Moparts

273 + MP Commando Alum. heads

Posted By: B1Fish540

273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/01/10 09:45 PM

Can this be done(Ryan?)? How much can a 273 block be bored and/or stroked? Thanks for replies.
Posted By: HotRodDave

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/01/10 09:58 PM

The 273 I had tested would have gone .060 but it looked like a nice block with little core shift. Without sonic testing I would not go over .030. As for useing those heads you are gonna have to notch the bores to get valve clearance. At .060 over a 1.88 valve barely clears, I do not think it would have cleared a stock bore, that is how close it was and a notch would still be good for airflow. Those aluminum magnum heads with a 1.92 valve are gonna need a notch no matter what you bore the 273 out to. Now if you went with a stock iron mag, the valve job is terible in stock form for a 1.92 valve however you that same bad valve job will allow you to machine the valve head down to a 1.88 diameter and with a .060 over bore you should get enough clearance to run but again a notch is still gonna help air flow tremendously. The only other option I can think of to use the aluminum magnum is to have a smaller seat installed and machine the valves down to that diameter.

As for strokeing it I know a 4 inch will fit with SCAT I beam rods but pistons are gonna be custom only. I mocked one up with a stock piston and just had to clearance the skirt to clear and it would rotate, check very closely at the rod to wall for clearance, not as much clearance there as a 318 even. With notches at the bottom of the bore you may get a little more stroke out of it and it can get around 340 cubes the really hard way and with very shrouded valves so it will not make the power a real 340 will.
Posted By: B1Fish540

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/01/10 10:09 PM

Thanks Dave! Sounds like an aftermarket head just wont work too well on this block. Wonder if I should just look for a 340 block and be done with it.
Posted By: sshemi

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/01/10 10:18 PM

I use a 1.9 int valve at 030 overbore.
Posted By: justinp61

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/01/10 10:25 PM

Quote:

Wonder if I should just look for a 340 block and be done with it.




Or a 360.
Posted By: B1Fish540

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/01/10 11:29 PM

Thanks guys, just thought it would be cool to use the original 273 if i could. Now I think I will find a 340 or 360 and some commando heads(MP Aluminum, not the original little iron ones)...that way I could still call it a "commando" engine...
Posted By: Phil Saran

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/01/10 11:34 PM

Build a 360, it is 20 more cubes and you will not
have to fight with the restoration guys over 340
parts and costs.

Just my $0.02
Posted By: B1Fish540

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/01/10 11:40 PM

Quote:

Build a 360, it is 20 more cubes and you will not
have to fight with the restoration guys over 340
parts and costs.

Just my $0.02




Thats a good point, Phil, is there much difference in the bore between the 340 and 360..i know the 340 is bigger.
Posted By: HotRodDave

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/02/10 12:02 AM

.040 differance in bore.

The original 273 heads can be made to flow plenty to make 400 hp with the stock small valves.
Posted By: B1Fish540

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/02/10 12:14 AM

wow, Dave, thats impressive! And that is with stock displacement? Pretty big cam, I would imagine.
Posted By: HotRodDave

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/02/10 12:44 AM

You would need the heads profesionally ported and yes you would need basically the same cam to make 400 HP in a 360 or a 273 but the 273 is just gonna want to spin a lot more RPM to make the same HP, you would need pretty close to 7500 RPM to make 400 hp with a 273. It would be a very fun motor in a light car.
Posted By: B1Fish540

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/02/10 01:27 AM

That does sound like fun..but..I want this to be a highway cruiser, too, so cant go crazy on cam and gearing. You've given me alot to think about, thanks again.
Posted By: jcc

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/02/10 03:06 AM

Quote:

That does sound like fun..but..I want this to be a highway cruiser, too, so cant go crazy on cam and gearing. You've given me alot to think about, thanks again.



If you even considered a 273 in the first place, the absolute best bang for buck is a free 318. A 360 would be your next choice, then a 340, and a 273 last. One of my cars has a warmed over 273 installed by previous owner, I am suprised how peppy it is ( same crank as a 340) around town, but if it has any mpg advantages, they are unseen because I keep my foot in it. You might want to rethink "cool".
Posted By: B1Fish540

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/02/10 06:52 AM

Quote:

Quote:

That does sound like fun..but..I want this to be a highway cruiser, too, so cant go crazy on cam and gearing. You've given me alot to think about, thanks again.



