Bryce confirmed the roller springs are 220/510 so I'm good to go.

Look forward to firing the 414 back up with the new lungs.

Btw, I confirmed my 414 is really a 416, for some reason my Ohio 4" crank really measures 4.02" stroke anybody else ever find this? I wrote it down on the build but thought I must have mis-read it.

I also modded my (way too small) 1 5/8" x 3" headers to a 3 1/2" collector and a 3 1/2 to 3 X 8" flowmaster reducer to get a little more pipe volume, not ideal but hopefully a little better.

There was already a ton of potential left in your old combo's, the poor mans 340 and the 416" Eddy combo.

More tuning and racing, less changing parts

@TripleThreat I know! Beat Me! Beat me!!

I never even made a bonafide full throttle pass with the SDSS2's.

I'm bad about getting bored and having to keep messing with it....if you notice all my upgrades happen during the fall and winter.

I always sell my old stuff to people who put them to good use though do I don't feel too bad if I can horse trade some upgrades with little net out of pocket.

Looking at Bryce's Chart again....ignore for a moment the Peak numbers and just look at the torque.

Over 550 lb/ft from 4650 to 5650 and AT LEAST 500 lb/ft from 3950 to 6650, over that span the HP goes from 390 to 633, that's why I had to get them, same reason I went for the Chap Stage 6's on my 517 BB, I love that wall to wall powerband, to me that's what makes a stroker, to have a dead simple normally aspirated combo that has close to a boost induced powerband.

Again not what I'd necessesarily run on a 3500 pound 10:1 3.54 geared 416 E-body T/A but for an 11.5:1 2900 pound 4.10 geared Rocky it ought to be a great fit.

So Bobby how big of a SB do you think one would need with the Airwolf heads in a 3400lb street-strip car?

Are you talking a 10:1 408-416 street motor, 3000 stall and 3.91 gears? The airwolfs (airwolves?) would still work well but probably not as well as SDSS2's for that combo....remember the shadybrocks (can I coin that? ) are extremely fine heads, but on a 10.1 motor they are more a 2200-6200 powerband, where as the AW220's are more a 3000-6800 head. Ex: The best overall intake for the 3400 pound 10:1 combo Imentioned would be an AG RPM, but that intake won't flow to the potential of the AWs. The AW's (as well as the IMM max port eddies) can fill a niche between standard ported eddies and the W5 Indybrocks where that extra 500 RPM above 6000 can be put to use on the right 408-416 combo.

These could also work on a high strung low geared 340 but were talking 4200 stall or a stick and 4.30-4.57 gears in a Light car with a very carefully selected cam if it's going to see any street time. I LOVE those kinds of combos, but they're not for everybody.

A lot of people still make the More is better mistake, that's all I was saying. For the combo you describe (assuming the same Cr/stall/gears/wt) the 4.125 crank and 430 cubes would probably work great with the AW's and the right cam.

I was thinking about 10.5 to 11.0 with a mild solid roller, but I only run a 3.73 gear.
Sounds like a 430 cubic inch or larger will be the way to go.

If I were building one and wanted to use these heads for your combo and gear, I'd do a 4.125 crank. The extra cubes will work the bigger ports a few 100 rpm sooner.

I think you can build a BPE 4.125 or 4.25 stroke motor for around the same as his 408 kit, I'm gonna do one next time

Darryl

That's the way I'd go, 4.07 x 4.125 is 429 cubes.

I'd put a .600 ish lift ~252/256 @.050 Bullet SR with 10.5:1 on 108 in around 104 and a ~3500 stall/4500 flash 9.5 vert. I'd prefer a built low gear set 904 to a 727 with your gears but that's just me the 727 would be worry free though.

1 7/8" E body TTI's and a pro systems 1000hp on a Victor 340 should still have awesome roll on torque and start pulling hard around 3300 and peak around 5800 and rev to 6300 or there abouts.
The extra cubes make up for a little less compression and cam compared to the 408 but it'll be available sooner (where you want it.

A quick footnote....the one reason I'm so big on the torque curve is that people usually (sometimes suprisingly) figure out that when you have a broad torque curve (which is roughly 85% of peak torque) spanning over 1/2 your total powerband, you quickly find out that you have such a wide sweet spot that you don't have to worry so much about getting the converter exactly right (you can go a little tighter) or hitting the shift points just right, it just makes the 'stroker experience' a lot more fun to drive, which means you'll want to drive the car more

Yes Bobby I have a 904 with the low first gear set and my 9.5 convertor flashes to 4800 behind my W2 headed 408.
So you still like the cam growned on a 108 lsa instead of something like 112 with a 4.125 stroke?

