Moparts
Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power?
Posted By: gregsdart
Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/14/13 11:38 AM
A couple of years back I had 2.300 intake valves put in to increase the flow of my 440-1 heads. These are castings I bought back in 1998. They are cut to 62 CC chambers. I run an almost flat top piston, with a dome of about .060. The flow increase was fairly good for most of the lift numbers, averaging about 6 percent. There was a spot about .300 where the flow barely increased. I run a 283/296/110(edit;112 lobe sep) roller with .775 intake lift, .680 exhaust lift. The exhaust lobe is a mild rate of lift lobe. Induction is a 3X port matched with a Terminator injector running alky. 2 1/8 x 30 x 4 inch headers.
I tried going up in rpm, but going from 7100 to 7300 shifts didn't net me any ET gains.
One thought that came to mind is that the valves may be shrouded by the valve reliefs enough to offset the extra flow?
With 15/1 compression and plenty of exhaust duration, I figure the minor loss of flow on the exhaust shouldn't have hurt as much as the intake flow helped. The valvetrain is Jesel, 7/16 pushrods, Comp 347 springs. That should be getting the job done I would think. Any thoughts on this appreciated.
Posted By: pittsburghracer
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/14/13 12:47 PM
Just throwing this out there but if you have one set of heads flowing 375 and another set flowing 425 but the intake manifold will only handle 350cfm you may never see an increase. It may even cause turbulence. That's why I LOVE to bolt the manifold on and complete the whole system.
Posted By: gregsdart
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/14/13 01:38 PM
Quote:
Just throwing this out there but if you have one set of heads flowing 375 and another set flowing 425 but the intake manifold will only handle 350cfm you may never see an increase. It may even cause turbulence. That's why I LOVE to bolt the manifold on and complete the whole system.
I agree it is a good idea. I am hoping the 3x which has very generous runners that are progressively bigger to the plenum are properly sized. The manifold is said to work best with 550 cubes or more, I figure it ought to be real close running alky.
Posted By: bigtimeauto
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/14/13 02:01 PM
Alky is the problem
Posted By: Jerry
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/14/13 02:12 PM
i was going to suggest more fuel. just because you increase air flow doesn't mean a direct increase in power. especially running alcohol i think you need more fuel.
Posted By: MuscleMike
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/14/13 02:20 PM
More exhaust lobe. Faster and more lift.
You can't put more intake charge into the engine if the exhaust can't get it all out.
Posted By: moparniac
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/14/13 02:29 PM
how tall is that 3X manifold
Posted By: DAYTONA540
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/14/13 03:05 PM
Not an expert on the subject, but have seen many people try alcohol on large cu.in engines and not have much luck. I am not a large fan of Ken at Indy
cylinder head,but he has told a few people I know that the same thing that everyone loves about alcohol is the thing that hurts large cu.in.engines.
The amount of alcohol to feed a large engine that keeps the temp. down lowers the cylinder head temp.
and prevents complete combustion,reduces ring seal.Does not show up with a blower or turbo because of induced heat and pressure.My friends switched to race gas and picked up.
Posted By: AndyF
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/14/13 07:31 PM
If you're looking to make more power I'd start with the camshaft. Have you mapped your valve to piston clearance for both intake and exhaust? If so, you can provide that mapping to a cam vendor and see what they say.
What is the rocker ratio that you have now? If you have the budget, adding more ratio might be a good idea.
Having the 3X intake ported might also be a good investment. It costs about $1000 to have Wilson do a full competition port job but it is worth some power. It would be interesting to see what Wilson thinks of the 3X. The Super Victor makes more power than the 3X on my 514, but that is on race gas. The extra volume of the 3X should help with alky but who knows.
Posted By: gregsdart
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/15/13 01:21 AM
I have heard that alky can be less powerful than gas at some point. However with not having switched fuels, more air should equal more power, or at least you would think so despite the type of fuel. On the exhuast lobes, the motor ran virtually the same with less cam. I orginally had an Isky RR735 cam in it, which is 280/288/110 with a touch less lift of .761. My current rocker ratio is 1.55 and I would like to change at some point to a bit more aggressive ratio. With my present setup, I may be limited to about what I have due to installed height and pushrod clearance.
Andy, I haven't mapped the valve clearance. I do know I have about .150 on both valves though. What exactly does mapping the valve clearance tell the cam grinder?
I have thought that the possibilities for no gain may be related to either the valve/piston shrouding, or possibly a change in where the port flows, which may affect power enough to offset the gain in flow. Or maybe the same flow at .300 combined with the lower flow of the exhaust may be the culprit? There certainly are a lot of possibilities.
Posted By: AndyF
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/15/13 02:13 AM
Mapping the VP would tell the cam grinder how aggressive you can get with rocker arm ratio, lobe design, duration, etc.
My guess is that the heads weren't the "cork", that the cam is. Therefore, adding more flow capacity didn't do much for you.
Buy a copy of PipeMax and load your engine details to see what it says. I bet it will tell you that to avoid choke you need at least 0.850 lift on the intake side. It might even tell you that you need 0.900 lift for max power. You'll have a hard time getting that much lift with 1.55 rocker arms so you'll most likely need to put 1.70 or bigger on the intake side. But before you start spending money, run PipeMax and study the numbers.