If you even considered a 273 in the first place, the absolute best bang for buck is a free 318. A 360 would be your next choice, then a 340, and a 273 last. One of my cars has a warmed over 273 installed by previous owner, I am suprised how peppy it is ( same crank as a 340) around town, but if it has any mpg advantages, they are unseen because I keep my foot in it. You might want to rethink "cool".




"...absolute best bang for buck is a free 318." And I left one of those in a field up north...lol I've even considered going with a low deck 400 that I have laying around..but being that this an early A-Body(65 B'Cuda)I'm not sure it will even fit w/out major cutting.
Posted By: B1Fish540

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/02/10 06:57 AM

if i could get the 273 heads ported really well and then fit a 4." crank like Hot Rod Dave mentioned..THAT might get me to where i want to be for a good cruiser...what do ya think?

ps, custom pistons would be called for, i'm sure..
Posted By: B1Fish540

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/02/10 07:12 AM

I did a search and found this article...kinda makes this whole thread moot. Now, I think the best thing to do is NOT build the little 273 commando...just preserve it for posterity(or someone that wants an all original Commnado 273.) If I do build a SB 340 or 360, I will re-use those cool valve covers and air cleaner, tho.

Anyway here's the entire story about what one guy did with his early B'Cuda.


Mopar 273
My Barracuda originally came with a Mopar 273. The 273 was the first engine in Mopar's LA engine family. Introduced in 1964, it was Mopar's attempt at modernizing the earlier A series Polyshphere engines. The new LA series shared the A engines' crankshaft, bearings, connecting rods, timing chain, and vibration damper. The block and heads were redesigned with thin-wall castings, which made the LA engine about 50 lbs lighter than the A engine. The cylinder heads were also changed to an inline valve design that was easier and less expensive to produce than the earlier Polysphere design. Because the 273 was the only Mopar V8 that would fit in the early (1964-1966) A bodies, it was a fairly common option in these cars. It was also offered as a lower end V8 option in some of Mopar's other cars, even in large body styles like the Satelite. Its production spanned from 1964 through 1969.

The Mopar 273 had a stroke of 3.31" and a bore of 3.63". When it was introduced in 1964, it was equipped with a 2 barrel carburetor and produced 180 hp at 4200 rpm and 260 ft-lbs of torque at 1600 rpm. Because of the small size, the 273 needs to rev fairly high to get any decent kind of power. The standard 4 barrel version of the 273 produced 235 hp at 5200 rpm and 260 ft-lbs at 4000 rpm. (For comparison, the lowly Mopar 318 2 barrel engine made 230 hp at 4400 rpm and 340 ft-lbs at 2400 rpm) A special "D Stock" version of the 273 made 275 hp at 6000 rpm and 295 ft-lbs at 4400 rpm. It was the only Mopar engine other than the 426 Hemi to achieve 1 hp/cubic inch.

The 273 had small port heads that it shared with the 318. Intake valves are 1.78" and exhaust valves are 1.50". Because of the small bore, swept volume of the cylinders, and valve shrouding, installing larger valves is not worth the expense on a 273. Another consideration when building a 273 is that heads on the earlier engines (1964-1965) used a different angle for the intake manifold bolts; later intake manifolds won't work with the early heads so if your engine has them you'll probably have to run the stock intake. (Offenhauser used to make several high performance manifolds that fit the early heads, but they are almost impossible to find now)

Another problem with building a Mopar 273 is piston availability. Because the Mopar 273 was never as popular as othe small block Mopars, piston selection is limited. Basically there are only 2 choices: a stock replacement style cast piston from Federal Mogul or custom forgings. The cast pistons are low compression (8.8:1) and availability is spotty. The custom forgings can be had in any compression ratio (within reason) you desire, but they're expensive (especially when you consider the limited performance potential compared to other small block Mopars). Because of this and the other factors mentioned above, I think in most cases building a 273 as a high performance engine is a waste of time and money. Even a well built 318 will give you a lot more power for a lot less money.

