|
Re: 514 on the dyno
[Re: supercomp]
#804252
02/26/11 03:39 PM
02/26/11 03:39 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
|
after reading this whole thread again, i have to admit that i find it hard to quantify the dyno numbers based on the cylinder head flow and HUGE lack of information in other area's. nowhere have i seen mentioned even what the lobe lift is on the camshaft, nor any of the important data from the dyno. assuming just for a moment that the dry sump pump takes a few less HP to run than a conventional pump, how much realistic gain can you imagine there really is? whatever it might be, it's not likely double digit numbers. same goes for the belt drive distributor. the only real significant change from most combos similar to this one would be the jesel rockers and the much higher lift ratio. obviously that could be worth a lot, depending on the cam being used. the motor certainly looks pretty and the custom made brackets look really nice, so in that regard it's a teriffic advertisement for those parts, as well as a few others. the skeptical side of me believes that any time a magazine contributor is involved in these dyno tests, the numbers always appear to be considerably higher than what would be thought of as "normal" for a particular combination. in this case it's hard to judge simply because of the lack of, and apparently the decision not to reveal any real meaningful data. it's just my opinion, but i find that to be a real shame, as well as very suspect. now, even though it's not what some would consider politically correct, i'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the hp numbers are inflated by around 90-100 horses. ironically it wasn't that many months ago when i said the same thing about a couple of other combo's from a member here. even more ironic is that when those engines got tested on a properly calibrated superflow dyno (instead of the typically happy Stuska's) they were down near 100 HP, almost exactly as i had predicted. (no, i'm not patting myself on the back either). some here will remember the apology that person posted to me, albeit totally unnecessary. in the end, it doesn't matter what i, or anyone else thinks. HP claims sells motors, but the track MPH will be the final test. i look forward to seeing those results. hopefully Andy has stumbled on (and worked hard to find) a perfect combination that simply blows away anything like it in dramatic fashion. unfortunately my gut tells me no, but i hope i'm proven wrong. the opinions expressed here are mine, should anyone disagree, i'll certainly understand, so go ahead and flame away if you feel you must. 
machine shop owner and engine builder
|
|
|
Re: 514 on the dyno
[Re: Streetwize]
#804254
02/26/11 03:46 PM
02/26/11 03:46 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,049
Oregon
AndyF
OP
I Win
|
OP
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,049
Oregon
|
Quote:
Again, I think Andy eluded to the Dry-sump and jesel valvetrain moving the HP up considerably, I've noticed my valvetrain is a lot more stable at 6500+ using the 1 piece Billet Block rocker stands instead of the cast-in pedestals, I think that could be 15-20hp right there alone, let alone a full-tilt State of the art Jesel system
The Jesel and dry sump picked up power last year quite a bit. The Jones cam was another significant step up last year. This year we upgraded to the bigger bore size, the thicker block, better rings, gas ported pistons, etc. That picked the power up another 40 hp or so over last year's motor.
I have more than 100 dyno pulls on this basic combination so we're starting to get a feel for what works and what doesn't. There are lots of other guys out there who have a lot more development time into their motors and are making a lot more power. I'm pretty sure if I turned this motor over to a professional shop they could find another 100 hp without too much effort. It is $500 a day for dyno testing so I can't afford to test very often. Besides, I have to show up at work on a regular basis as well as do all the chores my wife sends my way.
|
|
|
Re: 514 on the dyno
[Re: Streetwize]
#804256
02/26/11 04:40 PM
02/26/11 04:40 PM
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,131
Thigh-Gap Junction
@#$%&*!
New user name, Same old jerk!
|
New user name, Same old jerk!
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,131
Thigh-Gap Junction
|
Quote:
...was the 337 OOTB or ported? As I mentioned in another post the 'as delivered' 337 ports are only about 1/2 way between a 906 and a real Maxie, the 337 does have excellent taper from the plenum as delived though.
I get the blame for the '337. I matched it to the gaskets Mopar sent with it and it was a bit of work. I had planned to match it to my heads (Stg VI) but it turned out that my heads were much closer to MW than I thought and it was just easier to match everything to the gaskets.