Posted By: cudabin
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/15/13 06:00 AM
I would add more Cam if it was me... Also try 114-115 LSA.
The intake manifold is important, but less so with a terminator Alky injection as you are only moving air, no fuel down the plenum and into the runners.
Open the valves up to .900" after lash and look out!!!
Good luck,
Arnie
Posted By: gregsdart
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/15/13 02:09 PM
thanks for the input everyone. Musclemike, I will definitely keep your comments in mind.
EDIT- I incorrectly listed the LSA as 110 on the Comp cam. It is 112 LSA. Lobes are 1625b and 4247b
Posted By: Monte_Smith
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/15/13 09:44 PM
As others have said.........the camshaft is tiny. We ran that much camshaft 30 years ago in 440in super stock motors with stock heads. So it sure won't feed a 500+ motor with heads that flow 400cfm. Bottom line, the heads flow more air....BUT....the engine doesn't
Monte
Posted By: AndyF
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/16/13 02:59 AM
Do you have a rough idea of how much power the engine is making? I think you'll be surprised how much power you could pick up with the right cam. (unless of course something else is also holding the combo back)
Posted By: gregsdart
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/16/13 03:22 AM
The motor dyno'd 847 hp at 7,000, 760 torque at 5700. The power seems to correlate well with the best ETs, 8.70s to 8.90s depending on tire type and DA, which on a good day is 1400 to 2000. The best on straight alky was 8.77 153 mph with radial 14.5 x 33 slicks. The big bias GoodYears helped traction and consistency, but cost a full .10 in ET. Changing from 5600 to 6500 stall actually picked up about .05 ET, but some of that may be related to the suspension not being optimized at the time. The car 60 fts better now, so maybe a tighter converter would improve ETs some.
Posted By: dvw
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/16/13 11:33 AM
For comparison. 572",-1 @380,14.7,Indy crossram on gas,2 Eddy 750, 285/292, 112, in at 108, .799 w/1.7 before lash,2 1/8" Hooker. This cam came from Mike.
1.33,9.25,147.6 @3340lbs. Just for comparison from Wallace
[Email]153.2@3000[/Email] = 886.57
[Email]147.6@3340[/Email] = 882.72
Not these #s are gospel but the comparison should be valid. I'm sure your intake and carb setup should be worth 20-30hp over mine. Granted my cu in is larger. I only turn it to 6900. Could it be the cam, fuel?
Doug
Posted By: gregsdart
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/16/13 12:49 PM
As Monte and others point out, most think I don't have enough cam. I have gotten info from elsewhere (Cammotion)that points in the same direction of faster exhaust lobes, and more at .200 on both sides. As far as fuel goes, I have fed this thing all it wants with the injector, and backed off to the best ET/MPH. I was surprised that it wanted so much more M5. I went from a .112 bypass to a .100. That is 12.1 percent more fuel.
Posted By: Performance Only
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/16/13 04:28 PM
Quote:
As Monte and others point out, most think I don't have enough cam. I have gotten info from elsewhere (Cammotion)that points in the same direction of faster exhaust lobes, and more at .200 on both sides. As far as fuel goes, I have fed this thing all it wants with the injector, and backed off to the best ET/MPH. I was surprised that it wanted so much more M5. I went from a .112 bypass to a .100. That is 12.1 percent more fuel.
Only some of that is due to the air flow increase in the heads. The M5 by itself will be a part of that as well.
In any case, you do have a little boy cam where you should have a big boy cam.
Posted By: Al_Alguire
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/16/13 04:41 PM
Well I will join the more cam crowd...Also dont think that intake is helping it any.
Posted By: AndyF
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/16/13 08:40 PM
Quote:
The motor dyno'd 847 hp at 7,000, 760 torque at 5700. The power seems to correlate well with the best ETs, 8.70s to 8.90s depending on tire type and DA, which on a good day is 1400 to 2000. The best on straight alky was 8.77 153 mph with radial 14.5 x 33 slicks. The big bias GoodYears helped traction and consistency, but cost a full .10 in ET. Changing from 5600 to 6500 stall actually picked up about .05 ET, but some of that may be related to the suspension not being optimized at the time. The car 60 fts better now, so maybe a tighter converter would improve ETs some.
Those heads will support quite a bit more power than 850 hp if you're willing to spend the money. All depends on what your goals are and what the budget is.
Do you know what your installed height is? You should be able to get 2.00 inch installed height which lets you run 0.850 net valve lift. If you put a 1.7 or 1.8 rocker arm on the intake you should be able to get to .850 lift without anyh trouble. The exhaust might work just fine with the 1.55 rockers that you already have.
Posted By: Brian Hafliger
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/16/13 08:53 PM
Quote:
Quote:
The motor dyno'd 847 hp at 7,000, 760 torque at 5700. The power seems to correlate well with the best ETs, 8.70s to 8.90s depending on tire type and DA, which on a good day is 1400 to 2000. The best on straight alky was 8.77 153 mph with radial 14.5 x 33 slicks. The big bias GoodYears helped traction and consistency, but cost a full .10 in ET. Changing from 5600 to 6500 stall actually picked up about .05 ET, but some of that may be related to the suspension not being optimized at the time. The car 60 fts better now, so maybe a tighter converter would improve ETs some.