There are, however, other good reasons to build a 273. One reason is originality. If you have a Mopar 273, chances are it's because it's the original engine in your car. I think there's a lot to be said for keeping vintage cars as original as possible, especially if you don't want or need the extra performance of a larger engine. Another reason to consider building a 273 is fuel efficiency. Since the 273 is 14% smaller than the 318, in theory you should be able to get 14% better gas mileage (all else being equal). I realize it doesn't work exactly that way in the real world, but the 273 at least has some potential gas mileage advantage over the larger small blocks.

The 273 in my Barracuda was the 2 barrel version. Even though my car is a '66, the heads had the earlier style intake bolt holes in the head. For the Barracuda I wanted a little more power (and at a lower rpm range) than the 273 could provide, so I decided to go with a 318. My original plan was to strip the parts I wanted (the forged steel crank and adjustable rocker arms) out of the 273 and junk the rest. After thinking about it though, I decided to keep it and rebuild it. I'll replace the cylinder heads with "302" castings from a 318 so I can run an Edelbrock Performer intake manifold and save the stock heads and intake for another project I have in mind. With the 273, I'm aiming for "performance with economy" with a heavy emphasis on economy.

At this point, I don't even know if the engine is rebuildable. It didn't look bad on the outside, a little grungy but not too bad for a 43 year old engine that had maybe never been out of the car. When I pulled the intake manifold though I found a bunch (and I mean a LOT) of burned oil and crud in the lifter valley. I don't know if the engine was ran hot too many times, if the oil was rarely (if ever) changed, or some combination of the two. Whatever, it's not a pretty site, and it makes me question the internal condition of the engine. The crankshaft is no big deal because I can substitute a 318 crank (but it will kind of suck replacing a forged steel crank with a cast iron one). If the block won't clean up with a .030" over bore, I won't be building a 273.

Time will tell though, and I won't know until I get a chance to tear it down and inspect it. I hope its rebuildable though. I think it would be a lot of fun to build one of these and see just what kind of performance and economy I can get out of it compared to my Subaru wagon. I know the performance will be better and I'm guessing the gas mileage will be just as good. I think it would be perfect in something like a '64 Valiant station wagon.

More pics:


Navigation Contact
User login Username: *

Password: *

Log in
Create new account
Request new password
Posted By: sshemi

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/02/10 11:37 AM

Dont do the 273 because of what everyone else says.
Stock there is no kind of power what so ever.
Even for a daily driver its not good, no torque at all.
Aldough i did manage to get my 273 heads with 1,9 int and 1,6 ex flow better than a set of x heads at 145cc. 228 cfm intake and 190 ex.
A 2.02 int valve wouls increase flow a little more but wont fit a 273.
Posted By: justinp61

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/02/10 12:51 PM

Quote:

if i could get the 273 heads ported really well and then fit a 4." crank like Hot Rod Dave mentioned..THAT might get me to where i want to be for a good cruiser...what do ya think?

ps, custom pistons would be called for, i'm sure..




Why not put the 4" crank in a 360 and save some $$$ with a shelf piston instead of having them custom made for the 273. Rings may be harder to get for the 273 too.
Posted By: patrick

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/02/10 04:16 PM

Quote:

if i could get the 273 heads ported really well and then fit a 4." crank like Hot Rod Dave mentioned..THAT might get me to where i want to be for a good cruiser...what do ya think?

ps, custom pistons would be called for, i'm sure..




why? it gets you a way undersquare 330 CID engine....

just bore a 318 .060 over and you're at 328 CID.

what are the plans for the car? how much power do you want to make? what kind of mileage are you hoping for?

best bang for the buck is pick up a running 318 magnum, put hughes #1110 valve springs, regrind the roller cam, add an eddie air gap, headers, and a 600 cfm edelbrock.

if you want to build, I'd go 318 LA roller block, KB167's, heads of your choice (If aluminum, I'd look at eddie magnums), reground roller cam (keep in in the 218@.050 or under), headers, and an eddie air gap (or maybe an LD340 opened up for a t-quad or q-jet)

diamond and Icon (Keith Black Piston's Forged line) make shelf pistons for a 318/4" stroke as well, yielding 390 cubes)
Posted By: B1Fish540

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/02/10 05:34 PM

"what are the plans for the car? how much power do you want to make? what kind of mileage are you hoping for?"

