New Dyno.... 394 W2 #'s ***ADDED W5 DYNO RESULTS*** - Moparts Forums

Register Log In Moparts Forums Unlawfl's Race & Engine Tech New Dyno.... 394 W2 #'s ***ADDED W5 DYNO RESULTS***

Print Thread

Page 2 of 2

1

2

Re: New Dyno.... 394 W2 #'s [Re: RyanJ] #671858 04/17/10 09:01 PM 04/17/10 09:01 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 8,547 State College, PA RyanJ OP moparts member
RyanJ OP moparts member Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 8,547 State College, PA	Andre brought his 416" W5 down from NY this AM & we proceeded to fight with carb issues all day, but finally got some stuff sorted out. I did'nt really know many specs on his motor until today, I only did the heads for it a couple years ago & he built it himself with some help from Jimi V. Apparently it's a 59* R1 block @ 4.07 bore, with a 4" callies crank... Steel rods, JE pistons ~13:1, custom Charlies pan, moroso 3 vane vac pump... Stock Car products external oil pump, moroso electric water pump... Cam is a Bullet Solid Roller... & is not exactly what I would have ground but... I think if I recall correctly it's like 278/282 @ .050", .648"/.648" on 110 LSA. He said they put it in @ 109 LSA.... Actual lift he said was .610" @ valve. 1.5 T&D rockers.... Heads are old 1st Gen W5's, I hand ported & apparently have a 2.02 valve in, which is kind of unusual (I usually put a 2.08 in almost all 5's), but that's what he had when he brought me the heads to use...Castings are very porous & I was not able to go crazy on ports, they are just a nice conservative set of 5's MP M1 LG runner intake 4150 flange, just port matched... Ran 4 different carbs on it... His 1050 Dominator, new 8896 ontop of a 2" HVH tapered 4150-4500 adapter... The 850 Wilson that I ran on 394 Dirt motor yesterday...(GREAT carb) A customers new JP performance 1050 4150 series billet deal (1st run time it has seen) & some 950 variant of Jimi Vignogna's Andre's 1050 had a bunch of crap in it & made bad 1st pull... Put the 850 wilson on & got some good pulls, tuned timing, liked 35 best. Total seal gapless rings took 4 pulls to seat was'nt thrilled with them.. Put vacuum pump on, picked up 30 HP.... Put 1050 JP carb on.... one pull, motor sounded horrible, power off.... Put 950 Vignogna on.... was'nt as bad as the 1050 JP, but was'nt anything special & still did not sound right. Put 850 wilson back on to get back to our baseline & motor came right back around, sounded good... Cleaned out the 1050 8896 Dominator & put it back on, & power came up a tad.... I think best with the 850 Wilson (slightly rich, never jetted it) was 647? & we messed with the 1050 Dom & got 658 out of it... it is still not great carb, the EGT's were off much further spread with the 4500 than with the 4150 stuff. Would have probably picked up another 10-15 with a good Dominator on it. The LG runner M1 just killed the TQ.... even being 416" with 13:1, it could not deal with it. The TQ per inch, VS: the 394 Flat tappet W2 is unsettling. The TQ peaks are also pretty darn high for 4" crank motor.... That is combo of 110 LSA cam in @ 109 & the massive plenum of the M1 LG runner. An INDY would really put some TQ in it & move powerband down a bit & probably broaden it... I think 1.65 rockers, to crank up ramp speed, knock ~6 degrees duration out of cam, pull LSA back to 108, in @ 103-104, bump lift into the low .700's advertised, an INDY manifold converted to 4500 flange & a little better 4500 carb & you'd see a 720 HP/565 TQ piece. But it will do what he wants it to I think... his car is light enough to run where he wants to. Anyhow.... 658HP @ 7100 RPM 528TQ @ 5800 RPM I was little disapointed in the power, but after looking over the combo, it seems like it made just about what the combo is capable of? As soon as he handed me the cam card, & I asked what rocker ratio it had on it.... & then glanced down & saw the Lg runner intake this morning I was a little leery about making a power prediction... Anyhow, did'nt break anything & made decent HP #'s always a good day. 5931587-100_1929COPY.jpg (148 downloads)

Re: New Dyno.... 394 W2 #'s [Re: RyanJ] #671859 04/17/10 09:14 PM 04/17/10 09:14 PM
Joined: Jul 2004 Posts: 19,318 State of confusion T Thumperdart I Live Here
Thumperdart I Live Here T Joined: Jul 2004 Posts: 19,318 State of confusion	72 Dart 470 n/a BB stroker street car `THUMPER`...Check me out on FB Dominic Thumper for videos and lots of carb pics......760-900-3895.....