I also shortened a Dart 2" 4150-4500 adapter and built-in about 5 degrees of carburetor angle so it would fit my car better. Before the shortening process the plenum match was better than could be expected but afterward much blending was needed. The modified adapter is mounted to the manifold with 4 1/4" socket head screws. I don't think I've ever run a MP casting as out of the box. 
|
|
|
Re: 514 on the dyno
[Re: AndyF]
#804257
02/27/11 09:22 AM
02/27/11 09:22 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,928
NC
440Jim
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,928
NC
|
Quote:
The Jesel and dry sump picked up power last year quite a bit. The Jones cam was another significant step up last year. This year we upgraded to the bigger bore size, the thicker block, better rings, gas ported pistons, etc. That picked the power up another 40 hp or so over last year's motor.
I have more than 100 dyno pulls on this basic combination ...
And just for comparison with these heads,
Back when Andy ran the stock block (smaller bore) with the same heads, the solid flat tappet cam that I run (Comp MM305), plain 1.5 rockers, etc.; it made right about what I think I am making:
738 hp at 6400
641 ft-lb at 5500
440 block, 4.250" stroke, 505 CID --Jim--> 400, 4.250", 511 CID
Indy EZ ported by MCH (same heads), 13.5 CR --Jim--> 440-1, 355 cfm, 368@0.800", 13.5 CR
Standard oil pan and oiling --Jim--> Moroso 8qt standard
Comp MM305S-10: 279/287 at 0.050", 0.650/0.630" lift, 110 LSA
Indy 440-2 intake with 4500 adapter --Jim--> I have run both 400-2 and 400-3
1050 Carb
2x32 headers --Jim--> 2-1/8 x 32
|
|
|
Re: 514 on the dyno
[Re: 520DUSTER]
#804263
02/28/11 02:37 PM
02/28/11 02:37 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
BradH
Taking time off to work on my car
|
Taking time off to work on my car
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
|
Quote:
520 RB
CN dominator
indy intake
Porter prepped EZ CNC 295s
650 solid roller 270 @ 50
10.85-1 with 175psi cranking compression
2 inch CPPA headers
657 hp @ 6000 rpm
Boy did I do something wrong.
Is the valve train and oil system worth that much power ?
IMO you didn't do anything "wrong"... except make something of an apples-to-oranges comparison because of how much more serious Andy's engine is. Just off the top of my head I can see he's gone to the next level in terms of CR, cam & valve train aggressiveness, oil system, "real" race headers, etc. Yours is a nice streetable pump-gas combination... his isn't. 
|
|
|
Re: 514 on the dyno
[Re: AndyF]
#804264
02/28/11 09:56 PM
02/28/11 09:56 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,547
State College, PA
RyanJ
moparts member
|
moparts member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,547
State College, PA
|
I was asked by an outside source today to take look @ this post & see what I thought... so here goes... I guess biggest thing I took away from it, is I don't get the lack of understanding of the power #'s? 1.61 HP/INCH 1.39 TQ/INCH 2.3 HP/CFM What exactly am I missing that is "out of line" here? Those #'s are "unbelievable"? Seem pretty reasonable to me for the combo... Looks pretty much what I'd expect out of a combo like that. Where is the power being made? If you have to ask that, then you probably don't understand how a race engine works. Killer motors don't make big #'s based on any 1 thing... it's a large # of small things that all add up... Find 5 HP in 10 different places that the other guy has'nt looked @, & you've got 50 HP more than the next. Race block (ring seal) Proper machine work, again, ring seal with hone job, proper valve job, concentricity on seats/valves, proper lifter bore geometry etc. all contribute in small ways to power production. Does it make 50 more HP? NO... 3-5 here/there? For sure. Flat top piston VS: having to run a Dome to get the 12.5:1. Better flame travel etc. +HP Gas ported custom pistons... he mentioned .043" ring pack, so power there... probably has a Napiere 2nd & a fairly light oil ring... more "free" power...Knowing Diamond, I'd guess it's a Total Seal ring set... 11 LB oil ring, probably 3 MM. Lack of friction = increased HP. Dry sump oil pan/tank/pump... power there, certainly in windage & as well as pump frictional losses. Modern CNC EZ heads.... Would be interesting to know intake valve size, although it does'nt really matter, 2.19 or 2.25, I could see either one putting up these #'s on that shortblock without issue. I've made 810 HP with a 2.15" valve before so... I don't think he is running out of curtain area 12.5:1 compression, not excessively high, but certainly enough to get job done on gasoline. 