since I want it for highway use, I'd like a motor that has the power down lower..so prob a stroked 318 or 360 would be best(?). I'd like milege to be reasonable, at least 15 mpg.
Thanks for the info on the magnum roller motor I hadnt considered the newer small blocks...but that makes sense.
Posted By: patrick

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/02/10 07:03 PM

Quote:

"what are the plans for the car? how much power do you want to make? what kind of mileage are you hoping for?"

since I want it for highway use, I'd like a motor that has the power down lower..so prob a stroked 318 or 360 would be best(?). I'd like milege to be reasonable, at least 15 mpg.
Thanks for the info on the magnum roller motor I hadnt considered the newer small blocks...but that makes sense.




again, how much power do you want to make? a well thought out, mildish, stock strole 318 should have no problem making 350-380 lb-ft, and 330-350 hp, and a similarly built 360 make 350-370hp and 400-430 lb ft....
Posted By: B1Fish540

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/02/10 10:09 PM

Quote:

Quote:

"what are the plans for the car? how much power do you want to make? what kind of mileage are you hoping for?"

since I want it for highway use, I'd like a motor that has the power down lower..so prob a stroked 318 or 360 would be best(?). I'd like milege to be reasonable, at least 15 mpg.
Thanks for the info on the magnum roller motor I hadnt considered the newer small blocks...but that makes sense.




again, how much power do you want to make? a well thought out, mildish, stock strole 318 should have no problem making 350-380 lb-ft, and 330-350 hp, and a similarly built 360 make 350-370hp and 400-430 lb ft....




Patrick, not wanting to be vague on the horsepower..just want as much HP as possible and keep it dependable and highway friendly. The 430 lbs of torque sounds good...so maybe I dont even need a stroker(?). I think 370 HP sounds good too, but would'nt a 408 make more TQ and at a lower RPM? Being able to cruise is important, I figure a stock ratio rear end of 3.23 or so, so that limits my cam. The car will probably see the drag strip on occasion, too, but uinless I put an OD trans in it, the rear ratio will have to stay stock. An OD would be nice tho, then I would run like a 3.90 ratio.
Posted By: 2734bbl

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/02/10 11:44 PM

I did a 273 in my 67 Barracuda fastback back in 91 or 92.030 over TRW pistons with 318 High swirl heads(#516 I think and came out about 10:1) 1.88/1.60 valves,510/286 Erson solid,reused the stock adjustable rockers with new Prods,Holley single plane, 625 AVS and cheap headrs.

I reused the finned VCs with wrinkle paint and the original air cleaner that I modded and painted the motor Chrysler red.

904 trans w/stock histall and 3.91 gears

The car made really good power to 7K.I never dynoed or made a pass with it but it was a lot of fun and revved really fast.

Pistons might be hard to find now though
Posted By: B1Fish540

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/03/10 11:12 AM

Quote:

I did a 273 in my 67 Barracuda fastback back in 91 or 92.030 over TRW pistons with 318 High swirl heads(#516 I think and came out about 10:1) 1.88/1.60 valves,510/286 Erson solid,reused the stock adjustable rockers with new Prods,Holley single plane, 625 AVS and cheap headrs.

I reused the finned VCs with wrinkle paint and the original air cleaner that I modded and painted the motor Chrysler red.

904 trans w/stock histall and 3.91 gears

The car made really good power to 7K.I never dynoed or made a pass with it but it was a lot of fun and revved really fast.

Pistons might be hard to find now though




273four, thanks for the reply! sounds like your 273 was pretty strong! I'm unable to drive a 4 speed(bad feet) but if I could i always thought a motor like the one you built along with a 4 gear would be great fun to drive! But since this car has a TF, I wanna make alotta TQ down low and only spin it to 6k or so. max if thats doable and still get the HP(380/400) I want.
Posted By: sshemi

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/03/10 11:29 AM

Quote:

Quote:

I did a 273 in my 67 Barracuda fastback back in 91 or 92.030 over TRW pistons with 318 High swirl heads(#516 I think and came out about 10:1) 1.88/1.60 valves,510/286 Erson solid,reused the stock adjustable rockers with new Prods,Holley single plane, 625 AVS and cheap headrs.

