Re: 505 dry sump headed to the dyno
[Re: AndyF]
#152494
12/06/08 10:27 PM
12/06/08 10:27 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,972 Romeo MI
MR_P_BODY
Master
|
Master
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,972
Romeo MI
|
Quote:
It is a dyno pan so no reason to run a shallow pan when there is room to run a deep one. Usually oil pans work better the bigger they are. Something about the extra volume providing more space for the pumping energy to spread out in I suppose. I don't have test data myself on that theory but plenty of other guys seem to agree that bigger is better when it comes to oil pans. The theory makes sense to me so I just had Charlie build the biggest pan that would fit.
I had a deep pan on my dry-sump engine as well (one that I built) and I believe it was better than what I have on it now (standard dry sump pan, shallow). Some testing I did on the dyno at Chrysler showed a improvement with a deep pan but I dont recall the numbers but it was only like 2 or 3 HP but that was in a lower hp engine
|
|
|
Re: 505 dry sump headed to the dyno
[Re: AndyF]
#152495
12/07/08 12:57 PM
12/07/08 12:57 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,928 NC
440Jim
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,928
NC
|
Quote:
Roller cam, 266/272 at 0.050, Lobe lift on the cam is .393/.401 With the 1.85/1.70 split ratio rocker arms the net lift was .706/.661
Quote:
We ran both the Super Victor and the Mopar 337 intake. Best power was 1.85 intakes with the 337 intake.
I assumed the 337 intake would be down 15 or 20 hp from the Super Victor but actually the 337 intake made the most power. Not sure why that is the case but it did.
Peak power with the 337 intake was 797 hp [at 7300 rpm]. The best pull with the Super Victor was 791 hp. Both of those numbers were with the 1.850 rocker arms.
That cam really surprised me. For such short duration at 0.050", on 505 CID, it really made peak power higher in the RPM range than I thought. Obviously the good flowing heads have something to do with that, but I wonder if the cam profile above 0.050" tappet lift is "special". Like you said, it isn't crazy in total lift.
What was the duration at 0.200" tappet lift? I wonder if comparing a lobe made for 1.85 ratio rocker and one for 1.5 is making the duration appear different. ie at the same valve lift (say 0.050 x 1.5 = 0.075" valve) what would the duration comparison look like? MM305S solid at 0.075" valve = 279º, Roller at 0.075" valve (.075/1.85=.041 tappet lift) = ???º (close to 276º?)
And maybe that 337 has more cross section between the plenum and head than the Super Victor? (tapered to same port window obviously) I would think that could be part of it too (505 CID, 7300 rpm, = flow needed).
|
|
|
Re: 505 dry sump headed to the dyno
[Re: 440Jim]
#152496
12/07/08 02:12 PM
12/07/08 02:12 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 482 Michigan
BigFish69
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 482
Michigan
|
Andy thanks for your posts is there any advantages of running a smaller cam with higher ratio rockers thanks Tom
|
|
|
Re: 505 dry sump headed to the dyno
[Re: AndyF]
#152498
12/07/08 05:48 PM
12/07/08 05:48 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,876 Weddington, N.C.
Streetwize
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,876
Weddington, N.C.
|
One of the most influential engine theory books I ever read was called "the design and tuning of competition engines" by Phillip H. Smith http://www.bentleypublishers.com/product.htm?code=G140One thing I read almost 30 yerars ago now has been proven to me time and time and time again....the longer the stroke the shorter distance the motor wants the carb from the intake valve....Part of the reason I always felt the Street Dominator worked so well on long arm strokers is the comparatively short straight "line of sight' shot at the valves compared to say the longer taller victor manifold.....now this may not be the reason that the 337 seems to work better in this application but it may be. Runner length for a given port cross-section produces wall friction at high velocities, long runners are very beneficial for torque production....anyone who's ever driven a 5.0 mustang (3" stroke) can attest to that....but once the stroke (and piston speed) is there any runner length beyond "optimum" becomes a resitence. Strokers by and large generate so much low end (based primarily on volume and especially PISTON SPEED) that they really don't need a lot of runner length. Back in the 80's when the 500" Pro stocks first started covering up their manifolds a big part of that was the trend toward shorter runners and larger plenum areas and was a big departure fro mthe 70's technology tunnel rams. RPM's (again piston speeds) were going up and up and runners got even shorter. Anyway, I thought I'd throw that in....plus it gives me another chance to ask Andy about the Dyno chart question...'cause we all know peak power don't really tell the story like the torque curves do....especially with wide spaced geared automatics! PS. Mike Jones is local to me...coincidentally I've been thinking about getting with him on my next roller project
Last edited by Streetwize; 12/07/08 06:04 PM.