14:1 with a dome on piston probably would have cost power. It has a Jones cam which is probably fairly aggressive ramp, & then the 1.85/1.7 Rockers make sure that the valvetrain actuation, especially the all important intake side, is extremely fast no matter what lobe he has on it, & knowing Jones, I'm sure it ain't a slouch. Valvetrain speed is major contributor to making big power #'s... Alot of the power is in the cam & rocker ratio, more so than the valvetrain being more "stable" IMO, although having your valvetran as stable as possible with a high $ jesel rocker stand is never a bad idea. If the cam is as aggressive as I suspect it is, this would probably not be a great weekend "bracket motor" from a valvetrain reliability standpoint but makes for great #'s on dyno. (think Enginemasters type build) Dyno headers.... take a look @ them, straight out for about 8-10"... down & back. There is certainly power there that you won't see in the car... but help add up on the dyno. & I'll guess he has other things going on in the valvetrain like a large diameter, thick wall pushrod etc which also will add to the power #'s. It's just all those little "tricks" that add up to making something above & beyond the "norm" You certainly don't see too many big inch EZ head motors with that level of attention to detail & good parts used around them. So to say this motor is way off base, is well... off base IMO The only thing I think I saw Andy post in this entire post that was out of line was the statement about a professional engine builder could find another 100 HP out of it. Now that would be a serious stretch.... EZ heads do have a limit somewhere, although.... the big offset rocker version is essentially a 440-1 with a smaller/lower EX port & EX port on these BB Mopars is overrated as far as how big you "need" IMO most are too big, both valve size & port size, for what they are being ran on.... I don't see 930 HP on a 514 with a set like the ones he has. I don't think he is giving himself enough credit for what he has here. Very stout piece with some really good high end parts on/in it & over 100 dyno pulls worth of data to learn off of. Not too many drag guys short of a S/S or Comp racer will put anywhere near 100 pulls on same combo looking for power. The dyno might be 15-20 HP high @ most IMO. But I'm sure I could find some that put up bigger #'s, & I'm sure I can find some that would put up lower #'s. Looks like Andy is using it the correct way though as a tuning too & just trying to compare what intake A does VS intake B etc. Just my 
|
|
|
Re: 514 on the dyno
[Re: RyanJ]
#804265
02/28/11 11:23 PM
02/28/11 11:23 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,049
Oregon
AndyF
OP
I Win
|
OP
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,049
Oregon
|
Hi Ryan,
Good write up, you obviously have been around the block a few times with these types of motors.
My 100 hp comment comes from the tricks I've seen over the years. Vacuum pump, 100 degree coolant, more compression, additional head porting, ported intake manifold, more agressive cam, better oil pan, Spintron testing, aluminum rods, bigger lifters, lower oil pressure, lightweight oil, etc.
I'm pretty sure a Super Stock engine builder would find a bunch of power that I've left on the table. Of course the cost would go up. I have about $22,000 in the motor at the moment while a Super Stock version of this same combination with all the tricks would probably be $45,000 or so?
|
|
|
Re: 514 on the dyno
[Re: AndyF]
#804266
02/28/11 11:40 PM
02/28/11 11:40 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,547
State College, PA
RyanJ
moparts member
|
moparts member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,547
State College, PA
|
Quote:
Hi Ryan,
Good write up, you obviously have been around the block a few times with these types of motors.
My 100 hp comment comes from the tricks I've seen over the years. Vacuum pump, 100 degree coolant, more compression, additional head porting, ported intake manifold, more agressive cam, better oil pan, Spintron testing, aluminum rods, bigger lifters, lower oil pressure, lightweight oil, etc.
