Re: 505 back together with Mancini heads
[Re: AndyF]
#56802
06/06/08 08:54 PM
06/06/08 08:54 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,106 Oregon
AndyF
OP
I Win
|
OP
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,106
Oregon
|
We put this Braswell 1.590 venturi 4150 carb on there. It basically made the same power as my UltraHP 4500 carb. Usually the 4500 makes about 20 hp more than the 4150 but at these power levels maybe it doesn't matter so much.
Peak torque was 637 at 4000 rpm. Peak power was 670 hp at 6100 rpm. Pretty typical torque curve for standard port heads on a 500 inch motor but the power hung on for longer than I expected.
Last edited by AndyF; 06/06/08 08:55 PM.
|
|
|
Re: 505 back together with Mancini heads
[Re: Streetwize]
#56804
06/06/08 11:28 PM
06/06/08 11:28 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Hey Andy, Will those breathers fit under the hood like that??? or is the motor going in a dragster.......
|
|
|
Re: 505 back together with Mancini heads
[Re: ZIPPY]
#56807
06/07/08 11:17 AM
06/07/08 11:17 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 75,125 A Banana Republic near you.
JohnRR
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 75,125
A Banana Republic near you.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Now, lets talk about the B block version of that intake!! Nothing in inventory anywhere for the B intake.
I recall MP having a "blowout" deal on those things years ago, which probably depleted the inventory. I think that was about the time someone from here sent me one to throw on my flow bench, too.
Years after the blowout deal, Andy and I caught the B intake headed into NS1 status here just recently which we thought was a bad idea. We managed to get the discontinued ruling reversed/part number brought back after a short discussion with MP. Doubtful it was ever a huge seller for MP but for that application that intake was the only game in town, and it may become popular at some point as big ci combinations become the norm. MP actually does have a little bit of inventory on the casting itself, just not the complete package number at this point.
what intake is this you guys are talking about ?
|
|
|
Re: 505 back together with Mancini heads
[Re: AndyF]
#56809
06/07/08 04:40 PM
06/07/08 04:40 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
"That discussion was around the 724 intake which is the B version of the 725 intake that I'm running on this motor. Those are the M1 intakes with standard runners and 4500 flange." It was nice to buy the intake for $81 during closeout. "Still no one makes a RB (or B) dual plane with 4500 flange. I'd run one on this motor if it was available." I would send you my CH440 to use but someone trashed it in a magazine article and I can't hardly give it away.
|
|
|
Re: 505 back together with Mancini heads
[Re: AndyF]
#56817
06/19/08 02:02 PM
06/19/08 02:02 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 63 indiana PA
moparbob498
member
|
member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 63
indiana PA
|
have you tried the std. M1 single plane w/4150 flange & adapter w/ Dominator combo? i read in a Mopar Muscle that it was 25 hp over the std. 4500 flange int.----i can say going from the Team G to the above set up i questioned about my car went from 10.90 to 10.71---so the Team G went down the road.
mopar or no car
|
|
|
Re: 505 back together with Mancini heads
[Re: moparbob498]
#56818
06/19/08 02:16 PM
06/19/08 02:16 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,106 Oregon
AndyF
OP
I Win
|
OP
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,106
Oregon
|
No, I didn't try that. It would be interesting to try a four way test with something like the Victor 440, Super Victor manifolds and then the 4150 and 4500 carbs.
At this power level I'll take a guess and say it doesn't matter which combination you use. I could be proven wrong but my guess is it won't really matter much.
We did try a 4150 carb on the M1 intake using a Wilson adapter. Basically there wasn't much power difference. I've done dyno tests in the past using a 4150 intake with an adapter to a 4500 carb and haven't really seen much diffrence either.
I don't doubt that some people have seen a 15 or 20 hp improvement when using a 4500 carb on a 4150 intake but I don't think it is a general rule. I'd say it is something that can happen on a certain combination but it isn't something that will happen.
Remember, I just did some dyno testing. It is quite possible that one of the combinations would get a car down the track quicker even though the dyno numbers don't look any different. One intake might have better shift recovery or something like that. Or sometimes, on cars with poor traction the intake that has less torque on the low end will run better at the track.
Last edited by AndyF; 06/19/08 02:20 PM.
|
|
|
Re: 505 back together with Mancini heads
[Re: roadrunner470]
#56819
06/19/08 05:08 PM
06/19/08 05:08 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,106 Oregon
AndyF
OP
I Win
|
OP
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,106
Oregon
|
Quote:
I have a dumb Question, are these MW or std port head
Not a dumb question since Jeff at Modern has both MW and standard port programs. I didn't go with the MW ports since these heads are supposed to go on my street motor whenever that gets back on track.
I am thinking seriously about putting the EZ heads back on this motor but leaving this street roller camshaft in there. So that will then have the 1.70 Jesel rocker arms and the larger parts. It would be interesting to see how much power the motor would pick up from that swap, probably push it back up to 750 hp or so.
If I did that I could try out the new MW sized Super Victor intake. Maybe even try the P4876337 intake if Mopar Performance re-issues it. Zippy, you out there? Any word on the 337 intake?
|
|
|
Re: 505 back together with Mancini heads
[Re: AndyF]
#56821
08/04/08 10:24 AM
08/04/08 10:24 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:
I wonder what the 1000HP works like in traffic with those big bores.
IIRC, out of the box the 1000 HPs tend to run rather "fat". I'll be interested in how much tuning you have to do to get it to run clean under your test conditions.
|
|
|
|
|