|
|
|
Re: 505 dry sump headed to the dyno
[Re: Streetwize]
#152499
12/07/08 06:46 PM
12/07/08 06:46 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,051 Oregon
AndyF
OP
I Win
|
OP
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,051
Oregon
|
Sorry, dyno curves aren't available. The camshaft is an R80393/R82401 lobe set from Jones if you're interested. Ground on 110 centers, installed at 106. www.jonescams.com is the website for Mike Jones.
|
|
|
Re: 505 dry sump headed to the dyno
[Re: AndyF]
#152500
12/07/08 08:43 PM
12/07/08 08:43 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,876 Weddington, N.C.
Streetwize
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,876
Weddington, N.C.
|
Thanks Andy!
Any chance you might try the Indy single on it...especially since that was what you ran with the flat tappet solid.
There's a lot in your comment comparing the solid to a roller....when you got a big cylinder all thse extra degrees of valve Dwell ABOVE .200 lift really pay dividends in the power department, you trypically/especially see the roller pull away in the RPM range above the torque peak.
Last edited by Streetwize; 12/07/08 08:47 PM.
|
|
|
Re: 505 dry sump headed to the dyno
[Re: Streetwize]
#152501
12/07/08 10:22 PM
12/07/08 10:22 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,225 Charleston
sixpackgut
Drag Week Mod Champion
|
Drag Week Mod Champion
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,225
Charleston
|
first, when comparing the new cam to the one in the old test, even though the comp cam had much more duration, the lift wasnt in the same range to the new stick with 1.85, is this correct? what i'm saying is, there could have been a bunch more power with cam lift where the heads flow best compared to a stick that holds the valve open under the heads peak flow lift next, is that mopar intake a max wedge port intake like the super victor is? could the 60 hp increase be due to a big dry sump pan? Andy, i love reading your tests but you change to many things and you cant really figure out what is doing what. well, except for the fact that the ugly intake is better than the pretty one
Gen 3 power 6.22@110, 9.85@135 Follow @g3hemiswap on instagram
performance only racing, CRT, ultimate converter, superior design concepts, ThumperCarbs
|
|
|
Re: 505 dry sump headed to the dyno
[Re: AndyF]
#152503
12/07/08 10:53 PM
12/07/08 10:53 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,225 Charleston
sixpackgut
Drag Week Mod Champion
|
Drag Week Mod Champion
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,225
Charleston
|
oh, i missed the comp as a flat tappet. sorry
Gen 3 power 6.22@110, 9.85@135 Follow @g3hemiswap on instagram
performance only racing, CRT, ultimate converter, superior design concepts, ThumperCarbs
|
|
|
Re: 505 dry sump headed to the dyno
[Re: 440Jim]
#152505
12/08/08 10:59 AM
12/08/08 10:59 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439 Val-haul-ass... eventually
BradH
Taking time off to work on my car
|
Taking time off to work on my car
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
|
Quote:
And maybe that 337 has more cross section between the plenum and head than the Super Victor? (tapered to same port window obviously) I would think that could be part of it too (505 CID, 7300 rpm, = flow needed).
I'm leaning towards that explanation, considering the similar Stage VI intake that Bobby (streewize) referred to above had such a large plenum and significant taper in the runners. On a 440, it made big HP, but had a noticeable dip in the torque curve below the torque peak.
I like to see how the MP intake and the Super Victor's torque curves compare across the RPM range, but noticed Andy's "no dyno curves available" reply.
|
|
|
Re: 505 dry sump headed to the dyno
[Re: BradH]
#152506
12/08/08 11:49 AM
12/08/08 11:49 AM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Andy's "no dyno curves available" reply.
Maybe because he's selling it to one of the magazines for an article?
|
|
|
Re: 505 dry sump headed to the dyno
[Re: STLDuster]
#152509
12/08/08 04:33 PM
12/08/08 04:33 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,051 Oregon
AndyF
OP
I Win
|
OP
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,051
Oregon
|
Quote:
Quote:
It has a lot of 800 hp pulls on it and the bottom end is all stock except for some ARP main studs.
What kind of work do you have in to the bottom end?
Just what I said in the line you quoted.
|
|
|
|
|