I'm in the process of bolting them on my 414, My shortblock is very similar to Steve Dulcich's 408 used in the 633HP test mule and even the cam specs are close (especially if I go to 1.6:1 rockers).
What really impressed me is the torque curve....looking at at least 1.2 lb/ft per cube from 3700 all the way to 6800, peakeking around 1.35 lb/ft per cube. My only thought is that a Victor 340 with it's shorter runners might even work better on a 4" stroke motor since (as most people are learning with long stroke short rod ratio combos) you don't need runner length to generate torque AND a longer runner for a given cross section can actually be a bit MORE restrictive than a comparatively shorter one above the VE peak. I do like the Taper and radius of the Super Victor but with such a small port I can't see it offsetting the drawbacks of the long runner length at 408+ cubes.
I'd like to hear from other small and big block stroker builders regarding their experience with Port Cross section. Big Blocks are particularly port limited in standard '906' port form (those ports are actually small for a 440" motor in terms of gaining HP above the torque peak).
With strokers, particularly when you go above around 11:1 can really hit an RPM wall of "port saturation" since you simply can't get enough air and fuel through the port window to keep the VE from nosing over...at a certain point port volume overtakes flowbench numbers in terms of raising the peak HP RPM. This is at least in part why a 310CC Indy-1 tends to make more peak HP and pull a higher RPM on a 500+ inch motor even though they don't always pull proportionally higher CFM numbers on the flowbench compared to a smaller cross sectional equally flowing 280-290 CC port volume head.
My thoughts are that a dry flowbench does not take the amount of port volume consumed (displaced) by the FUEL in suspension; at some point the amount of that soild fuel required displaces the total room needed for the AIR required to keep the ideal A/f ratio....thoughts?
