|
Re: 430" small block build
[Re: quick77rt ]
#912662
01/25/11 03:06 PM
01/25/11 03:06 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 331
Cincinnati Oh
fasthawk6
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 331
Cincinnati Oh
|
Quote:
Well so much for ford junk, thought this was about small block mopars.
Ive several strokers from 410s to a hair over 450 inches, have not noticed any rods issues on inspection and they often see over 7k.
More and more we will see the 4 plus stroke cranks as common as the 4 inchers.
40Ford can fill folks in on what an X block will take or just read some of his postings, its pretty clear you can knock the sides out of anything if you try hard enough.
But other then some cast crank posts I dont see many small blocks, oem or afterm, X R with there guts spit out as we do so many stock block BB motors.
Dont see how a small block ford plays into this, the small block stroker has proven itself as a good solid combo. And im sure Dave knows the right people to get it done.
All i did was put out a comment on a similar combo that i have personal seen. i also have two 4 inch motors right now but have not been together long engough or torn down to see what things look like.i dont think i will ever go bigger than a 4 inch stroke.
|
|
|
Re: 430" small block build
[Re: fasthawk6]
#912663
01/25/11 03:12 PM
01/25/11 03:12 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,179
Atco NJ
DJVCuda
OP
I Live Here
|
OP
I Live Here
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,179
Atco NJ
|
Quote:
as far as the ford junk comment there is nothing in it thats ford , dart block callies crank gas ported pistons and so on. car went 9.50s na and 5.70s on spray. i think it had a 4.100 stroke and a 4.155 bore
i think.6.200 on rod length.
How much spray and does anyone think that could be a contributor to the condition?
|
|
|
Re: 430" small block build
[Re: DJVCuda]
#912664
01/25/11 03:18 PM
01/25/11 03:18 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,074
detroit, mi
POS Dakota
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,074
detroit, mi
|
Quote:
Quote:
as far as the ford junk comment there is nothing in it thats ford , dart block callies crank gas ported pistons and so on. car went 9.50s na and 5.70s on spray. i think it had a 4.100 stroke and a 4.155 bore
i think.6.200 on rod length.
How much spray and does anyone think that could be a contributor to the condition?
Good question.
|
|
|
Re: 430" small block build
[Re: JSR1485]
#912666
01/25/11 03:36 PM
01/25/11 03:36 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,179
Atco NJ
DJVCuda
OP
I Live Here
|
OP
I Live Here
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,179
Atco NJ
|
|
|
|
Re: 430" small block build
[Re: DJVCuda]
#912668
01/25/11 03:58 PM
01/25/11 03:58 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 331
Cincinnati Oh
fasthawk6
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 331
Cincinnati Oh
|
Quote:
Quote:
as far as the ford junk comment there is nothing in it thats ford , dart block callies crank gas ported pistons and so on. car went 9.50s na and 5.70s on spray. i think it had a 4.100 stroke and a 4.155 bore
i think.6.200 on rod length.
How much spray and does anyone think that could be a contributor to the condition?
150 shot,plus all the rod and mains looked good.
|
|
|
Re: 430" small block build
[Re: fasthawk6]
#912669
01/25/11 04:12 PM
01/25/11 04:12 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,872
Weddington, N.C.
Streetwize
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,872
Weddington, N.C.
|
4+ inch stuff I typically won't spray or boost, side loading increases with cylinder pressure regardless of stroke or rod ratio so (obviously IMO) if you have long stroke short rod combo it's a little harder on the block with your normal cylinder pressure. I like the 4+ inch motors when I'm looking for a true Big block 'behind the wheel' experience and where you run good (but not necessarliy "great") heads that limit the RPM (and more importantly piston speed) to a moderate (5800-6200 ish) range. If you're boosting or spraying, I keep the stroke shorter and the rods longer, if I'm looking for a dual/purpose motor with Longevity. That said the +4 stuff works very very well on the street when set up for the purposes I described above. Torque motors are sweet on the street! Imagine a blueprinted 440 six pack....but with an 1850G bobweight and 100+ less poundage on the nose 
Last edited by Streetwize; 01/25/11 04:19 PM.
|
|
|
Re: 430" small block build
[Re: Streetwize]
#912671
01/25/11 04:20 PM
01/25/11 04:20 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,489
Pacifica, CA
Devilbrad
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,489
Pacifica, CA
|
Quote:
4+ inch stuff I typically won't spray or boost, side loading increases with cylinder pressure regardless of stroke or rod ratio so (obviously IMO) if you have long stroke short rod combo it's a little harder on the block with your normal cylinder pressure.