Those heads will support quite a bit more power than 850 hp if you're willing to spend the money. All depends on what your goals are and what the budget is.
Do you know what your installed height is? You should be able to get 2.00 inch installed height which lets you run 0.850 net valve lift. If you put a 1.7 or 1.8 rocker arm on the intake you should be able to get to .850 lift without anyh trouble. The exhaust might work just fine with the 1.55 rockers that you already have.
Posted By: fast68plymouth
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/17/13 02:29 AM
your post is, "more flow....same power"
did you dyno the motor before and after that stage of head developement(without other changes)?
when you're running 150+MPH......20-30hp can get lost if the car isnt 100%.
i guess what i'm saying is......do you really know what, if any, difference those last mods to the heads had on the power curve?
or are you trying to extrapolate that data from the time slip?
Posted By: Leigh
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/17/13 02:41 AM
I just want to comment, on how good it is to see, the most experienced and expansive minds on this board, posting on this topic. Seriously folks, appreciate it, it doesn't happen very often. I am saying thanks.
Posted By: gregsdart
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/17/13 02:44 AM
currently I have Comp 947 springs in at 2.00. I can go up to 2.050, but will lose some of the 340 seat pressure, which makes me nervous. Comp 948 springs would solve that, but the seat pressure will be higher, 375 on the seat? Any cam that is more radical than I have I would think will want the same or more spring than I now have. Budget is going to be a serious consideration here, as I also believe I need to tighten the converter a touch due to the gains from M5, combined with the gains from a better cam profile. Is it most of you guys opinion that the power curve will stay at the same rpm, just more torque and hp?
I have to sit back for a bit and see just how much $$ I want to throw at this deal to make more power. At this point, lets say I want to budget for a cam, converter alteration, and maybe springs. If the lobes get more radical, maybe a spare set of lifters, but that would be the limit. The present cam is a Comp cut with a base circle for a .490 lobe, so to keep the pushrods the same I figure I don't dare go below the present base circle by more than .010 to .020? The lash adjusters are all within 1/2 turn of the rockers, or closer.
Posted By: AndyF
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/17/13 03:04 AM
You are going to have a hard time getting the necessary lift with just 1.55 rocker arms. Rather than a new cam, can you run 1.70 intake rocker arms with your existing cam? That gets you to .850 gross lift on the intake side, speeds up the valve action and gets you a bunch more area under the curve. You would need to check with the cam grinder to see if the lobe works with the higher ratio.
Posted By: gregsdart
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/17/13 03:42 AM
Quote:
You are going to have a hard time getting the necessary lift with just 1.55 rocker arms. Rather than a new cam, can you run 1.70 intake rocker arms with your existing cam? That gets you to .850 gross lift on the intake side, speeds up the valve action and gets you a bunch more area under the curve. You would need to check with the cam grinder to see if the lobe works with the higher ratio.
Great point. I do have the other cam on the shelf, the RR735 which Isky says will tolerate a 1.70 rocker, but no more. That will give me gross .833 intake lift, .776 exhaust, with lash of .026 and .028. Duration is 280/288/110lsa. I am not sure of the .200 duration.
I would also like to thank everyone that has contributed to this post. This is the kind of input that got me this far (from 10.20s to 8.70s!) and it is greatly appreciated.
Even if my budget doesn't allow me to go as far as is possible, I am sure there is one or more guys out there piling up parts similar and looking for the most they can get out of the $$ they have.
Posted By: gregsdart
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/18/13 01:10 AM
Quote:
your post is, "more flow....same power"
did you dyno the motor before and after that stage of head developement(without other changes)?
when you're running 150+MPH......20-30hp can get lost if the car isnt 100%.
i guess what i'm saying is......do you really know what, if any, difference those last mods to the heads had on the power curve?
or are you trying to extrapolate that data from the time slip?
Dwayne, good to see you here! I never did re dyno the motor, just bolted it together and kept an eye on ETs. There was no gain at all. Same track, good record keeping,all the stats that will affect ET. The car is very consistant, so the only thing I can think of that might upset the comparison would be the lose converter? (6500 rpm flash) I tried the same rpm, 300 more rpm, no change. I recall adding four percent fuel for the first couple of passes. The ET was off, so I went back to the old tuneup. ET came right back to where it was before the cam change.
Posted By: fast68plymouth
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/22/13 02:06 AM
Greg, here's my
without knowing all the details about that last head mod, i'm going to guess that perhaps the heads responded disproportionately well to the install of the bigger intake valve, and that not a lot of additional material was removed upstream of the valve seat.
my feeling is that you're basically maxing out the available port cross section on the running motor, especially with the alky.
you need to run about twice as much alky as gas, and that additional fuel takes up a lot of space in the intake tract, which is going to lower the rpm at which terminal velocity is reached.
my gut feeling is that a more agressive valve action will allow the curve to look better above peak power, but i think its going to be a challenge to significantly raise the terminal rpm.
i dont feel its going to be that easy to make noticably more TQ than you have now, so then the only way to make a big change in HP is to make the TQ hang on better beyond its peak.