I reused the finned VCs with wrinkle paint and the original air cleaner that I modded and painted the motor Chrysler red.

904 trans w/stock histall and 3.91 gears

The car made really good power to 7K.I never dynoed or made a pass with it but it was a lot of fun and revved really fast.

Pistons might be hard to find now though




273four, thanks for the reply! sounds like your 273 was pretty strong! I'm unable to drive a 4 speed(bad feet) but if I could i always thought a motor like the one you built along with a 4 gear would be great fun to drive! But since this car has a TF, I wanna make alotta TQ down low and only spin it to 6k or so. max if thats doable and still get the HP(380/400) I want.




you will NOT get any torque in low rpm with a 273. Even my bone stock barracuda with 273 2 barrel 904 and 3.23 gears should have had higher stallspeed.
Posted By: tubtar

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/03/10 02:54 PM

There is no substitute for what ?
Class.......... ?
Class..............?
Anyone................?
Posted By: 2734bbl

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/03/10 03:53 PM

I agree. The car was kinda lazy in low until about 3000 rpms and then pull pretty good.

A better vert (2800 or so)or a 4 speed woulda been nice but the 3.91 gears did help alot.
Posted By: patrick

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/03/10 06:17 PM

Quote:

Quote:

I did a 273 in my 67 Barracuda fastback back in 91 or 92.030 over TRW pistons with 318 High swirl heads(#516 I think and came out about 10:1) 1.88/1.60 valves,510/286 Erson solid,reused the stock adjustable rockers with new Prods,Holley single plane, 625 AVS and cheap headrs.

I reused the finned VCs with wrinkle paint and the original air cleaner that I modded and painted the motor Chrysler red.

904 trans w/stock histall and 3.91 gears

The car made really good power to 7K.I never dynoed or made a pass with it but it was a lot of fun and revved really fast.

Pistons might be hard to find now though




273four, thanks for the reply! sounds like your 273 was pretty strong! I'm unable to drive a 4 speed(bad feet) but if I could i always thought a motor like the one you built along with a 4 gear would be great fun to drive! But since this car has a TF, I wanna make alotta TQ down low and only spin it to 6k or so. max if thats doable and still get the HP(380/400) I want.




here's what I'd do...get a 360 magnum shortblock. reuse the crank and rods. buy either RHS magnum (iron) or Edelbrock magnum heads. run kb107's at 0 deck and a .039" head gasket. if the roller lifters are in good shape, reuse them. for a cam, I'd probably look at having bullet grind you a cam. I'd see if they can regrind the stock cam using their HR272/340 lobe for both intake and exhaust, which will yield ~.544" lift with magnum 1.6 ratio rockers. if not, I'd have them grind on a new core, using a 112 LSA (factory magnum is 114). I'd install the cam at 106-108 ICL. rockers, the RHS's you could use stockers, the eddies take small block chev rockers. either way, I think I'd use Scorpion Performance rockers for small block chev in 1.6 ratio. intake, I'd use an RPM air gap. carb, I'd use an 800 eddie thunder series AVS.

a little cheaper, if you can find a whole magnum longblock that doesn't have cracked heads, just use OEM magnum heads, but do a little work to the heads--the valve job is undersized, have it redone, opening up the seats to 1.9 and 1.6", with a nivce 5 angle valve job and a 75-80 degree throat cut to open up the bowls, do some bowl blending, and open up the pushrod pinch.

converter, I'd use a tight ~2500-2800 RPM stall converter-- something that will flash up when you stomp on it, but not have a lot of slip at cruise. a lot of people seem to have good luck with dynamic 9.5" converters in that regard...

I'd swagger this combo should run on 89-91 octane, probably idle in gear at ~750 RPM with ~12-13" vacuum, probably make conservatively 350-360HP/410-420tq, and probably net you 17-20mpg highway with 2.94 or 3.23 gears.
Posted By: B1Fish540

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/03/10 10:17 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I did a 273 in my 67 Barracuda fastback back in 91 or 92.030 over TRW pistons with 318 High swirl heads(#516 I think and came out about 10:1) 1.88/1.60 valves,510/286 Erson solid,reused the stock adjustable rockers with new Prods,Holley single plane, 625 AVS and cheap headrs.