I like the 4+ inch motors when I'm looking for a true Big block 'behind the wheel' experience and where you run good (but not necessarliy "great") heads that limit the RPM (and more importantly piston speed) to a moderate (5800-6200 ish) range.
If you're boosting or spraying, I keep the stroke shorter and the rods longer, if I'm looking for a dual/purpose motor with Longevity. That said the +4 stuff works very very well on the street when set up for the purposes I described above. Torque motors are sweet on the street!
Question: What do you consider street longevity? At what point would you consider a freshen up on a long stroke NA small block Mopar? I think that's what a lot of people want to know with these new big stroke cranks out nowadays.
|
|
|
Re: 430" small block build
[Re: Streetwize]
#912672
01/25/11 04:28 PM
01/25/11 04:28 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 331
Cincinnati Oh
fasthawk6
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 331
Cincinnati Oh
|
Quote:
4+ inch stuff I typically won't spray or boost, side loading increases with cylinder pressure regardless of stroke or rod ratio so (obviously IMO) if you have long stroke short rod combo it's a little harder on the block with your normal cylinder pressure.
I like the 4+ inch motors when I'm looking for a true Big block 'behind the wheel' experience and where you run good (but not necessarliy "great") heads that limit the RPM (and more importantly piston speed) to a moderate (5800-6200 ish) range.
If you're boosting or spraying, I keep the stroke shorter and the rods longer, if I'm looking for a dual/purpose motor with Longevity. That said the +4 stuff works very very well on the street when set up for the purposes I described above. Torque motors are sweet on the street! Imagine a blueprinted 440 six pack....but with an 1850G bobweight and 100+ less poundage on the nose
Thats why you dont see mopars at headsup events, you have to be willing to run stuff hard.most mopar guys are happy with high 10 sec 4 inch motors. i have come to find that over 4 inch is hader on parts.my indy headed 408 dont even come alive till over 5500. also the lack of head choices out there for that many cubes.where iam my car is the slowest and it runs 126 1/4 mph and drive it all the time.
|
|
|
Re: 430" small block build
[Re: POS Dakota]
#912674
01/25/11 08:57 PM
01/25/11 08:57 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,872
Weddington, N.C.
Streetwize
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,872
Weddington, N.C.
|
Devilbrand,
The decision for a strokeer motor to me is where you're looking for broad mid range and a target horsepower, if you want say right around 500 hp with a sub 6000 rpm peak, it's very easy to achieve. The essence is you're using moderate piston speed through the mid range (where you're not over stressing the block) with a goal of not spinning it up to high (because you don't have to).
A 4.25 arm spinning 6000 rpm has the same piston speed and about the same airflow as a 340 spinning 7700 rpm. the way I build em with say 270-ish cfm heads Both can easily make over 500 hp....but which one would be a better 'real world' better driver? And which one gets to use up 500hp worth of head flow (or closest to it) more often in real dual purpose driving? Which one can pull away and roll-on in any gear at any throttle position?
strokers spinning way up high is like winding a car out past it's power peak, the motor still gains RPM....but it's out of the sweet spot....with a long stroke and the right cam the sweet spot is so broad you don't really have an urge to wind it up tight. BTW I consider durable to go at least 30-40K miles of whatever I want to throw at them, that's a lot of miles for a "toy" and they'll no doubt go further, but I'm gonna be bored by then and want to swap in something else by then.