Posted By: bigtimeauto
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/22/13 03:44 AM
Quote:
Greg, here's my
without knowing all the details about that last head mod, i'm going to guess that perhaps the heads responded disproportionately well to the install of the bigger intake valve, and that not a lot of additional material was removed upstream of the valve seat.
my feeling is that you're basically maxing out the available port cross section on the running motor, especially with the alky.
you need to run about twice as much alky as gas, and that additional fuel takes up a lot of space in the intake tract, which is going to lower the rpm at which terminal velocity is reached.
my gut feeling is that a more agressive valve action will allow the curve to look better above peak power, but i think its going to be a challenge to significantly raise the terminal rpm.
i dont feel its going to be that easy to make noticably more TQ than you have now, so then the only way to make a big change in HP is to make the TQ hang on better beyond its peak.
exactly.
Posted By: JACK1440
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/22/13 05:53 PM
I agree with Leigh. Great thread. It's helped me with my off season decisions and a much better understanding.
Posted By: AndyF
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/22/13 08:58 PM
Is it possible for you to switch to race gas for a race just to see what happens? Depending on your setup that could be an expensive switch so it might be out of the question.
Otherwise I think your on the right path. There are a lot of lobes available for 1.70 rocker arms that will get you into the .850 lift range.
Posted By: cudabin
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/23/13 01:02 AM
Less flow at 382cfm from my -1 heads, but it pulls hard right to 8,000rpm going through the traps with this cam:
1.7 ratio Jesel Pro individual shaft rockers, 7/16" .165" wall Trend's w/ push rod oiling.
Custom LSM roller 288/304 dur @ .050", .875"/.867" lift, 114 lsa installed at 112 cl. 68 degrees overlap, 4/7 swap, 54mm core.
Also Alky with single terminator.
PSI double springs and titanium 2.25" intakes.
I think more cam could really help you Greg...
Cheers,
Arnie
Posted By: Brian Hafliger
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/23/13 02:14 AM
Greg, have you run your specs through pipemax just to see what it comes up with?
Posted By: gregsdart
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/23/13 02:41 AM
I just bought the pipemax program, will mess around with it.
Dwayne, I think I get what you are saying, and pretty much everybody else thinks it needs more of something in the cam department.
One program (dynomation) calls for less duration,( a LOT less on the exhaust) more lift on both sides.
To try and stay inside some sort of budget, I am going to try the following, funds permitting.
Install the original RR735 Isky cam. 280/288/110
Put it in at 106. That raises the dynamic compression from 11.00 to about 11.5
Going from the present cam this cuts overlap by 2 degrees, leaves the exhaust closed for 5 more, and closes the intake 5 earlier. Lift will be up .057 intake, .022 exhaust.
1.7 rockers on the intake side for .831 lift gross.
Comp 948 springs on the intake side for 366 lbs on the seat.
1.55 on the exhuast for .706 lift.
Tighten the converter(from 6500/6600 to 5800) to pull the motor down where it will run best with this setup. I have to think that the shorter cam will swing the power back down enough to make it 60 ft better, and ET overall better. I may not see a lot based on drag sim programs, the best run with no wind speed was high for the ET at 153 mph.
I also plan to look for a bit lighter rear tire. Those 2079s are old, and HEAVY!
what do you all think?
It may not be near what I could get, but there is a $$ limit on speed; everybody knows, speed costs. So, between that and the M5, I hope to see some 8.60s in good air, oh , and go on a diet; it would be nice to see some gain out of this somewhere
If this combo fails to produce, then the next move will be to have a cam cut for a better match to the motor. One last detail is collectors, or lack there of. I have a very tight exit area, and they are extremely short, like 4 or 5 inch of round collector. The program said longer. Any thoughts?
Posted By: Brian Hafliger
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/23/13 02:50 AM
According to Pipemax, your curtain area limited to 6000rpm!
You'll need at least .850 lift at the valve, so figure closer to .890 gross.
Race gas, change cam, and then someday go to a tunnel ram/sheet intake with 2 carbs should all net more e.t. and mph.
And yes your collectors are way too short! But, I've seen some engines not respond to proper length collectors meaning there's problem somewhere else. I would start at 12-14 inches of collector, even if you have to put a bend in them.
Is this combo 4.500 bore and 4.15 stroke?
Posted By: Brian Hafliger
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/23/13 02:52 AM
I don't know how big the runners are in the plenum of the 3X intake, but I just measured a -3 intake today and they are right at 4" give or take. So if the 3X is larger, it might be too large?
Did I mention I don't like alky on large high rpm N.A. engines....
Posted By: gregsdart
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/23/13 02:59 AM
Bore 4.5 stroke 4.15
The intake ports are as big as they can go, done by one of the best. But they still are too small I know. The head work was just put in the bigger valves, and blend to the existing port.
Here is a dyno sheet from the original setup, with the RR735 cam, and 2 inch x 40 inch Dyno headers. Mine couldn't be hooked to their system. Changes since have been to add a much better oil pan, fine tune the fuel curve up top, and later, more cam, with no gain there.
