What ratio rockers are you running now?

GSS ,
Thanks, and no problem on the comparison.

Mark

Thanks Justin,
Dale and Nick are great to work with. We had a good time, as always. We are looking forward to going back with my Hemi.

Mark

My 11 second stock stroke 360 ran faster w/every bigger carb change and ended up w/a speed demon 850 that flowed 920 cfm, you are choking that poor thing just look and ask around and even small blocks are picking up bunches going from 4150's to 1050 Dommy's..........Just trying to help.........

I had a ball when we did mine. It took most of the day so I had lunch with them. It was like sitting down with old friends I hadn't seen in a long time. If they were closer Dale would have to run me off or put me to work. lol

My 11 second stock stroke 360 ran faster w/every bigger carb change and ended up w/a speed demon 850 that flowed 920 cfm, you are choking that poor thing just look and ask around and even small blocks are picking up bunches going from 4150's to 1050 Dommy's..........Just trying to help......... [/quote]

Going back to 1984 when I was running my '71 340 Cuda in Street class, it ran a best of 12.39@108 with a .590 sft cam and 4200 verter and 4.30's and stock 2.02 heads, no porting, and an 850DP. I got fed up of racers telling me that the carb was miles too big, so I put the 750DP that came with the car when it was a milder set up back on and lost 2 tnths. In fact, I persuaded my mate who ran a Mk1 cortina with a Rover 3500cc V8 (buick 215ci motor), stick car to try my 850DP, he just laughed but tried it....he ran 2/10ths quicker, should've seen the smile on his face!!...lost some throttle response of course but went quicker and back to his 600 holley......

[/quote]

My 11 second stock stroke 360 ran faster w/every bigger carb change and ended up w/a speed demon 850 that flowed 920 cfm, you are choking that poor thing just look and ask around and even small blocks are picking up bunches going from 4150's to 1050 Dommy's..........Just trying to help......... [/quote]

I agree with that. I am surprised the difference in peak HP between the Quick Fuel 780 and the Demon 1050 was only about 10 HP, if I am reading Mark's dyno sheet correctly.

I was planning on a Holley 4150 1000cfm for my 470. Could probably handle more than that, but it is a street car.

Mark, what is your initial timing?

I agree with that. I am surprised the difference in peak HP between the Quick Fuel 780 and the Demon 1050 was only about 10 HP, if I am reading Mark's dyno sheet correctly.

I was planning on a Holley 4150 1000cfm for my 470. Could probably handle more than that, but it is a street car.

Mark, what is your initial timing? [/quote]

The peak power for the QF 780 was 571.17 torque was 604.19
The Best Demon pull was 584.98 HP and 621.32 trq.
We didn't check the initial timing, just the total. We started @ 35* and backed it down to 33* and picked up a little less than 6 HP. and 12 lbs ft. trq. with the 780 QF
All pulls with the Demon were @ 33*.
For some reason the first full pull on the engine made power to 6,000, and was climbing. It never increased in power there again. All done climbing @ 5750 RPM. Tired springs? I don't know... It has set with the valves adjusted since 2014, I just turned it over by hand occasionally.

Mark

Looking back at some of the data on the dyno pulls, I noticed that the first few pulls where the engine peaked at higher RPM that the water temp was higher, and the left and right banks were more balanced AF numbers.
Is there a relationship to the higher RPM peaks and balanced AF numbers ?
These were the first pulls tested above 5,000 . We made the very first pull to 5,000 as a test to be sure all looked good.

Thanks,
Mark

What can I expect out of the Edelbrock springs that came with these heads? Are they a good quality for this application, or should I consider changing them out to something else?

Thanks,
Mark

Do you know what pressures they had on the seats and opened? If so remove several and retest them to see
It wouldn't surprise me at all that they have lost 20 to 30 Lbs. every where
I like to use 140 to 160 Lbs. on the seats and from 325 to 375 opened on both hydraulic and solid flat tappet cams for street use with stock valves, add a tiny bit more pressure(10 to 20 lbs.) on both for larger, heavier valves

I have a customer with a 446 I built in 2005 running that cam with RPM heads, who has been enjoying his car on the street and strip since then....... Still has the original springs that came on the heads .

Cab, I checked my notes and I don't have the pressures listed. It was about 2007 when the heads were prepped. I was planning to use a hydraulic FT (XE284 I think) at that time so those were the specs provided to the machine shop to set up the springs.
Dwayne talked me into switching to the solid cam, for which I am grateful I should add.

Thanks,
Mark

Well that is encouraging Dwayne ! Does this engine's RPM / power range look like what you would expect from this cam? I am very pleased with the outcome, just curious about the RPM range, and why it started peaking @ 5750 when it had pulled to 6,000 and was climbing then.
Thanks,
Mark

I would pull a couple of springs to find out what pressures they have now
There is always a reason for a motor to change readings like your seeing, sometimes figuring out exactly what caused it is the hard part
Hopefully the cam is okay

Boy what a torque monster Congrats on your build

That's really impressive for a smallish cam and "a little bowl work" (!!) on a set of RPM heads to be able to get that much torque to carry that high in the powerband... it's a testament to a really well thought-out combo...congrats!

Thanks Cab,
I will investigate the drop in RPM for sure. I will have to invest in spring testing tools.
Mark

Thanks Dave,
It is even stronger than I hoped for.

Mark

Thanks Wise,
This site and the helpful contributions from guys like yourself, Andy's book, Dwayne's cam choice and some quality machine work, really make a difference.
I wonder how that stock RR converter will respond to the torque !?

Mark