Another key point, with 4+ " small block stroker torque motors I actually deliberately slightly undercam the motor so as the power naturally falls off right around 5800 or so, after torque peaks the VE (pumping efficiency and rpm gain per sec) naturally starts to fall off as well, so I kind of build-in my rev limiter so to speak.
|
|
|
Re: 430" small block build
[Re: Streetwize]
#912676
01/25/11 09:02 PM
01/25/11 09:02 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,489
Pacifica, CA
Devilbrad
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,489
Pacifica, CA
|
Quote:
Devilbrand,
The decision for a strokeer motor to me is where you're looking for broad mid range and a target horsepower, if you want say right around 500 hp with a sub 6000 rpm peak, it's very easy to achieve. The essence is you're using moderate piston speed through the mid range (where you're not over stressing the block) with a goal of not spinning it up to high (because you don't have to).
A 4.25 arm spinning 6000 rpm has the same piston speed and about the same airflow as a 340 spinning 7700 rpm. the way I build em with say 270-ish cfm heads Both can easily make over 500 hp....but which one would be a better 'real world' better driver? And which one gets to use up 500hp worth of head flow (or closest to it) more often in real dual purpose driving? Which one can pull away and roll-on in any gear at any throttle position?
strokers spinning way up high is like winding a car out past it's power peak, the motor still gains RPM....but it's out of the sweet spot....with a long stroke and the right cam the sweet spot is so broad you don't really have an urge to wind it up tight. BTW I consider durable to go at least 30-40K miles of whatever I want to throw at them, that's a lot of miles for a "toy" and they'll no doubt go further, but I'm gonna be bored by then and want to swap in something else by then.
Another key point, with 4+ " small block stroker torque motors I actually deliberately slightly undercam the motor so as the power naturally falls off right around 5800 or so, after torque peaks the VE (pumping efficiency and rpm gain per sec) naturally starts to fall off as well, so I kind of build-in my rev limiter so to speak.
Thank you for the detailed answer!
|
|
|
Re: 430" small block build
[Re: quick77rt ]
#912678
01/25/11 09:53 PM
01/25/11 09:53 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 32,394
Quicktree
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 32,394
|
Quote:
Bobby you have way more exp them me, and not to go to far off topic, but I see your reference to 30 40k miles, and I guess your talking a wide lobe sep cam and a semi long service life. Far from a race motor.
Using alot of dur 280-s and at 106 we are still pulling after 7k so why not use it if the heads support it, what is wrong with rpm if the heads/setup supports it and many are running there strokers past 7k.
Are you leaning more towards a 30-40k daily driven motor in that thinking vs somthing that gets tore down every couple years or when needed??? Another member here just tore his stroker apart after a year of abuse at 7k plus only to find no issues.
Im asking this trying to learn, not be a smartazz. I just dont understand why I want to shift at 6k when im still making power to 7k as many are doing? Is alot of it for longer life? Im just a bit confused, your talking 30-40k mile build in the race section.
 with quick77, who's talking about 500hp street motors? you can't tell me large ci SB with good heads wont make more hp. and capeable of higher rpm 
|
|
|
Re: 430" small block build
[Re: Quicktree]
#912681
01/25/11 10:43 PM
01/25/11 10:43 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,872
Weddington, N.C.
Streetwize
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,872
Weddington, N.C.