As far as the collectors, that will take major surgery, and If I go that far, I may as well upgrade to a step header. The collector has to move a lot to be able to be extended.
Posted By: Brian Hafliger
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/23/13 03:03 AM
Look at how the power climbs until around the 6000rpm range...it comes to a screeching halt!
If you want your heads to work better, run race gas. Then get some good rockers, 1.7 at least, then change the cam. Is the carb a 1050 or? Spacer?
I'll bet you can pick up a lot with these changes.
Posted By: Brian Hafliger
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/23/13 03:10 AM
Just read your info again...I think you might have too much compression. I wonder if there's room for some chamber work and less dome?
I see your running injection with the alky.
A 1250 carb and a 1.5" tapered Wilson spacer with some intake mods might make more power too once the cam and fuel are taken care of.
Ofcourse, there are just my opinions!! But I see this a lot so I'm fairly confident in what I'm telling you will work.
Good luck Greg!
Brian
Posted By: gregsdart
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/23/13 03:15 AM
Terminator on alky. So gas is not going to happen. Too much invested in the alky setup. I have to wonder how much the small dyno headers affected the power curve? Even though restricted, the motor didn't fall off till after 7,100. Note that Hp was over 840 from 6300 to 7100, all within 5 hp.
Cudabin, you run a single terminator, right? It is hard to understand why our motors react so differently. You have 29 more cubes, the same heads, intake, but a whole lotta more cam. The big thing I notice is the higher rpm you turn. Do you have a dyno sheet to share? What are you shifting at?
Posted By: gregsdart
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/23/13 03:17 AM
Thanks for your input, Brian. On the compression, I have 62 cc chambers, the dome is only about .060 high. I will definitely post results, if I ever get some!
Cudabin, just spotted the 54mm core cam! That really must help. Much less cam flex,Ti valves, better ramp speeds possible. Just a much better deal I assume.
You guys have me thinking of an area that may need a little attention beyond the cam. I am still running the .037 nozzles that I went to a year ago. There was no change going from .038 and adjusting the bypass to compensate. BUT, I switched to M5 and had to add 8 percent more fuel, which will displace even more air as it vaporizes. So I will go back to .038 nozzles, maybe try on more step up to see if there is any change. Carbs have shown that too fine of a fuel atomization can displace enough air to drop power at times. With alky I would think it may be the same or worse. It will be interesting to find out.
Posted By: earthmover
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/23/13 03:56 AM
Posted By: Twostick
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/23/13 03:57 AM
Can a Terminator not be calibrated to run gas?
Kevin
Posted By: cudabin
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/23/13 04:17 AM
557ci, 15.5 to 1 compression on single 2100cfm Terminator.
Here is the Dyno sheet. I shift out of 1st at 7,400 rpm, then into 3rd at 7,800 rpm and trap just over 8,000.
8" convertor stalls to 6,000 rpm.
Cheers,
Arnie
Posted By: Brian Hafliger
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/23/13 05:24 AM
You don't want HP to level off that early! Look again at the power every 100 rpm from 6000 up. You'll see that it just levels off gaining very little from 6000 to 7000 rpm.
Good luck!
Posted By: cudabin
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/24/13 04:34 AM
Hey Brian, did you mean Greg's motor or mine?? As per my attached dyno sheet my motor gained 71hp from 6,000 to 7,000 rpm.
Cheers,
Arnie
Posted By: Brian Hafliger
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/24/13 04:42 AM
Quote:
Hey Brian, did you mean Greg's motor or mine?? As per my attached dyno sheet my motor gained 71hp from 6,000 to 7,000 rpm.
Cheers,
Arnie
Talking about the OP's.
Posted By: ek3
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/24/13 06:17 AM
Quote:
A couple of years back I had 2.300 intake valves put in to increase the flow of my 440-1 heads. These are castings I bought back in 1998. They are cut to 62 CC chambers. I run an almost flat top piston, with a dome of about .060. The flow increase was fairly good for most of the lift numbers, averaging about 6 percent. There was a spot about .300 where the flow barely increased. I run a 283/296/110(edit;112 lobe sep) roller with .775 intake lift, .680 exhaust lift. The exhaust lobe is a mild rate of lift lobe. Induction is a 3X port matched with a Terminator injector running alky. 2 1/8 x 30 x 4 inch headers.
I tried going up in rpm, but going from 7100 to 7300 shifts didn't net me any ET gains.
One thought that came to mind is that the valves may be shrouded by the valve reliefs enough to offset the extra flow?
With 15/1 compression and plenty of exhaust duration, I figure the minor loss of flow on the exhaust shouldn't have hurt as much as the intake flow helped. The valvetrain is Jesel, 7/16 pushrods, Comp 347 springs. That should be getting the job done I would think. Any thoughts on this appreciated.
**** I would think you are loosing out on velocity . if the heads are opened up , the intake [and exhaust to some extent] will need to take on the added " potential " airflow. runner size/shape and direct line of sight paths are first order to add or maintain the manifolds " velocity " to match the new volume "potential " of the heads. the idea of added camshaft / rocker ratio supports this as they will trick the VE of your combo in a more narrow point. in any event ,the modifications to the heads will require all other sections to be adjusted accordingly. just my thoughts......