Re: New Dyno.... 394 W2 #'s [Re: Thumperdart] #671860 04/17/10 09:27 PM 04/17/10 09:27 PM
Joined: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,049 ohio A all spooled up super stock
all spooled up super stock A Joined: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,049 ohio

Re: New Dyno.... 394 W2 #'s [Re: all spooled up] #671861 04/17/10 09:29 PM 04/17/10 09:29 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 25,996 United Socialist States of Ame... T tboomer Too Many Posts
tboomer Too Many Posts T Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 25,996 United Socialist States of Ame...	Quote: Anyhow, did'nt break anything & made decent HP #'s always a good day. Way to go Ryan!! Need your rear end checked out? Contact Grizzly!!

Re: New Dyno.... 394 W2 #'s [Re: RyanJ] #671862 04/17/10 09:51 PM 04/17/10 09:51 PM
Joined: Jun 2003 Posts: 52,972 Romeo MI MR_P_BODY Master
MR_P_BODY Master Joined: Jun 2003 Posts: 52,972 Romeo MI	Those are still some pretty stout numbers for what he has in it

Re: New Dyno.... 394 W2 #'s [Re: RyanJ] #671863 04/18/10 04:35 AM 04/18/10 04:35 AM
Joined: Feb 2007 Posts: 2,578 sweden 1 1Fast340 master
1Fast340 master 1 Joined: Feb 2007 Posts: 2,578 sweden	this is some intresting stuff

Re: New Dyno.... 394 W2 #'s [Re: 1Fast340] #671864 04/18/10 09:40 AM 04/18/10 09:40 AM
Joined: Jan 2007 Posts: 3,695 nc E emarine01 master
emarine01 master E Joined: Jan 2007 Posts: 3,695 nc	Good info, I wonder what it would have done with a 2,08 intake valve, The LG runner mani with the 2.02 valve seems counter productive

Re: New Dyno.... 394 W2 #'s [Re: emarine01] #671865 04/18/10 09:43 AM 04/18/10 09:43 AM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 8,547 State College, PA RyanJ OP moparts member
RyanJ OP moparts member Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 8,547 State College, PA	The intake valve diameter VS: the plenum size/runner entry CSA has very little, if nothing to do with each other. It may have made a hair more power with a 2.08, but TQ still would have been way down. It's off by at least 20-25 MINIMUM

Re: New Dyno.... 394 W2 #'s [Re: RyanJ] #671866 04/18/10 10:16 AM 04/18/10 10:16 AM
Joined: Jan 2007 Posts: 3,695 nc E emarine01 master
emarine01 master E Joined: Jan 2007 Posts: 3,695 nc	Quote: The intake valve diameter VS: the plenum size/runner entry CSA has very little, if nothing to do with each other. It may have made a hair more power with a 2.08, but TQ still would have been way down. It's off by at least 20-25 MINIMUM Using as few words as possible can you explain

Re: New Dyno.... 394 W2 #'s [Re: emarine01] #671867 04/18/10 10:27 AM 04/18/10 10:27 AM
Joined: Dec 2007 Posts: 12,592 Great Neck,LI,new york hemi-itis I Live Here
hemi-itis I Live Here Joined: Dec 2007 Posts: 12,592 Great Neck,LI,new york	I would love to see you test an SV1 carb 5932523-SV1!!!!!!!!!!004.JPG (53 downloads) HEMI-ITIS has no cure. My condition is fully BLOWN!!

Re: New Dyno.... 394 W2 #'s [Re: hemi-itis] #671868 04/18/10 11:01 AM 04/18/10 11:01 AM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 9,888 Weddington, N.C. Streetwize master
Streetwize master Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 9,888 Weddington, N.C.	Great info Ryan!! Based on what you see here, what would you expect a typical 408 (4.03 x 4.00) 360 based shortblock with the exact same components to make? This 394" has a big bore short stroke long rod ratio combo which should be ideal for horsepower with a more killer set of heads, right? I know the torque peak with this motor will be at a higher RPM than a 408 but I'm willing to bet the HP will be equal or slightly greater becasue this cube combination runs "happier" above the torque peak.... less internal frictional HP losses (less side load and lower piston speed)each 100rpm gain above peak torque. WIZE World's Quickest Diahatsu Rocky (??) 414" Stroker Small block Mopar Powered. 10.84 @ 123...and gettin' quicker! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mWzLma3YGI In Car: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjXcf95e6v0

Re: New Dyno.... 394 W2 #'s [Re: emarine01] #671869 04/18/10 11:46 AM 04/18/10 11:46 AM
Joined: Jan 2007 Posts: 3,695 nc E emarine01 master
emarine01 master E Joined: Jan 2007 Posts: 3,695 nc	Quote: Quote: The intake valve diameter VS: the plenum size/runner entry CSA has very little, if nothing to do with each other. It may have made a hair more power with a 2.08, but TQ still would have been way down. It's off by at least 20-25 MINIMUM Using as few words as possible can you explain Hey come on now, Remember I am a old diesel guy, We don't suck thru the ports We tend to blow so this csa thing is kinda new to me, how about some help here

