Without knowing what the budget really is, I'd say these are the things I would address first, $$$ permitting.
-for more power, mill the heads and try and get as close as you can to 9:1 without going nuts.
While they're off, a quicky bowl blend would be nice.
Install some cheap long tube headers.

-for the car, way more gear, and as good of a converter as you can afford.

The cam he is running is fairly small and very close to what I was running back in 1989.



Are you forgetting the catastrophic drop in compression running 340 heads?

Been there, done that. Cars with piggish throttle response and no torque are not fun. This I would imagine is what would explain the original posters dismal track performance.

My 318 Dart with "small port" heads would have have his car as it sits for lunch and spit the bones out.



Shall I post a time slip? I have already run the package suggested and it is track tested. The car made buckets of torque but was done by 5500 which is fine for the application.

The guy wants to run 13's, not reinvent the wheel.

I ran a couple numbers......

Assuming 68cc j heads, the "normal" passenger car cast type flat top piston with 4 small valve pockets, which should be down the hole about .080 and std composition head gaskets......
About 7.9cr.
It would take getting rid of about 12cc's to go from 7.9 to 9.0cr.

A thinner shim style gasket would get you about 4.5 of that, and if you milled the heads .045 or so you'd get most of the rest of it.

My 318 has dipped into the 11.70's at over 3400 pounds. It's not rocket science.
I have a dinky hydralic cam. It's 231/238@50.
Not much gear(4.10 with 28 tall tire)
Key is good heads( I have magnum RT's with 2.02 valves) good machining, and some compression... 10.44
Have a tight 8 inch convertor that helps a bunch. Car had been best of 1.639 60 foot on leafs with ultra cheap shocks. That is an area that needs work
This still with stock water pump and fan, and power steering. I would think high 13's should be no sweat with just a couple of things done right. Convertor being key, along with some modest compression.

Didn't Goody get his 318 cuda (heavy) into the 13's with nothing really crazy at Las Vegas which is notorious for crappy air?

Not a 318, but still low buck...... And not an a body either.

My Dads 79 Cordoba. This was a pretty bare bones car for a Chrysler. No a/c, no power windows, no cruise, no tilt wheel. Still..... Weighed 3960 with him in it.
360/TQ/lean burn, lock up trans, 2.76 gears.
Got some junk yard 3.91 gears out of some van, welded up the spider gears.
Put some bald g60-15's on it.
Got rid of the lean burn stuff, added headers.
Went 15.15 first time out.

He wanted to go faster.
Bought a pretty clapped out 71 fury 2 door that had a 360 2bbl.
71's had flat top pistons, not dished pistons.
Left the rotating assy installed and untouched.
Pulled the heads and tore them down, did a good job of removing the carbon from everything, installed some hp type single springs and new seals.
Got a used .480 lift cam at a swap meet, shoved that in.
He ended up using the 727 and converter that came out of the fury.
Back to the track....... 13.90's.

Got a swap meet early style Torker and a Holley 650dp. Went the same but ran much better.

After that he spent a little money going through the original motor and it was running mid-12's with slicks and a decent converter.
That was still a pretty mild build..... 8.8cr, pocket ported heads w 2.02 valves, and the 509 cam.
That was like 1990-1991. I dynoed the motor, it was right about 400hp, but I don't recall if it was just above or just below 400(I wanna say it was 398hp......I might still have a dyno sheet in my files).

this

And just as important(or probably more so), the skill level of the op to be able to do the bulk of the work himself to make each $$$ go a little farther.

Again, re read the thread. The compression part was addressed. Just what do you think a static compression ratio does besides raise cylinder pressure, and cylinder pressure makes torque. It can be manipulated with the static compression ratio, or with cam timing events, or both, which is what I said. Even at 8.5:1 CR respectable performance can be had.

The cam he is running is 221@.050" on the intake, and the lift is only .430". Compare that to the Lunati that is 213@.050" and .454" lift. The shorter duration and higher lift is going to fill the cylinder better on average, and I also suggested a 1.6 rocker to give even more area to an already better lobe. Now, the cam you said you used has 228 degrees @.050", and the same lift. That is 15 degrees bigger than the Lunati, and coupled with small port heads and relatively low lift, is going to have a narrower power band than the smaller cam and better flowing heads. Period!