Posted By: Monte_Smith
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/24/13 06:27 PM
Many think a BIG cam is hard on valve train parts and that is not the case at all. A small cam will beat out valvetrain parts if the lobes are super aggressive on open and closing rates. A PROPERLY set up valve spring will be within .050 or so of coil bind regardless of lift, so it is not the SIZE of the cam at all. Another problem with BBM with a stock cam core is that many times there are no cores available to get what you really NEED as far as lobes. This is where the 54 or 55mm core is beneficial.
I know there is a budget constraint here, but what this motor NEEDS to make proper power for the parts is a MUCH bigger cam, more rocker ratio, increased installed height and the proper spring for that height. As far as the exhaust, yeah it might need longer collectors, but that will primarily increase torque, which you likely don't need. All the changes listed would probably lose torque, which would overall likely make your combo faster, because you have a somewhat VERY hard to manage SLR with your current gearing setup, which is why this car won't 60ft.........Also, it needs to be on gas. I know you have a lot invested, but you could probably borrow a carb and pump
Best I remember your car is VERY violent at launch. Violent is never fast, as it punishes the tire and upsets the chassis. SMOOTH is fast. When the car FEELS slow to 60ft is when it is usually smooth and fast with power properly applied.
Monte
Posted By: gregsdart
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/25/13 04:25 AM
Monte, thanks for the input. The car settled down a whole lot when I shifted weight forward like you recommended. It was a very big move, from 50/50 to 53 front, 47 back. But it did what you said it would.
60 foots are more consistent, the car doesn't unload the rear tires on the launch now when it hits the bars. As far as why the 60 fts are soft, I bet it has something to do with the converter flashing to 6600. Too inefficient? Other guys are doing better with similar combos, so I hope to see an improvement when I tighten it up some. It was on the loose side before M5, and I bet that added 30 ft lbs of torque down low. The ET and 60 ft sure show it.
I changed plans on what to do with the motor. I am working with someone on a much better cam and 1.7 intake rockers, will post the specs after I order it. It will be somewhere next May or later before I get this thing back to a track, so results will be a ways off.
Posted By: AndyF
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/25/13 05:51 PM
I have a set of new 1.70 Jesel intake rocker arms if you're interested. I also have a set of 1.70 exhaust rocker arms that have about 10 dyno pulls on them. Shoot me a PM if you want pictures.
Posted By: gregsdart
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/26/13 03:06 PM
Quote:
You are going to have a hard time getting the necessary lift with just 1.55 rocker arms. Rather than a new cam, can you run 1.70 intake rocker arms with your existing cam? That gets you to .850 gross lift on the intake side, speeds up the valve action and gets you a bunch more area under the curve. You would need to check with the cam grinder to see if the lobe works with the higher ratio.
I'm a bit slow, but finally looked at Andys comment and it appears to be a good move. The 1.7 rockers would change the lifts to .852 and .748 respectively, with .200 durations of 202 and 205 on a 112 lsa. I am thinking this looks pretty good, should the lobes work with the 1.7 rockers.
Posted By: AndyF
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/26/13 06:08 PM
Here are what the rocker arms look like. These should bolt right on to your existing shafts. 440-1 intakes and exhausts.
.JPG "7901434-DSC_8640(Large).JPG")
Posted By: gregsdart
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 10/28/13 01:55 PM
Quote:
Can a Terminator not be calibrated to run gas?
Kevin
They can be, but pump size requirement may be very different, along with nozzle size. also, you have a 10 percent window to get the tuneup into on Alky and be close enough. Gas is much tighter, 3 percent and doesn't like to be off the mark near as much as alky. The fuel curve of a constant flow system is linear, double the rpm, double the fuel volume. The air ingested by most motors is shaped with a bow in it, poor at low rpm, good at peak torque, poor again at peak hp rpm. It takes a lot of fiddling with extra bypass systems to alter the fuel curve, and then the bypass requirements change with the pill change, which would be more of a problem with gas. A constant flow system runs a VERY fat idle to cover up for no accelerator pumps. Alky obviously will work better here, and I believe plug fouling might be a bigger potential problem with gas.
Posted By: gregsdart
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 11/01/13 02:15 PM
Update; I bought 1.7 rockers, will first try the cam that is in the motor based on input from many sources. Dwayne at PRH was very helpful in pointing out strengths and weaknesses in some of my choices. The 1.7 rockers will help the exhaust, but there might be something in a faster exhaust lobe than what I have. Probably the best move at this point is a better tuned intake system, which would be a tunnelram. So I will be looking for an Indy TR manifold for an RB and another Terminater throttle body to put this together. At this level of power, it can be hard to see improvements because the motor is already using most of the airflow that the heads allow. So I am hoping for some decent improvements, but they may or may not show up.
Posted By: Brian Hafliger
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 11/01/13 05:33 PM
You can't be using all the airflow the heads have to offer if valve lift and events are wrong!
If you lift that valve over .800 lift, and get the valve out of the way, your going to notice a big difference, especially on alky.
Do you have a belt drive Greg?