I reused the finned VCs with wrinkle paint and the original air cleaner that I modded and painted the motor Chrysler red.

904 trans w/stock histall and 3.91 gears

The car made really good power to 7K.I never dynoed or made a pass with it but it was a lot of fun and revved really fast.

Pistons might be hard to find now though




273four, thanks for the reply! sounds like your 273 was pretty strong! I'm unable to drive a 4 speed(bad feet) but if I could i always thought a motor like the one you built along with a 4 gear would be great fun to drive! But since this car has a TF, I wanna make alotta TQ down low and only spin it to 6k or so. max if thats doable and still get the HP(380/400) I want.




here's what I'd do...get a 360 magnum shortblock. reuse the crank and rods. buy either RHS magnum (iron) or Edelbrock magnum heads. run kb107's at 0 deck and a .039" head gasket. if the roller lifters are in good shape, reuse them. for a cam, I'd probably look at having bullet grind you a cam. I'd see if they can regrind the stock cam using their HR272/340 lobe for both intake and exhaust, which will yield ~.544" lift with magnum 1.6 ratio rockers. if not, I'd have them grind on a new core, using a 112 LSA (factory magnum is 114). I'd install the cam at 106-108 ICL. rockers, the RHS's you could use stockers, the eddies take small block chev rockers. either way, I think I'd use Scorpion Performance rockers for small block chev in 1.6 ratio. intake, I'd use an RPM air gap. carb, I'd use an 800 eddie thunder series AVS.

a little cheaper, if you can find a whole magnum longblock that doesn't have cracked heads, just use OEM magnum heads, but do a little work to the heads--the valve job is undersized, have it redone, opening up the seats to 1.9 and 1.6", with a nivce 5 angle valve job and a 75-80 degree throat cut to open up the bowls, do some bowl blending, and open up the pushrod pinch.

converter, I'd use a tight ~2500-2800 RPM stall converter-- something that will flash up when you stomp on it, but not have a lot of slip at cruise. a lot of people seem to have good luck with dynamic 9.5" converters in that regard...

I'd swagger this combo should run on 89-91 octane, probably idle in gear at ~750 RPM with ~12-13" vacuum, probably make conservatively 350-360HP/410-420tq, and probably net you 17-20mpg highway with 2.94 or 3.23 gears.




Thanks again, Patrick for all the info..just one question.Which combo would make the 360 HP? And get the 17-20 mpg? The first combo you mentioned with the RHS heads seems like it would make alot more than 360 hp.
Posted By: patrick

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/04/10 04:02 AM

I'm being conservative in my estimation....

given the published flow data I've seen on RHS's and eddies, I'd think they'd be pretty close power wise, maybe 10hp more with the RHS's...but they'd also be 50+ lbs heavier.
Posted By: B1Fish540

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/04/10 05:17 AM

Quote:

I'm being conservative in my estimation....

given the published flow data I've seen on RHS's and eddies, I'd think they'd be pretty close power wise, maybe 10hp more with the RHS's...but they'd also be 50+ lbs heavier.




So with a .557 cam do you still think I will get 17+ mpg? that'd be great! I like th idea of a tight convertor, too. I like those RHS heads but like you said..an added 50lbs...so I would want the eddies for sure. Anyhow, I will looking for the magnum motors now. Hopfully i can find one in a junk yard around here with low miles.
Posted By: patrick

Re: 273 + MP Commando Alum. heads - 12/06/10 05:26 PM

Quote:

Quote:

I'm being conservative in my estimation....

given the published flow data I've seen on RHS's and eddies, I'd think they'd be pretty close power wise, maybe 10hp more with the RHS's...but they'd also be 50+ lbs heavier.




So with a .557 cam do you still think I will get 17+ mpg? that'd be great! I like th idea of a tight convertor, too. I like those RHS heads but like you said..an added 50lbs...so I would want the eddies for sure. Anyhow, I will looking for the magnum motors now. Hopfully i can find one in a junk yard around here with low miles.




what .557" lift cam? lift is meaningless in powerband discussion. duration is the important figure, especially advertised and .050 duration, and possibly something like .2" duration.

a .557" MP solid probably not, since it's a big cam duration wise. a .557" hydaulic roller with ~218 degrees of .050 dur, probably.
© 2024 Moparts Forums