|
Re: 514 on the dyno
[Re: AndyF]
#804332
10/04/11 06:55 PM
10/04/11 06:55 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,063
Shelby Twp. Mi
HardcoreB
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,063
Shelby Twp. Mi
|
Quote:
I think I'll just keep beating on the EZ heads to see if I can hit the 900 hp mark. Just seems like an interesting challenge.
Nice updates Andy.  It is a neat concept but, I think you should upgrade the top-end and go for 1100HP.
|
|
|
Re: 514 on the dyno
[Re: AndyF]
#804335
10/08/11 12:15 PM
10/08/11 12:15 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,010
Frostbitefalls MN (Rocky&Bullw...
gregsdart
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,010
Frostbitefalls MN (Rocky&Bullw...
|
"Biggest debate I'm having at the moment is if I should stay with the 4.440 x 4.150, or increase the stroke. I could slide a 4.50 crank in there to pick up the size as well as the compression. I'm just not sure that bigger is better when the motor is already limited by the heads. Maybe smaller with more RPM makes more power? "
That was exactly my question when I built the motor I now have. I felt that the 4.15 stroke x 4.5 bore combo offered the best size for the 440-1 heads. Maybe I was off the mark, maybe not. I had a billet 4.5 crank at the time, chose the 4.15.
It would seem that at some point the total amount of air filling the cylinder at a given rpm must be reduced as the motor gets bigger, reducing running compression? Ring friction goes up, the biggest drag on the motor. Crankcase windage gets worse. Which would start to clip the hp up top more than just the differance in size of the motor.
At this point I still wonder if even smaller motor with the biggest bore possible might be the answer, say (edit)4.500 by 3.9 in strke for about 496 cubes. That would put the motor more in the sweet spot of what I have, a running range of 6400 to 7500 rpm..
Last edited by gregsdart; 10/09/11 01:24 AM.
8..603 156 mph best, 2905 lbs 549, indy 572-13, alky
|
|
|
Re: 514 on the dyno
[Re: gregsdart]
#804341
10/22/11 10:29 AM
10/22/11 10:29 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,848
MI, usa
dvw
master
|
master
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,848
MI, usa
|
Quote:
"Biggest debate I'm having at the moment is if I should stay with the 4.440 x 4.150, or increase the stroke. I could slide a 4.50 crank in there to pick up the size as well as the compression. I'm just not sure that bigger is better when the motor is already limited by the heads. Maybe smaller with more RPM makes more power? "
That was exactly my question when I built the motor I now have. I felt that the 4.15 stroke x 4.5 bore combo offered the best size for the 440-1 heads. Maybe I was off the mark, maybe not. I had a billet 4.5 crank at the time, chose the 4.15.
It would seem that at some point the total amount of air filling the cylinder at a given rpm must be reduced as the motor gets bigger, reducing running compression? Ring friction goes up, the biggest drag on the motor. Crankcase windage gets worse. Which would start to clip the hp up top more than just the differance in size of the motor.
At this point I still wonder if even smaller motor with the biggest bore possible might be the answer, say (edit)4.500 by 3.9 in strke for about 496 cubes. That would put the motor more in the sweet spot of what I have, a running range of 6400 to 7500 rpm..
Greg I agree with what you think on the HP issue. However I've seen some head limited engines produce good E.T.s. That leads to the question. Can some combinations benefit from more low end power through the range? Take Jakes 63 Savoy. 572,-13 heads,Indy cross ram w/carters,cal tracks,approx 3675lbs. 899@150 The math suggests it makes way more than we think. But i'll bet the torque curve looks as flat as Nebraska..
Doug
|
|
|
Re: 514 on the dyno
[Re: dvw]
#804342
10/22/11 11:00 AM
10/22/11 11:00 AM
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,210
robin hood country
deaks
master
|
master
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,210
robin hood country
|
Andy
Not refering specifically to this build but i wondered what your opinions or experiences are with the super sucker dominator adaptor, or super sucker spacers in general. The reason i ask, is Dwayne suggested it might help my combo some and while i respect his greatly more knowledgable opinion than mine, it would also be nice to hear others experiences of them good or bad.
