Out to the Pros:

I am currently in the planning phase for a new B-based motor for my 67 Charger. The car is an original 383 4speed (will at one point get a TKO 600) and 99% street driven.
However, this is Germany, so it will be street driven HARD. It also needs to be able to sit in traffic for an hour without overheating or fouling the plugs.

-Will have pretty tall gears 3.23 or 2.94. When I can afford the TKO in the next step, it might get 3.55s but not shorter by any means.
-It might see a 1/8mile or even an autcross just for fun and to see how it runs. I do NOT plan to compete at anything as it does not fit any class anyhow. If it runs 13s, it runs 13s, it just should be FUN to drive and not break itself :-)
-the block is a 400cui block.
-will get a 440 source 500cui kit
-will get a hydraulic roller conversion
-headers 1 7/8 or 2" TTI , whatever fits the combo best
-cam either a Mike Jones or Hughes, whatever either of them recommends for my RPM limit.
-I use a MSD rev limiter in all my (classic) cars and the chip will be 6500rpm, I want to shift at around 6000 to 6200rpm
-for registration (historic vehicle inspection) and style reasons a variation of the 440Source heads and a carb are a must.

Now the actual QUESTION: Which head adn intake should I use?
I am debating with a CNC version of the regular Stealth head vs. the CNC version of the Super Stealth with 440 port window.
The Super Stealth is pretty much a copy of the Edelbrock Victor vs. the regular Stealth an Performer RPM.

Hughes has a pretty nice CNC program for Victors and 440 port size, which works on the Super Stealth too:
http://www.hughesengines.com/TechArticl ... php#4656S3
this would end up with Port Volume: INT 313cc EXH 84cc
The regular Stealth has 255cc runner volume after the full CNC treament
Considering the Victor ports are longer, port volume is difficult to compare! Unfortunately noone gives me the actual cross sectional area.
To get a good idea: The Super Stealth would be 320cfm @ 0.500", the regular Stealth a littel below 300cfm@ 0.500"

Now for my RPM-limit, which head would you use? Will the extra expense for the Victor / Superstealth (offset rockers....) + hood clearance issues be worth it going to the Super Stealth below 6200rpm? Or should I just use the regular CNC-Stealth and be happy about tire-shredding torque?

Reminder: We are NOT talking race-car here, but what would feel better on the butt-dyno?

Greets
Flo

Having once bought a Source 500 kit for a 400 block i would suggest you go the 512 route. the 500 pistons are very short so there tends to be a bit of piston rock. this rocking tends to wear out the shirts of the pistons rather quickly. a 512 kit has the more common 1.32 comp ht piston which is a bit more stable. Your call but if you want longer life from your engine thats the direction i'd go.

Flo,
Do the 512 kit. Smaller rod journals, lighter rotating assembly, less issues with clearance in the block.

The CNC Stealths will do everything you need without rocker hassles, shift at 5800. I run stock stamped rockers on mine, with a small hydraulic flat tappet...two years, no parts breakage, lots of miles, lots of smiles.

I would suggest looking at Molnar's crank and rods. I bought a 499" crank and rods and they were spot on according to the builder Jan Cen racing engines (Mike Janis). I used JE flat tops with them. The money is close and it's a great product.

molnartechnologies.com

Have they changed the design of the Super Stealth in the last two years? Because the last set of Super Stealth heads I had in the shop were nothing like the Edelbrock Victors.

According to Hughes their CNC program for the Edelborck Victor works on the Super Stealth without changes.
I know they look different from the outside, but it seems the runners and chamber are the same.
Greets
Flo

For the 500 vs. 512: the bob weight on the 500cui kit is actually lower than on the 512.
500 kit 4.150" stroke/6.760" rod
512 kit 4.250" stroke/6.535" rod

I am not set on the 500 cui version, but thought the nicer geometry of the longer rod would be worth it over the 512.

This is just my opinion but your running a low RPM
engine... so the smaller runners would keep port
velocity up... with the gear you plan on and big
runners the engine would be slow to react... and I
assume your compression will be on the low side so
you can run pump fuel

So, I talked to Dave Hughes. The Edelbrock RPM program is used on the standard Stealth head and the Edelbrock Victor programs do not work on the Super Stealth. I didn't see how they could as the Victor is a raised port profile, the Super Stealth is a standard height design and the two have entirely different combustion chambers. I mean, I do have the two different heads here in the shop at this moment and they are nothing alike.

I would say that between your two choices, I too would use the regular Stealth CNC program and not the Super Stealth. In our tests here you can get as much flow from the Stealth as you can from the Super Stealth.