Posted By: gregsdart
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 11/02/13 06:06 AM
Milodon gear drive. I have three cams, the first two the stats are in this thread, the last one I haven't talked about. When I ordered the pistons, I had that cam on the shelf, so that is the specs I gave for valve reliefs, so it ought to fit. It has a lot of duration, at 290/294/110 (206/208 at .200 lobe lift) with .486 Mopar special lobes on both intake and exhaust from Comp Cams. Comp says those lobes will work with 1.7 rockers. So that cam may eventually go in, maybe after the switch to the tunnelram if I go down that road. That combo would only have about .826 lift, but a lot more duration. The thing that concerns me is that it also has more overlap. It might not be a better cam till after 6500 rpm? Considering that a motor spends over half its time in the first half of each gear, that might be a bit much.
Posted By: Brian Hafliger
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 11/02/13 04:47 PM
Quote:
Milodon gear drive. I have three cams, the first two the stats are in this thread, the last one I haven't talked about. When I ordered the pistons, I had that cam on the shelf, so that is the specs I gave for valve reliefs, so it ought to fit. It has a lot of duration, at 290/294/110 (206/208 at .200 lobe lift) with .486 Mopar special lobes on both intake and exhaust from Comp Cams. Comp says those lobes will work with 1.7 rockers. So that cam may eventually go in, maybe after the switch to the tunnelram if I go down that road. That combo would only have about .826 lift, but a lot more duration. The thing that concerns me is that it also has more overlap. It might not be a better cam till after 6500 rpm? Considering that a motor spends over half its time in the first half of each gear, that might be a bit much.
I agree, you need a cam picked out for your application, not whatever you have laying around!
One thing you'll need to understand, the correct cam may require you to rev the engine higher which will also make or should make more power if you shift it higher and all other components will support the rpm. If you look at really fast cars out there, they usually rpm well...there's a reason for that!
Posted By: HardcoreB
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 11/02/13 05:00 PM
Hi Greg. Unless you went to a custom and well executed manifold, I don't see the reason to change to a TR over what you have now. Thereis as much or more 'wrong' with the INDY TR (I.e. Runner length and plenum volume) as there is with your current set-up. I would consider that blue Cuda in Canada as a good example. And then consider the expense in relation to the returns.
Posted By: Brian Hafliger
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 11/02/13 08:03 PM
Quote:
Hi Greg. Unless you went to a custom and well executed manifold, I don't see the reason to change to a TR over what you have now. Thereis as much or more 'wrong' with the INDY TR (I.e. Runner length and plenum volume) as there is with your current set-up. I would consider that blue Cuda in Canada as a good example. And then consider the expense in relation to the returns.
Posted By: gregsdart
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 11/04/13 04:10 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Hi Greg. Unless you went to a custom and well executed manifold, I don't see the reason to change to a TR over what you have now. Thereis as much or more 'wrong' with the INDY TR (I.e. Runner length and plenum volume) as there is with your current set-up. I would consider that blue Cuda in Canada as a good example. And then consider the expense in relation to the returns.
(I.e. Runner length and plenum volume)
With those two items about all that is in favor of the TR over the 3x running injection, I think I will save my money. Thanks for the input. Untill more info comes along on a better intake, I'll stay with the 3x.
I have posted similar inquaries in the past, but didn't get much feed back. This is great, and thank you all. It won't be till may or June that I get the car out, but hope to post some positive results. 
Posted By: pittsburghracer
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 11/04/13 04:34 AM
I wish I could give you some info from my modified Indy tunnleram and the two 1150 dominators that I tried with my 440-1 heads but when I put it on my carbs were to close to the top of my hood scoop. I ran 8.60's with the single Indy intake and a 1050. The car ran GREAT with the tunnleram but air turbulence killed it just past the 330 foot. Going with B1's on the engine this time but may build another Indy headed engine for the Duster when I'm done playing with small blocks. It sure looked good with the tunnleram and two 1150's.
Posted By: fast68plymouth
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 11/06/13 02:10 AM
Quote:
Hi Greg. Unless you went to a custom and well executed manifold, I don't see the reason to change to a TR over what you have now. Thereis as much or more 'wrong' with the INDY TR (I.e. Runner length and plenum volume) as there is with your current set-up. I would consider that blue Cuda in Canada as a good example. And then consider the expense in relation to the returns.
perhaps the Indy TR does have its share of issues......but in two seperate back to back tests(a 540 and a 572), i found it to make 40+hp over an Indy single plane/1150 combo.
Posted By: cudabin
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 11/06/13 04:37 AM
Hi Greg,
I am actually using the standard 4150 flanged 400 (low deck) Indy manifold with an adapter out to 4500 dominator size for the 2100cfm single terminator.
Manifold was port matched, but not really ported...
With Alky injection only air flows through the manifold anyways so I don't know how much a tunnel ram will help you, especially if you are not going to buzz it over 8,000rpm.
I have not even sealed off my scoop with this combo yet.
Cheers,
Arnie
Posted By: gregsdart
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 11/06/13 06:02 AM
I am surprised that you have the smaller intake on there. It is working well! I figure the swap to a TR manifold would be worth something, based on the better tuned length. There wouldn't be much if any gain from increased airflow, with 2100 cfm for a single. The gain in hp might be half of what a carbed setup would see? That is the big question.