Yeah, I do on pretty much any non boosted/nitrous mopar combo unless I'm trying to kill some torque through the middle or they are exhaust restricted. The only carburetted street Motors I've ever worked on that seem to run better on wider spreads and Late ICLs are Bb Buicks, Bb chevys and many small block fords. Some small tire A body big block cars back in the day actually with a 110-112 split because they wouldn't hook on the shift recovery. Buicks seem to run best really wide like 114, I think it must have something more to do with the fuel delivery/distribution through the manifold getting upset with large overlaps.

When the cubes get Big ( like over 580) you pretty much have to go wider since the running ramps have to be big enough to get the big motors to RPM at all.

So with your cam I would need to make sure I drop the exhaust when I get to the track.
So far I have been lazy when I run my car, I leave the exhaust hooked up and the spare tire and the jack in the trunk. But I do turn down the stereo.

No not at all, by restricted exhaust I mean where the benefits of overlap are negated by backpressure like from manifolds or tiny headers. Combos like that need wider spreads, later ICL's and the intake tract need s to pretty much 'fend for itself'

For the 430 the TTI's and a nice 3.5 to 3 dual system would be perfect, x pipe would be a plus but not a necessity IMO.

Keith,

I know there is some 'sweet spot' in the powerband that favors that tight separation, I'm wondering have you done testing of larger cube motors with small (stock or near stock) exhausts? I've almost always seen that the overall powerband is broader ( though maybe not in terms of absolute 'peak" torque) with a wider spread.

A good example comes to mind with AndyF's 470 motor running stock ehaust manifolds, of all the cams he tested the old .single pattern MP528 with a 112 split worked best. The tight 'sweet spot' of torque you speak of logically has to cost you some horsepower ( literally the motor's ability to gain rpm past the VE peak) on the top of the range, and of course (as Andy also found out) the induction side is impacted as well. Sidebar: WAY too O/T to get into here but the VE curve in terms of keeping the crank from slowing (rpm/sec) after peak torque helps keep the induction charging, a peakier curve means the crank is slowing at a faster rate after the peak, not an issue with Good heads but when they're not.... We need to talk over a few Barley pops some time ;-)

I know a number of Stock eliminator and even circle track combos have a very narrow "sweet spot" and they do their best to optimize the car dynamics around it and a degree or 2 of cam timing the wrong way really screws things up to where it won't fall out of a tree. I agree with you in terms of peak that a narrow spread can usually peak higher SOMEWHERE in the powerband, I've just not seen very many that can hold a better average curve (VE) typically falls quicker after the peak. It's all what your after and what class limitation (ex: FAST) you have to contend with. All the motor combos and even porting techniques play a big role unmaking a combo work....or not.

Also overall drivability and especially weight and gearing can come into play, if your running a 416 with stock exhausts and an OD trans with a 2.94 final drive I'm not sure I'd go 108 centers even if the torque peak was slightly higher for need of a smoother more tractible low RPM roll on. Also individual intake/exhaust duration specs can have a near equal effect on effective overlap than the physical spread itself.

I've worked on and consulted on a lot of 'stealthy' combos over the years, nothing surprises me much anymore....except Buicks



Sorry to get so O/T !!!

Wize ,
Sometimes it benefits us to look at things in different ways. We must be skinning the cat differently. I prefer to keep the narrow lobe centers and if necessary ,change the intake or exhaust duration slightly to make up for deficiency where necessary.
I personally don't buy in to the theory of tighter centers making an engine peakier because I have never seen it happen.
Certain other engine designs are exceptions as you noted.
It would be nice to sit down with you over a few golden sodas someday.

And since we are off topic,I have to wonder how many different cams Andyf tried and what they were as Ive never seen much said about them. Anyway,carry in and have fun with your new heads!
Keith

on a side note,, a guy just came in with a set of pro comp small blk mopar heads,, look exactly like the airwolf,, same hardware,, same port difference in the port from an edelbrock,, im thinking the airwolf is just a generic cnc from china,,

this guy paid 1425 for the ported, assembled,, to his door from minnesota

im opening up the chambers,, as cast 65 cc's,, and doing a valve job


jeff

Jeff

So is what you are saying is that these airwolf heads are the same exact same head as what your customer brought in to your shop?
Because the airwolfs seem to be roughly 1000 more expensive.
Also did those pro comps have any helicoiling done to help with threads hanging on to rocker gear?

man first it was best now its this,you got issues dude..

i checked a int port and it was only 195 cc's,, im sure the airwolf is bryce's own program.....

they have heli coils in the exh face and rocker bolts

im amazed how cheap these things are for what they are,,, a head to make 600 hp with chamber porting and a better valve job he will have 1750 reassembling them himself,,, cheap for what it is

fishy, what do you mean? this cnc work on these heads looks nice,, so initially i thought bryce may "tune up" a few areas, do a valve job and sell them,, but he must have a larger port to get to 225 cc's

and whats my problem with best? i dont have anything? im just an honest guy and call bs when i see it,,, isnt the case here,,