I'm pretty sure a Super Stock engine builder would find a bunch of power that I've left on the table. Of course the cost would go up. I have about $22,000 in the motor at the moment while a Super Stock version of this same combination with all the tricks would probably be $45,000 or so?
I still don't think you'd find another 100 HP @ that level 100 HP takes alot. There is probably another 50 in it if you went crazy (but who builds a $45K EZ head motor LOL). I have read that similar argument on here before about W5 motors, what is most HP theoretically possible etc if you spent $50K on every possible trick/welding up heads into completely different piece etc. Well who cares? No one would ever spend that kind of coin to build one... unless they have mental problems. I like to see reality, not "theories" Everyone's got a theory, very few actually build stuff & actually prove/disprove them. I give you Kudo's especially if you're paying $500 a pop for dyno time everytime you put that thing on... that takes some dedication. & since you are a freelance mag writer I know you are not being bankrolled for that dyno time like some on here may think.
|
|
|
Re: 514 on the dyno
[Re: Performance Only]
#804268
03/01/11 12:58 AM
03/01/11 12:58 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,223
Bend,OR USA
Cab_Burge
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,223
Bend,OR USA
|
Quote:
after reading this whole thread again, i have to admit that i find it hard to quantify the dyno numbers based on the cylinder head flow and HUGE lack of information in other area's.
nowhere have i seen mentioned even what the lobe lift is on the camshaft, nor any of the important data from the dyno.
assuming just for a moment that the dry sump pump takes a few less HP to run than a conventional pump, how much realistic gain can you imagine there really is? whatever it might be, it's not likely double digit numbers. same goes for the belt drive distributor.
the only real significant change from most combos similar to this one would be the jesel rockers and the much higher lift ratio. obviously that could be worth a lot, depending on the cam being used.
the motor certainly looks pretty and the custom made brackets look really nice, so in that regard it's a teriffic advertisement for those parts, as well as a few others.
the skeptical side of me believes that any time a magazine contributor is involved in these dyno tests, the numbers always appear to be considerably higher than what would be thought of as "normal" for a particular combination. in this case it's hard to judge simply because of the lack of, and apparently the decision not to reveal any real meaningful data. it's just my opinion, but i find that to be a real shame, as well as very suspect.
now, even though it's not what some would consider politically correct, i'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the hp numbers are inflated by around 90-100 horses. ironically it wasn't that many months ago when i said the same thing about a couple of other combo's from a member here. even more ironic is that when those engines got tested on a properly calibrated superflow dyno (instead of the typically happy Stuska's) they were down near 100 HP, almost exactly as i had predicted. (no, i'm not patting myself on the back either). some here will remember the apology that person posted to me, albeit totally unnecessary.
in the end, it doesn't matter what i, or anyone else thinks. HP claims sells motors, but the track MPH will be the final test. i look forward to seeing those results. hopefully Andy has stumbled on (and worked hard to find) a perfect combination that simply blows away anything like it in dramatic fashion. unfortunately my gut tells me no, but i hope i'm proven wrong.
the opinions expressed here are mine, should anyone disagree, i'll certainly understand, so go ahead and flame away if you feel you must.
Not trying to hijack Andys thread, the new Studka dyno operator had not calibrated that dyno when I ran my 527 motor on it, once that dyno had been calibrated my 527 motor made within 5 HP the second time on it with the same setup as I ran on the DTS dyno 200 miles away and 1800 ft. higher elevation in Klamath Falls, OR. Klamath is right at 4300 ft. at the dyno shop and the Studka is right at 2500 Ft. in Madras, ORegon The three times I have treid to use a Super Flow engine dyno we ended up breaking it
Mr.Cab Racing and winning with Mopars since 1964. (Old F--t, Huh)
|
|
|
Re: 514 on the dyno
[Re: Cab_Burge]
#804269
03/01/11 01:37 AM
03/01/11 01:37 AM
|
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:
Quote:
after reading this whole thread again, i have to admit that i find it hard to quantify the dyno numbers based on the cylinder head flow and HUGE lack of information in other area's.