|
Oh is it HIGH RPM Race only?  (just picking!) But if racing was just about winding the Pee out of it, i guess we'd all be racing honda S2000's, I never equated a lack of rev cieling with a lack of track performance  Plenty of stock eliminator cars don't rev all that high. But you're right Mark, if you've got the heads, go for it! A question was asked about how I defined durability..not meaning to go O/T, but I responded and I stand on my limiting the LONG (>4") stroke stuff mainly to mid rpm torque motors, but i'll build whatever a customer wants but I'll be up front with what I see as limitations. I'll tell you what though, I met a really cool guy from south carolina while I was up at the Bristol Mopar show last fall. ronp was there and others, I'm sure they'll remember it. 416 in a 69 cuda fastback, automatic, 3.91 gears maybe? full exhaust. clicking off 7.50's in the 1/8th letting the trans shift itself at maybe 5000 rpm. This guy gets it and the car was deadly consistent for bracket racing. Embarrassing a lot of trailered open header cars too. Silver with the black 340 stripe...sweet ride and very impressive. He was racing, cutting pretty nice lights too, went several rounds in as I remember. turning a big arm small bore small port (relatively) torque motor into a HP motor by spinning it up tighter ain't the way I'd do it but opinions vary, i'd  rather build a 370-ish motor with whatever heads you would put on your 'big boy' and I'd just gear it deeper and wind it up tighter. High piston speeds and long strokes CAN wind up high but they're going to be less efficient hp/cube than a shorter stroke motor. Beyond peak torque your motors rate of acceleration (rpm gain per second) slows...in other words the friction losses start to act like a brake on the crank and the longer the stroke the bigger the brake. do a long stroke and short stroke comparison in any decent engine simulation software and you'll typically see (same heads, cam, cr, etc) that the frictional HP losses have a higher rate of rise per 100 rpm and it's more or less linear...the the higher you rev the steeper the rise of frictional loss. If I want a 420+" motor for racing I'd much rather punch a siamese block to ~4.20 and use a 3.79" stroke but up to 4" seem to work really well and it's a preactical build (unlike a chevy withthe rod/cam interferences). take a 451 low deck big block at 451 4.375" x 3.75" and then build the same off a 361 based 454 using a small 4.125" bore and a big 4.25" stroke...which one do you think will make more hp at 7000rpm? Piston speed at 7000 4375 vs 4958 ft/min, that's almost 10 feet per SECOND more of rings scraping up and down the bore with worse high rpm geometry. I know 511's have 4.25 arms and bad rods too but they also have a much bigger piston pushing down on them and bigger valves to feed them. Using a 4" bore and putting in a 4.25" stroke is great, fantastic actually for a broad flat torque curve, but you're basically close to the same bore and stroke as a 455 Oldsmobile  (also not known as a free revver), with a much shorter rod. I've built a lot of 4+" stroker small blocks and when you spin one over on the stand with the short 6.1-6.2 rods and really  the rod angle as it spins (it's a lot easier to examine on a smal block than a deep skirted big block you almost WANT to keep the revs down. I'm not saying you can't I just try to build a motor around what I feel is it's "natural" geometry, a low revving e-head 4.25" motor is a slam dunk and is NO SLOUCH EITHER. By 'natural' it means it's not at a crank speed where it's fighting itself and effectively "taking it out on the block". I think even RyanJ (I know a bit but he's probably FORGOT more than i'll ever know about A motors  ) said the 4+ stuff is better suited to lower revs.  I've built and worked on SB fords as well which have (on average) both A LOT better and greater variety of affordable big flowing heads than us mopar guys. the big 4.17-4.25" stuff just doesn't run or hold up as well as the 3.70-3.93" stroke motors spun ~400 rpm higher with both 9.2" (Cleveland) and 9.5" Windsor Decks, you can want them to but they just don't. And I'm talking 370-380cfm Chapman/roush heads not too many years removed from state of the art NASCAR induction and roller cams. How many AFFORDABLE mopar heads are there like that and don't also need a ton of valvetrain upgrades. It's just to me a matter of practical packaging, the few extra cubes for a race motor to me ain't worth it. Guys do and go fast and that's cool but I bet they've got high caliber heads (not ported e-heads) and never back to backed with a comparable big bore short stroke longer rod combo with the same or similar cubes. As said in another thread, racers with BIG heads want to work those heads to their max if they want the most power, it some cases longer (than optimum) strokes are the most affordable way to get there, and durability (inthe long term sense) isn't a priority, to a lot of hard core racers a short block is expendable...where his heads may not be Another way to define durability is generally if you keep max piston speeds below ~4000-4200 ft/min and use good parts the motor holds up better/longer than motors that routinely spin higher. with a 4.25" arm that crank speed is around 6200, and there's nothing wrong with that I like the idea and I'm thinking about getting one myself
Last edited by Streetwize; 01/25/11 11:38 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Really ya think?