I'm going to give an entirely different take on it......
With the intended use of the motor....... sustained higher rpm operation.....I would want to do something with lower piston speed. Either a 451 or 470, and just run the TF heads on it.

Indy SR heads, .575 roller, 10 to 1. With a 4.150 crank and ARP everything.

he might have to use the stealth heads because they look like factory heads...

I have a 500" 400 using the 4.15" crank (kit from 440 source.)
The reason I went with this is to turn 7,000+ RPM.

If you plan to keep the RPM down, then the 4.25" (512" Stroker kit) would likely be better for a street car.

The ported stealth heads will work with the lower RPM level.

My 440 stroked with a 4.25" crank (only 0.030" over so a 505") has mild ported stealth heads, and a small Hydraulic roller cam, but I limited my RPM to 6,000 max. Using ISKY 8005A valve springs. I haven't tried to rev the engine over 6,000, but I think it could do more, just not taking the chance?

I have a 5-speed OD trans and 3.54:1 gear, so 50mph is about 1,500 RPM, and 100 mph about 3,000 RPM in OD.

Not sure on the intake? Do you want the air filter under the stock hood, or using a hood scoop?

Hi,

I am glad someone doublechecked this information regarding the Super stealth!

This is citation from an email from Hughes from July 8th:



Now if the Super Stealth is NOT a raised port design this would at least mean no hood clearance problems ;-)

Hughes does list a CNC program for the Super Stealth. I wonder if they really have one as the tech line said it is the one for the Victors and reaches the same cfm.

However with all that ??? I am going to stick with the regular CNC Stealth I think.

Thanks for all the information
flo

I would like to keep everything under the stock hood. Hood scoops are not liked by inspectors and policemen around here ;-)

Is the Edelbrock Torker a reasonable manifold for 512cui 4 speed car?

Greets
flo

[quote=Flo
Is the Edelbrock Torker a reasonable manifold for 512cui 4 speed car?

[/quote]

An Edlebrock B engined 6 pak would also be a reasonable manifold for a 512 cui 4 speed car. Glad you've decided the 512 route, you wont be dissappointed.

one carb is enough to tune :-)

Greets
Flo

On your deal I would buy and use the Eddy Performer RPM, it is way better from 2000 to 5000 RPM than the Torker at WOT on a engine dyno, much better on the street below 2500 RPM
I love low decks with both 4.25 and 4.300 stroke cranks with both 6.700 and 6.800 long BB Chevy type H beam steel rods, way to much torque the longer rod will make the piston pin be in the oil ringland but I haven't seen any down side to that so far

If you have it already, it should be OK.
The Edelbrock Performer RPM dual plane intake and Mopar M1 single plane are also good intakes. I'm not sure on the height differences, but I think you will need a dropped base lower air filter base for clearance?

At least the low deck "B" block will help the hood clearance issue compared to using a RB block.

The Torker is shorter than the Performer RPM. That is the main reason I am interested in it.

maybe stupid question, but: do the common 512cui kits with Chevy rod journals require an external oil pickup?
Greets
Flo

Hughes Intake manifold comparison article for 440 intakes:

http://www.hughesengines.com/TechArticles/4portedintakemanifoldsupdated08272007.php

With a 512 a single plane works good, you will already have a ton of low end torque.

Not usually.

Can't speak to the B but on an RB block, the 4.25 crank with Chevy journals fit with internal pickup and NO grinding.

I know that article. There was also a dyno shootout on a 383 I think in Car Craft or so. That is why I thought the Torker might be a good compromise.

Greets
flo

No, you will have to grind a small amount off of the internal oil pickup boss to clear the #1 rod with or without the external or internal oil pickup
I like to use the 1970/71 6 quart stock street hemi and 440 six pak oil pan with the stock 440 6 pak 3/8 pickup on the cars like ours, 1966 B bodys
I ran that set up on my old pump gas Duster and never had a problem with oiling that motor on the street or at the track except letting it get a quart low once at the track and having the oil pressure drop after letting off at the 1/4 mile tracks, that was at 127+ MPH and above
I used a stock Mopar windage tray with a home made crankshaft scaper also

I plan on using the Milodon #31580 Road Race pan. If possible with internal 1/2" pickup

I have had blocks modified for the 1/2 inch pickups , no more after having one crack the boss when installing the bigger 1/2 inch pickups I'm sure the correct Mildon 1/2 inch pickup for that oil pan will work, make sure and check the clearance between the bottom of the pickup and the bottom of the oil pan I don't know what Milidon recommends for the minumums, I would like to see less than 1/4 inch between them for my own use