nowhere have i seen mentioned even what the lobe lift is on the camshaft, nor any of the important data from the dyno.
assuming just for a moment that the dry sump pump takes a few less HP to run than a conventional pump, how much realistic gain can you imagine there really is? whatever it might be, it's not likely double digit numbers. same goes for the belt drive distributor.
the only real significant change from most combos similar to this one would be the jesel rockers and the much higher lift ratio. obviously that could be worth a lot, depending on the cam being used.
the motor certainly looks pretty and the custom made brackets look really nice, so in that regard it's a teriffic advertisement for those parts, as well as a few others.
the skeptical side of me believes that any time a magazine contributor is involved in these dyno tests, the numbers always appear to be considerably higher than what would be thought of as "normal" for a particular combination. in this case it's hard to judge simply because of the lack of, and apparently the decision not to reveal any real meaningful data. it's just my opinion, but i find that to be a real shame, as well as very suspect.
now, even though it's not what some would consider politically correct, i'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the hp numbers are inflated by around 90-100 horses. ironically it wasn't that many months ago when i said the same thing about a couple of other combo's from a member here. even more ironic is that when those engines got tested on a properly calibrated superflow dyno (instead of the typically happy Stuska's) they were down near 100 HP, almost exactly as i had predicted. (no, i'm not patting myself on the back either). some here will remember the apology that person posted to me, albeit totally unnecessary.
in the end, it doesn't matter what i, or anyone else thinks. HP claims sells motors, but the track MPH will be the final test. i look forward to seeing those results. hopefully Andy has stumbled on (and worked hard to find) a perfect combination that simply blows away anything like it in dramatic fashion. unfortunately my gut tells me no, but i hope i'm proven wrong.
the opinions expressed here are mine, should anyone disagree, i'll certainly understand, so go ahead and flame away if you feel you must.
Not trying to hijack Andys thread, the new Studka dyno operator had not calibrated that dyno when I ran my 527 motor on it, once that dyno had been calibrated my 527 motor made within 5 HP the second time on it with the same setup as I ran on the DTS dyno 200 miles away and 1800 ft. higher elevation in Klamath Falls, OR. Klamath is right at 4300 ft. at the dyno shop and the Studka is right at 2500 Ft. in Madras, ORegon The three times I have treid to use a Super Flow engine dyno we ended up breaking it
Cab, you obviously have a short memory. here's what you had to say back then, which is completely opposite of what you say now.
Quote:
I have meant to make this post since I learned that the local Studka engine dyno that I use had been opertated (I don't know for how long ) out of calibration. I totally belived it to be accurate until I took one of my motors that had been dyno tested on it and haul it to another different brand down south of where we live now. There was a 100 HP and similar torque loss compared from the Studka and the DTS, the DTS dyno operator calibrated it before starting my tests I brought that motor back to the Studka and ended up hurting the motor. The Studka has since been calibrated correcting the error and it is now down around 100 HP from what it measued before
DRAM, my apologies Now I have to figure out which parts to use to make the power I want DRAM, 2.25 HP per C.I. N/A is totally doable, not cheap tho I'm shooting for 1.46 HP per C.I.or higher on pump gas on my next motor
i still stand by my other post here. there is so little actual info about the 514 it's almost as if it was written that way on purpose.
why not show some actual data? personally i wouldn't car if it made 600 hp or 1100 hp. you don't need to do it to prove anything, but when someone throws out HP and Torque numbers it sure would be nice to see the dyno data so people can read, absorb and learn from it.
machine shop owner and engine builder
|
|
|
Re: 514 on the dyno
[Re: gregsdart]
#804271
03/01/11 04:35 AM
03/01/11 04:35 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,049
Oregon
AndyF
OP
I Win
|
OP
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,049
Oregon
|
Quote:
Andy, any idea why that 440-3x fell off on the top end?
The 440-3X was down across the board by a small amount. My guess is that the runners are too big for this particular engine. That intake probably works a lot better on the bigger motors that it was designed for.
|
|
|
|
|
the pot. Just giving my opinion of the dyno.