Another suggestion was to modify the intake valve pockets to allow better flow at overlap. My heads have been cut to 62 cc, which put the valves way down into the pistons. Anybody done this with the motor assembled, heads off?
Posted By: Brian Hafliger
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 11/06/13 06:10 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Hi Greg. Unless you went to a custom and well executed manifold, I don't see the reason to change to a TR over what you have now. Thereis as much or more 'wrong' with the INDY TR (I.e. Runner length and plenum volume) as there is with your current set-up. I would consider that blue Cuda in Canada as a good example. And then consider the expense in relation to the returns.
perhaps the Indy TR does have its share of issues......but in two seperate back to back tests(a 540 and a 572), i found it to make 40+hp over an Indy single plane/1150 combo.
It could be that the 1150 was the problem? I know some guys hate that carb. I don't have much data on them, usually use 1050's or 1250's.
Posted By: gregsdart
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 11/07/13 01:04 PM
Well, the TR manifold is out of the picture. I have too much engine setback and too much height to get it all in there without a lot of work. So with both intake and exhaust 1.7 rockers safely in my possession, I have some testing to do, and also the first time the heads come off, lay back the lip on the intake valve pocket to help flow at overlap. I also would like to try a different converter setup, and as OU812 said, it is (in my mind also) better to keep the one I have as it is, and compare it to another converter.
Posted By: cudabin
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 11/07/13 03:33 PM
Greg,
I think the 1.7 rockers will be a good move for you, but perhaps you should consider selling one or 2 of the cams you have now, and having a new cam designed for your combination?
Most race cars have a few compromises built into the motor, and even with the chassis... Alky injection also produces more torque down low so a cam designed for "gas" might not optimize the combo? Also most of the older grinds for Mopars did not factor in the increased displacement we use these days or even the unique bore/stroke combos available now.
In my case, my chassis/tires could not handle anymore torque, so I tried to optomize the upper rpm hp. Also my heads at 345cc flowing 382cfm might have peaked a little lower on 557ci, which my 4.56 gears and 31" tall tires would not want...
I wanted a cam that would hang on above peak power and produce the most HP I could with the limited head flow the Indy -1's provided.
LSM came through with a grind that dyno'd where i wanted,doesn't kill the valve springs, and gets the car down the track with all the limitations of my chassis.
I think a custom cam might be the best investment you could make at this point in your cars evolution...
Good luck with it!
Arnie
Posted By: fast68plymouth
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 11/08/13 02:21 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Hi Greg. Unless you went to a custom and well executed manifold, I don't see the reason to change to a TR over what you have now. Thereis as much or more 'wrong' with the INDY TR (I.e. Runner length and plenum volume) as there is with your current set-up. I would consider that blue Cuda in Canada as a good example. And then consider the expense in relation to the returns.
perhaps the Indy TR does have its share of issues......but in two seperate back to back tests(a 540 and a 572), i found it to make 40+hp over an Indy single plane/1150 combo.
It could be that the 1150 was the problem? I know some guys hate that carb. I don't have much data on them, usually use 1050's or 1250's.
Brian, not to bust your chops......but....when i read this i kinda went 
to myself.
why would i bother posting the info if i didnt know the test was valid?
i guess i would have expected you to give me the benefit of the doubt about the validity of the test.
its not like i'm new to dyno testing......ive been running one since 1990.
in any case, the 1150 is a known good carb that i modified years ago that we use on the dyno regularly.
as a reference, on a 900hp 572, it was 18hp better than a known good working HP1050/8896.
the 572 with that 1050 on it run's 8.30's @ 164-165 @ 2700lbs.
Posted By: Brian Hafliger
Re: Help solve the mystry, better flow numbers, same power? - 11/08/13 05:40 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Hi Greg. Unless you went to a custom and well executed manifold, I don't see the reason to change to a TR over what you have now. Thereis as much or more 'wrong' with the INDY TR (I.e. Runner length and plenum volume) as there is with your current set-up. I would consider that blue Cuda in Canada as a good example. And then consider the expense in relation to the returns.
perhaps the Indy TR does have its share of issues......but in two seperate back to back tests(a 540 and a 572), i found it to make 40+hp over an Indy single plane/1150 combo.
It could be that the 1150 was the problem? I know some guys hate that carb. I don't have much data on them, usually use 1050's or 1250's.
Brian, not to bust your chops......but....when i read this i kinda went to myself.
why would i bother posting the info if i didnt know the test was valid?
i guess i would have expected you to give me the benefit of the doubt about the validity of the test.
its not like i'm new to dyno testing......ive been running one since 1990.
in any case, the 1150 is a known good carb that i modified years ago that we use on the dyno regularly.
as a reference, on a 900hp 572, it was 18hp better than a known good working HP1050/8896.
the 572 with that 1050 on it run's 8.30's @ 164-165 @ 2700lbs.
Wow! I see your still touchy as ever. I was only mentioning that I've heard 1150's tend to have some inherent issues...I wasn't in any way trying to discredit you or your experience.
I can't believe I offended you with my statement. So sad.
