Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's [Re: RyanJ] #451705
08/28/09 07:36 PM
08/28/09 07:36 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,616
Kissimmee Fl.
D
dusturbd340W5 Offline
master
dusturbd340W5  Offline
master
D

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,616
Kissimmee Fl.
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

my CNC'D Indybrocks flow 302@ .550 and 313@ .700 on Ryan's bench and seem to be making pretty good steam on my 416 considering the baby roller I have in the motor so far they have pushed my ride of 3000 lbs to 6.50 @ 105 in the 1/8 in terrible air of 95deg 90% humidity with rain on the horizon.





wow, i think i should get a set of those, they flow better than my w5's do




Just stating what is written on my flow sheet.I would think a set of GOOD w5's should flow more than 313.




His heads do flow more than 313 on my bench...... & his 9.80 ET's suggest they make more power than a typical INDYbrock & the timeslip, unlike #'s on a flowbench are all that matters.



the timeslip is all that matters so far I am happy with what these heads are doing considering the roller is only 246/254@ 50 and only .592 lift and they have run 6.52 @ 106 in a 3000 lb car in terrible air I think that pretty good for what they are.


70 duster full chassis super pro 416 CNC Indybrock heads 727 w/brake

best so far 1.212 60 6.219 in 1/8 at 110.88 9.768 at 137.81 1/4
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's [Re: dusturbd340W5] #451706
08/28/09 07:38 PM
08/28/09 07:38 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 32,394
Q
Quicktree Offline
I Win
Quicktree  Offline
I Win
Q

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 32,394
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

my CNC'D Indybrocks flow 302@ .550 and 313@ .700 on Ryan's bench and seem to be making pretty good steam on my 416 considering the baby roller I have in the motor so far they have pushed my ride of 3000 lbs to 6.50 @ 105 in the 1/8 in terrible air of 95deg 90% humidity with rain on the horizon.





wow, i think i should get a set of those, they flow better than my w5's do




Just stating what is written on my flow sheet.I would think a set of GOOD w5's should flow more than 313.




His heads do flow more than 313 on my bench...... & his 9.80 ET's suggest they make more power than a typical INDYbrock & the timeslip, unlike #'s on a flowbench are all that matters.



the timeslip is all that matters so far I am happy with what these heads are doing considering the roller is only 246/254@ 50 and only .592 lift and they have run 6.52 @ 106 in a 3000 lb car in terrible air I think that pretty good for what they are.




and I bet it will go faster after a little more tunning and better air.

Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's [Re: Quicktree] #451707
08/28/09 07:43 PM
08/28/09 07:43 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,616
Kissimmee Fl.
D
dusturbd340W5 Offline
master
dusturbd340W5  Offline
master
D

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,616
Kissimmee Fl.
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

my CNC'D Indybrocks flow 302@ .550 and 313@ .700 on Ryan's bench and seem to be making pretty good steam on my 416 considering the baby roller I have in the motor so far they have pushed my ride of 3000 lbs to 6.50 @ 105 in the 1/8 in terrible air of 95deg 90% humidity with rain on the horizon.





wow, i think i should get a set of those, they flow better than my w5's do




Just stating what is written on my flow sheet.I would think a set of GOOD w5's should flow more than 313.




His heads do flow more than 313 on my bench...... & his 9.80 ET's suggest they make more power than a typical INDYbrock & the timeslip, unlike #'s on a flowbench are all that matters.



the timeslip is all that matters so far I am happy with what these heads are doing considering the roller is only 246/254@ 50 and only .592 lift and they have run 6.52 @ 106 in a 3000 lb car in terrible air I think that pretty good for what they are.




and I bet it will go faster after a little more tunning and better air.




I have no doubt there is more in it I cant wait for some good


70 duster full chassis super pro 416 CNC Indybrock heads 727 w/brake

best so far 1.212 60 6.219 in 1/8 at 110.88 9.768 at 137.81 1/4
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's [Re: dusturbd340W5] #451708
08/28/09 08:46 PM
08/28/09 08:46 PM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,247
Mt. Vernon, Ohio
dartman366 Offline
I Live Here
dartman366  Offline
I Live Here

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,247
Mt. Vernon, Ohio
Quote:

my CNC'D Indybrocks flow 302@ .550 and 313@ .700 on Ryan's bench and seem to be making pretty good steam on my 416 considering the baby roller I have in the motor so far they have pushed my ride of 3000 lbs to 6.50 @ 105 in the 1/8 in terrible air of 95deg 90% humidity with rain on the horizon.


my marginally better than a edelbrock set of Lg Port Commando's pull those number's.


Light travels faster than the speed of sound,,,this is why some people seem bright untill you hear them speak.
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's [Re: dartman366] #451709
08/28/09 10:07 PM
08/28/09 10:07 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,547
State College, PA
RyanJ Offline
moparts member
RyanJ  Offline
moparts member

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,547
State College, PA
Quote:

my marginally better than a edelbrock set of Lg Port Commando's




LOL!

To be honest they all SUCK, everyone should have a set of INDY 360 series heads on There, that ought to stir the pot nicely

You can go fast with anything if the combo is right.... these arguments over which head is better than this one is funny. They all have Pro's & they all have Con's.

Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's [Re: RyanJ] #451710
08/28/09 11:11 PM
08/28/09 11:11 PM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,696
Bitopia
J
jcc Offline
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
jcc  Offline
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
J

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,696
Bitopia


And I am suprised by the comments on low end grunt, I suspect it is difficult enough with your chassis to put down much more power exiting turns, especially when most competitive passing is at the other end under braking, I am currently having built a stroker track day motor with non ported Indy brocks, which I like, but I would think any iron head is a dead in the water idea, I think Indy 360's are the best bet for your expectations and where you are likely headed
(pun intended)


Reality check, that half the population is smarter then 50% of the people and it's a constantly contested fact.
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's [Re: RyanJ] #451711
08/28/09 11:24 PM
08/28/09 11:24 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,616
Kissimmee Fl.
D
dusturbd340W5 Offline
master
dusturbd340W5  Offline
master
D

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,616
Kissimmee Fl.
Quote:

Quote:

my marginally better than a edelbrock set of Lg Port Commando's




LOL!

To be honest they all SUCK, everyone should have a set of INDY 360 series heads on There, that ought to stir the pot nicely

You can go fast with anything if the combo is right.... these arguments over which head is better than this one is funny. They all have Pro's & they all have Con's.




They all suck I was never saying one being better than another just stating what mine where doing and if I had had the extra money at the time I got my Indybrock's I would have gotten some Indy 360's


70 duster full chassis super pro 416 CNC Indybrock heads 727 w/brake

best so far 1.212 60 6.219 in 1/8 at 110.88 9.768 at 137.81 1/4
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's [Re: Brian Hafliger] #451712
08/29/09 12:56 AM
08/29/09 12:56 AM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 137
LI, new york
G
gmachinedart1 Offline OP
member
gmachinedart1  Offline OP
member
G

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 137
LI, new york
Quote:

Do you plan on running a solid roller cam, or FT?
I like the edelbrock heads for road race because as mentioned there are alot of pro's, plus the valvetrain is less likely to be a problem over the highly offset W2 stuff.

How much power do you want/need? What are the rpm ranges you'll run (lowest and highest)?
How heavy is this car? I've seen short stroke engines kill bigger stroke stuff if done right.




I must state that the car(70 dart) is not an all out road race car but really a 3400lb(w/driver)street car that is used for track days and autocrossed.I would like to try a solid roller if it will be reliable,but if its not in budget a solid f/t will do.I guess an honest 500hp on pump gas would suffice.Rpm range would prob be 1200-7200.I dont know if it would be a step backwards(from the current 360)but I might consider doing a 340 with the shorter stroke and rpm potential.

thanx
justin

Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's [Re: gmachinedart1] #451713
08/29/09 12:46 PM
08/29/09 12:46 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,484
SoCal
Brian Hafliger Offline
master
Brian Hafliger  Offline
master

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,484
SoCal
The only way to make a short stroke engine work in a road race app. is throw gear at it. Probably not a very good street car that way.

500HP is not too hard, but wanting 7200rpm means you either need to stay with a 360, and use edelbrock heads or Indy's smaller 210cc head, or maybe go to a 340 style block and use a 3.79 crank and Indy's 230cc head.
If you go with a 4" crank, you'll need a 230 Indy head min. to get that rpm range but you'll make way more than 500HP. Not to mention cost will be alot higher with the Indy stuff.

If it were me, I would stick to the 360, and use edelbrock magnum heads with a FT cam and 1.7 rockers to get some lift at the valve.
Those heads need to be ported to make 500HP, but with 10.3:1 and the right carb (950HP) I think 500HP is easily doable.
I would also try to use lightweight stuff like Scat rods, light pistons, and a lightweight crank if you can afford it. The engine will act like it has alot more TQ than it really does helping with a taller gear that's more street friendly.


Brian Hafliger
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's [Re: RyanJ] #451714
08/29/09 12:57 PM
08/29/09 12:57 PM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,247
Mt. Vernon, Ohio
dartman366 Offline
I Live Here
dartman366  Offline
I Live Here

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,247
Mt. Vernon, Ohio
Quote:

Quote:

my marginally better than a edelbrock set of Lg Port Commando's




LOL!

To be honest they all SUCK, everyone should have a set of INDY 360 series heads on There, that ought to stir the pot nicely

You can go fast with anything if the combo is right.... these arguments over which head is better than this one is funny. They all have Pro's & they all have Con's.


I thought that might tickle your funny bone.


Light travels faster than the speed of sound,,,this is why some people seem bright untill you hear them speak.
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's [Re: dartman366] #451715
08/29/09 05:08 PM
08/29/09 05:08 PM
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,015
Down South
DaKuda Offline
super stock
DaKuda  Offline
super stock

Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,015
Down South
hey brian, what ever came of the smallblock roller lifters that didnt need block grinding to install? back to subject now.

Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's [Re: DaKuda] #451716
08/29/09 07:22 PM
08/29/09 07:22 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,484
SoCal
Brian Hafliger Offline
master
Brian Hafliger  Offline
master

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,484
SoCal
Quote:

hey brian, what ever came of the smallblock roller lifters that didnt need block grinding to install? back to subject now.




Not sure what you mean...? I have them in stock, and more in Mi.

Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's [Re: Brian Hafliger] #451717
08/30/09 11:48 PM
08/30/09 11:48 PM
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 399
SouthEast Michigan
P
PETE@BESTMACHINE Offline
enthusiast
PETE@BESTMACHINE  Offline
enthusiast
P

Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 399
SouthEast Michigan
We all so stock the lifters that have the link-bar on the inside for small blocks and have a tall upper body big block roller lifter for pushrod oiling.

Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's [Re: PETE@BESTMACHINE] #451718
08/31/09 10:53 AM
08/31/09 10:53 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,484
SoCal
Brian Hafliger Offline
master
Brian Hafliger  Offline
master

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,484
SoCal
Quote:

We all so stock the lifters that have the link-bar on the inside for small blocks and have a tall upper body big block roller lifter for pushrod oiling.




Yes Jimmy told me. He's a great guy to deal with...busy guy too!! LOL


Brian Hafliger
Page 2 of 2 1 2






Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1