So your car would have his for lunch the way it sits? I guess if it ran really well he wouldn't have started this thread, right? The magic word is "COMBINATION". The j head has much better potential, and he already has them, so build a good combination around them. You mentioned poor throttle response which reminded me of something. I wonder if the OP has locked out his distributor and is running the proper timing. That in itself could make a big impact on performance with low cylinder pressure.

And last, post all the 14 second time slips you want. I'll try not to get the vapors. Btw, I don't reinvent the wheel, I build great combinations. I wouldn't be surprised to see my suggestions put the car in the 12's if the chassis and tune were right. Again, as long as the motor isn't wore out.

The old school MP grind has 39deg of hydraulic intensity?

Using Mopars 85% formula, Yes. That is what Summit advertises as well. It would be nice to have one to measure for verification, though.

I'd be very surprised if it measured better than 50deg.

I'm not sure what checking height MP uses to determine their "advertised" duration numbers(and I've never seen it advertised anywhere), but it doesn't appear to be .006 tappet lift like several other cam grinders use.
As measured in a motor, the SB "292" cam was 305deg @.006.
I came up with 250.5@.050, which puts the (actual) intensity at 54.5deg.
And, supposedly the 284 and 292 cams had better intensity than the smaller grinds.

I have seen 318 cars running 11's, not what the guy is asking for.

Dwayne, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if those numbers were inaccurate, but at this point, that's all we have to go by. An apples to apples comparison would be too much to ask of MP, I guess. If the lobes are slower than that, it makes it even worse. I'd really like to see some numbers at .200" to eliminate the ramps and see how quick (or slow) the lobes are above .050".

In a low compression 318 that had a roughly 185@.050" stock cam, going to the 220 range is a pretty big jump. Like you said, it would need a lot of gear and a lot of converter.

You're right, I suppose a 13 second combination that overachieves would be a bad thing. I guess I'll sign up for unemployment this morning.

To shed some light on how far off the MP 85% rule can be.....

Looking at the 2007 MP catalog, they show cam # p4452782 as the "factory original" replacement cam, and that it has .429/.444 lift and 228/235 duration @.050.
The factory replacement cam is actually 210/220@.050........ But if you take their "advertised" numbers(268/276) and apply the 85% theory you get 228/235.

I have to believe that the MP "performance" hyd grinds(not the OE replacements) are all based on the same math.
As such, they should all have the same intensity.
The problem with using the 85% theory is that as the duration gets shorter, the intensity "looks" better.
The smallest MP hyd cam is 248/256, which shows a hyd intensity of 37deg, while the 320/320 shows 48deg, the 292 shows 44, the 284 shows 43, etc.

The MP cams are known as being smooth and stable grinds, not cams that have noticeably quicker intensity rates than the newest, fastest .904 stuff available from companies that make their living from cam design.

I guess what I'm getting at is, while I agree there are likely better cams for this application than the MP 260/268 cam, I seriously doubt it's really "too big" for this combo to run 13's.
If I had to choose between buying a new cam and lifters or milling the heads for more compression........ I'd take the compression.

A few years back I had Comp do some fast rate .904 lobes for me, based off the XE/HL .904 designs. The intake lobe is 265@.006, 221@.050(44deg intensity), .505 lift with a 1.5

I know the MP cams aren't accurate to the 85% factor, but it's really the only info we have to work with. It could be smaller, or larger. Who knows without actual measurements.

I don't disagree with your logic on the cam vs. compression. We agree that the cylinder pressure needs to increase, and milling the heads would do that but it might take a pretty good cut to get up to where the slow cam isn't softening the bottom end, and pull hard across a broad range. That's why I suggested helping things with a cam swap, and the 1.6 rockers. Not the only way, but will get the best results IMO.


I don't expect the OP to run out spend a bunch of money at once. I think he would be better served to make incremental changes and see what the results are. Then he has a good idea how beneficial each change was. Within a year, he could be deep into the 13s, and the bugs can be worked out at each change, instead of dealing with them all at once. That's just what my approach would be if it were my money.

Nice to know we can run 13's with a V8 Mopar engine and not need NITROUS. Lmao.

My first step would be a cranking compression test, followed by measuring the cam that's in the motor now to see how it looks in an apples to apples comparison to some of the more popular choices.......so I really knew where I was at with it.

If the cranking compression test yielded better than expected results(say, 130-135+), then I'd go right for the headers and converter.