Mick
69 Dart GTS 440 mopar .590 cam, Edelbrock heads, 3200#
best et 6.45, 106.78, 10.14, 132.88 mph, 1.47 60ft
best 60ft 1.36
|
|
|
Re: 514 on the dyno
[Re: deaks]
#804344
10/24/11 03:11 AM
10/24/11 03:11 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 559
Idaho
LaRoy Engines
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 559
Idaho
|
Quote:
Andy
Not refering specifically to this build but i wondered what your opinions or experiences are with the super sucker dominator adaptor, or super sucker spacers in general. The reason i ask, is Dwayne suggested it might help my combo some and while i respect his greatly more knowledgable opinion than mine, it would also be nice to hear others experiences of them good or bad.
Mick
First chance I've had to read this thread.
I'm not on the level of Dwayne or Andy, I'm one of the "others", but I have tried the Super Sucker on single plane, single carburetor, engine combinations from 620-920 HP and have found the Super Sucker to increase horsepower every time.
And Andy, Thank you for the idea to put the window in the water return line, it would have saved our bacon in the contest. Plus, I for one, do believe the power you make with the 514 combination you are running. Our 500 with the Victor heads, HS Rockers, 13.5:1, the Indy 3X, 1150 Dominator and wet sump will pull those numbers. I think 900 HP is possible.
|
|
|
Re: 514 on the dyno
[Re: LaRoy Engines]
#804345
10/24/11 09:20 AM
10/24/11 09:20 AM
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,210
robin hood country
deaks
master
|
master
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,210
robin hood country
|
Thank you, can i also ask does the 2" pick up more than the 1" and have you tried the 4150 to 4500 adaptor and what you thought of that.
This question is to Andy, Heyoldguy or anyone else reading this thread, Andy, please say if you would like me to take this question to email.
Mick
69 Dart GTS 440 mopar .590 cam, Edelbrock heads, 3200#
best et 6.45, 106.78, 10.14, 132.88 mph, 1.47 60ft
best 60ft 1.36
|
|
|
Re: 514 on the dyno
[Re: AndyF]
#804348
10/27/11 06:35 AM
10/27/11 06:35 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 559
Idaho
LaRoy Engines
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 559
Idaho
|
Quote:
Hi Jim,
Welcome to the board. Always great to have experienced engine builders adding their knowledge to the forum.
I spent a lot of years in Idaho growing up but I haven't been back in awhile.
My 514 is underperforming if anything. A lot of guys are making way more power per cubic inch than I'm getting out of this motor. Have you worked on the EZ heads much? You sure got some great numbers out of those cast iron heads.
Thanks, Andy
Yes, I agree, there is more remaining in the 514.
As to the EZ heads, I picked up a set 18 months ago and spend a day fiddling with them and they went to 350cfm. I thought, "That's enough for now," and put them back on the shelf. Still gathering dust, but some day.....I'll turn them over to my son.
My son Cody is our real head porter. The iron heads are a result of an article by Cam Benty in the Dec, 1982 issue of Popular Hot Rodding. Cam did an article on my Dad's 440 and my son read it in 2004. Cody wanted to attempt what Dad had done back then, pulled out the old flowbench and began destroying cylinder heads. He finally figured it out after producing a huge pile of scrap iron.
In 2008 I was running 906 heads on my 451" Road Runner at the chassis dyno at Westech. I had a 383 on the engine dyno at the same time and when I came out of the dyno room, some guy was taking pictures of the Road Runner on the rollers. It was Cam Benty. He wanted to know how the 451 was making 554 RWHP on 91 octane and a single 4bbl. We started talking about the cylinder heads. He was interested in doing an article about the 906 heads but it never happened. I did however, get his autograph on a copy of the article about my Dad.
Enough, I thought this was supposed to be about your 514.
I really like those Super Performance gaskets you use. I've used other types and it took dynamite and tire tools to remove the intake. With the Super Performance gaskets I just unbolt and lift. Rats, I went and looked at the package, they are Superformance gaskets.
Last edited by heyoldguy; 10/27/11 11:52 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Keep holding your breath.......He doesn't even have enough sack to answer why he won't post a dyno sheet, so IMHO, this whole thread is pretty useless..... 
I have seen them, more than one 
not up to making as much power us Mopar engine guys can make 
IHTHS 
