Frostbitefalls MN (Rocky&Bullw...
|
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.
Last edited by gregsdart; 10/15/13 10:18 AM.
8..603 156 mph best, 2905 lbs 549, indy 572-13, alky
|
|
|
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power?
[Re: gregsdart]
#1517168
10/14/13 10:29 AM
10/14/13 10:29 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,295 U.S.
moparniac
master
|
master
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,295
U.S.
|
how tall is that 3X manifold
Mopar Performance
|
|
|
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power?
[Re: moparniac]
#1517169
10/14/13 11:05 AM
10/14/13 11:05 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 331 CLARKSVILLE,TN.
DAYTONA540
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 331
CLARKSVILLE,TN.
|
Not an expert on the subject, but have seen many people try alcohol on large cu.in engines and not have much luck. I am not a large fan of Ken at Indy cylinder head,but he has told a few people I know that the same thing that everyone loves about alcohol is the thing that hurts large cu.in.engines. The amount of alcohol to feed a large engine that keeps the temp. down lowers the cylinder head temp. and prevents complete combustion,reduces ring seal.Does not show up with a blower or turbo because of induced heat and pressure.My friends switched to race gas and picked up.
|
|
|
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power?
[Re: AndyF]
#1517171
10/14/13 09:21 PM
10/14/13 09:21 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,020 Frostbitefalls MN (Rocky&Bullw...
gregsdart
OP
I Live Here
|
OP
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,020
Frostbitefalls MN (Rocky&Bullw...
|
I have heard that alky can be less powerful than gas at some point. However with not having switched fuels, more air should equal more power, or at least you would think so despite the type of fuel. On the exhuast lobes, the motor ran virtually the same with less cam. I orginally had an Isky RR735 cam in it, which is 280/288/110 with a touch less lift of .761. My current rocker ratio is 1.55 and I would like to change at some point to a bit more aggressive ratio. With my present setup, I may be limited to about what I have due to installed height and pushrod clearance. Andy, I haven't mapped the valve clearance. I do know I have about .150 on both valves though. What exactly does mapping the valve clearance tell the cam grinder? I have thought that the possibilities for no gain may be related to either the valve/piston shrouding, or possibly a change in where the port flows, which may affect power enough to offset the gain in flow. Or maybe the same flow at .300 combined with the lower flow of the exhaust may be the culprit? There certainly are a lot of possibilities.
Last edited by gregsdart; 10/14/13 09:28 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power?
[Re: gregsdart]
#1517172
10/14/13 10:13 PM
10/14/13 10:13 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,078 Oregon
AndyF
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,078
Oregon
|
Mapping the VP would tell the cam grinder how aggressive you can get with rocker arm ratio, lobe design, duration, etc.
My guess is that the heads weren't the "cork", that the cam is. Therefore, adding more flow capacity didn't do much for you.
Buy a copy of PipeMax and load your engine details to see what it says. I bet it will tell you that to avoid choke you need at least 0.850 lift on the intake side. It might even tell you that you need 0.900 lift for max power. You'll have a hard time getting that much lift with 1.55 rocker arms so you'll most likely need to put 1.70 or bigger on the intake side. But before you start spending money, run PipeMax and study the numbers.
|
|
|
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power?
[Re: AndyF]
#1517173
10/15/13 02:00 AM
10/15/13 02:00 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 903 Saskatchewan, Canada
cudabin
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 903
Saskatchewan, Canada
|
I would add more Cam if it was me... Also try 114-115 LSA.
The intake manifold is important, but less so with a terminator Alky injection as you are only moving air, no fuel down the plenum and into the runners.
Open the valves up to .900" after lash and look out!!!
Good luck,
Arnie
67 Cuda 8.48@ 158.7 mph 1.18 60' 2,600 DA(so far...)
70 Super Bee 440 Six Pack 4-speed. 13.2 @ 104 Stock exhaust/Street tires.
|
|
|
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power?
[Re: cudabin]
#1517174
10/15/13 10:09 AM
10/15/13 10:09 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,020 Frostbitefalls MN (Rocky&Bullw...
gregsdart
OP
I Live Here
|
OP
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,020
Frostbitefalls MN (Rocky&Bullw...
|
thanks for the input everyone. Musclemike, I will definitely keep your comments in mind. EDIT- I incorrectly listed the LSA as 110 on the Comp cam. It is 112 LSA. Lobes are 1625b and 4247b
Last edited by gregsdart; 10/15/13 10:20 AM.
8..603 156 mph best, 2905 lbs 549, indy 572-13, alky
|
|
|
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power?
[Re: AndyF]
#1517177
10/15/13 11:22 PM
10/15/13 11:22 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,020 Frostbitefalls MN (Rocky&Bullw...
gregsdart
OP
I Live Here
|
OP
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,020
Frostbitefalls MN (Rocky&Bullw...
|
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.
8..603 156 mph best, 2905 lbs 549, indy 572-13, alky
|
|
|
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power?
[Re: gregsdart]
#1517178
10/16/13 07:33 AM
10/16/13 07:33 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,883 MI, usa
dvw
master
|
master
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,883
MI, usa
|
For comparison. 572",-1 @380,14.7,Indy crossram on gas,2 Eddy 750, 285/292, 112, in at 108, .799 w/1.7 before lash,2 1/8" Hooker. This cam came from Mike. 1.33,9.25,147.6 @3340lbs. Just for comparison from Wallace [Email]153.2@3000[/Email] = 886.57 [Email]147.6@3340[/Email] = 882.72 Not these #s are gospel but the comparison should be valid. I'm sure your intake and carb setup should be worth 20-30hp over mine. Granted my cu in is larger. I only turn it to 6900. Could it be the cam, fuel? Doug
Last edited by dvw; 10/22/13 11:08 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power?
[Re: dvw]
#1517179
10/16/13 08:49 AM
10/16/13 08:49 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,020 Frostbitefalls MN (Rocky&Bullw...
gregsdart
OP
I Live Here
|
OP
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,020
Frostbitefalls MN (Rocky&Bullw...
|
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.
8..603 156 mph best, 2905 lbs 549, indy 572-13, alky
|
|
|
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power?
[Re: gregsdart]
#1517180
10/16/13 12:28 PM
10/16/13 12:28 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,091 Delray beach, Florida
Performance Only
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,091
Delray beach, Florida
|
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.
Only some of that is due to the air flow increase in the heads. The M5 by itself will be a part of that as well. In any case, you do have a little boy cam where you should have a big boy cam.
machine shop owner and engine builder
|
|
|
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power?
[Re: Performance Only]
#1517181
10/16/13 12:41 PM
10/16/13 12:41 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 19,384 Las Vegas
Al_Alguire
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 19,384
Las Vegas
|
Well I will join the more cam crowd...Also dont think that intake is helping it any.
"I am not ashamed to confess I am ignorant of what I do not know."
"It's never wrong to do the right thing"
|
|
|
|
|