Re: New Dyno.... 394 W2 #'s [Re: Streetwize] #671870 04/18/10 01:04 PM 04/18/10 01:04 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 8,547 State College, PA RyanJ OP moparts member
RyanJ OP moparts member Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 8,547 State College, PA	Quote: Great info Ryan!! Based on what you see here, what would you expect a typical 408 (4.03 x 4.00) 360 based shortblock with the exact same components to make? This 394" has a big bore short stroke long rod ratio combo which should be ideal for horsepower with a more killer set of heads, right? I know the torque peak with this motor will be at a higher RPM than a 408 but I'm willing to bet the HP will be equal or slightly greater because this cube combination runs "happier" above the torque peak.... less internal frictional HP losses (less side load and lower piston speed)each 100rpm gain above peak torque. A 408 using the exact same components? TQ per inch I think would stay same, the larger stroke, smaller bore, larger inch motor would make little less HP/inch based on my previous findings so... I'd expect 530 TQ @ ~5100 RPM, 630 HP @ ~6800 RPM Only reason I did long rod in this thing, is because A. Dirt track owners like long rods, & B. it made for nice short piston. I was'nt trying to achieve any "magic" with the 6.5 rods. They are just there to eat up unnecessary deck height, I knew I wanted to use a CompStar rod in it based on his budget, & looked in catalog for longest 2.10" journal rod they had & viola! 6.50 rod.... On the manifold being too big for the heads/intake valve on the W5.... the CSA of the runners of the manifold in the plenum (@ the divider area) is just too big for the CSA of the cyl head. Too large amount of taper from runner entry in plenum to runner exit @ head. W5 is not normally a "large" CSA cyl head (depending on how you do the intake port) Especially this old porous set, I do not have ports "jumbo" "generally" if intake is too big for heads/combo, the power will be about right, but TQ will be way off. If intake is too small, TQ will be good, & power will be low on top & perhaps peak RPM will be achieved a bit early.. When intake is right (see the 394) Both Power & TQ come in good & come in @ predictable RPM's (cam does play good bit of role in that tough as well, as I'm sure you know, it's all about combination, combination, combination, it all has to work well together to be "right") Valve diameter @ 2.02" is actually pretty good for a 4.07" bore motor. Valve diameter is usually just selected based on bore of block & throat area in intake bowl size you want & overall bowl size (also what physically FITS in cyl head). Usually I do use a 2.08 in a W5, but like I said, he already had a good new set of 2.02's for it & that's what he wanted to use. The valve size is not hampering power much, & is certainly not hurting TQ, if anything, the smaller valve/port size would HELP TQ (to a point) A change in rocker ratio would have been easiest way to really help motor out power wise, & change in intake would be easiest to put some TQ back in it. There was an issue W/ piston to valve clearance, that is reason for the 1.5 rocker I was told. I would use more 2.055's in W5's sometimes, but Ferrea does not have great selection of 2.055's until you move to Comp Plus & even then they often don't have length you want, & to do one you have to cut down 2.08's... just a pain & customer does not always like the extra $ involved in resizing OD of valves, refacing 45's to re-set margin & re-back cutting etc. Gets to be expensive when all is said & done.

Re: New Dyno.... 394 W2 #'s [Re: RyanJ] #671871 04/18/10 03:27 PM 04/18/10 03:27 PM
Joined: Jan 2007 Posts: 3,695 nc E emarine01 master
emarine01 master E Joined: Jan 2007 Posts: 3,695 nc	Thankx Ryan for the info, What did they have in mind when they made the LR intake, large bore short stroke and major RPMs

Re: New Dyno.... 394 W2 #'s [Re: emarine01] #671872 04/18/10 08:29 PM 04/18/10 08:29 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 8,547 State College, PA RyanJ OP moparts member
RyanJ OP moparts member Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 8,547 State College, PA	Quote: Thankx Ryan for the info, What did they have in mind when they made the LR intake, large bore short stroke and major RPMs Oh I think they just threw something together to actually be able to sell a "W5" intake... when they first released heads, there was no intake for them. Then they realized the LG runner was a piece of junk, & did another band aid, by changing bolt pattern on the M1 small runner Spreadbore intake... One thing I have realized when working with this stuff every day, if it has the word MOPAR cast on it, it's GOING to give you problems... I won't even go into the MP nascar water pump we had to weld up & resurface on the dyno on that 394, & the #1 main cap that seems to be screwed up now on every 48* tall deck I get etc etc. I told Andre, you want to know what is wrong with that intake? It's that big MOPAR logo on the runners...

Page 2 of 2

1

2

Moderated by Al_Alguire, Hotwheelsjr, moparts, not_a_charger, RangerDan440, tboomer

Hop To

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1