Andy, your 470/270TF indy 440-3 results

Andy, what were the results of the 470/270 combo with the 440-3 ported? I just read it was 50hp down in power before porting.

Wasn't it about 1200 HP?

Oh, sorry... must be still thinking about the 2020 Drag Pak thread...

Actually......... it was a 400-3

My mistake. Yes 400-3. Just curious as I use the 400-3 as well and I originally suspected the heads, cam or intake for my low power woes. I no longer suspect the cam, but compression or intake as of now for the lost ponys.

The 440-3 didn't work very well out of the box. Once it was ported the engine made pretty good power. There wasn't a 50 hp difference between ported and unported, more like 15 hp at peak. But it is about more than peak power, the unported intake had a roller coaster power curve while the ported one was nice and smooth. The EGTs smoothed out with the ported intake and the engine sounded better.

Good to know. Thanks andy

I don't even bother building serious engines anymore with a cast intake. At the minimum I'll send them to Hughes for their deep port match. If the budget allows then I send the intake to Wilson or I have a local guy do it if he has time. None of the existing Mopar intakes fit very well out of the box. Indy castings tend to be way off and so are Edelbrock. Trick Flow used to be good but the last few I've looked at were way off also.

I see. Looks like best would be to just purchase intake from Hughes with it deep ported? If my cam is installed correctly and the heads dont improve much a different intake will be in the works. TF most likely.

Trick flow std port intake on your MW sized heads??

I actually think Andy did try the TF manifold on the 270 heads.
I don’t remember that combo being too special....... but there were a lot of tests, and I may be remembering it wrong.

Yeah, I thought they could deep port match it to max wedge? My mw ports are not much bigger than the TF270 int port. There was a mopar engine builder near me MRL, used to hange out on A and B bodies. He built a guy a 470 with cast 440-1 heads, used a nonport matched standard port intake. Made over 700hp. Didn't seem to hurt it. Have you performed any studies on what's gained or lost on port matching vs not? Curious

I don’t recall doing any testing between ootb vs port matched intake manifolds......... but.......

I did have a 557 on the dyno making about 835hp with an ootb 440-3.

I’m sure if you read thru Andy’s tests of the 270 heads, you’ll find where he tried the std port intake.

I'll have to look again, didn't see that. I would think as long as the clylinderhead intake port is larger than the intake port, it wouldn't be very detrimental. Other way around would be a big problem.

A Wilson ported M1 with standard ports worked better with my 270 heads than an OOTB Indy 400-2 intake. Once the 400-2 was ported then it worked better. The Indy 400-2 out of the box was a pig. Once it was reworked by Wilson it ran pretty well. Your results may vary. I was working with a fairly well sorted out combo. That was a pump gas 470 that was making over 750 hp. I think the best set of pulls was 780 hp. Most guys don't spend the time and money to dial in a combination like that. If you knock 100 hp off the engine then the OOTB intake probably works just fine.

What are the options for lo deck intakes with 4500 flange?

Why not get the ultimate Dave and go T-Ram which I plan on in the near future.....better power and distribution than any single set up.......Up the compression, get a .700ish lift solid roller and hang on............

C’mon Dave...... you’ve said “whatever it takes”....... just box that thing of yours up and send it off for porting.

First things first guys. Heads are headed to Detroit next friday. Still checking all my options with these heads. Angle milling is not off the table just yet. I need to get an opinion and price from Sanchez first.
Dom, the T ram combo is still a couple yrs out, but still high on my list. The combo I'm looking at is $2500+ .

I get it plus you need to know exactly what's up before moving on......

Dom, this is the T ram I want to use.
http://www.hughesengines.com/Index/...e=partnumber&page=2&partid=23651

I was very happy with my Indy 4500 after I got it back from Wilson
With a smaller ported head the car ran basically the same as it did with a more ported EZ and unported manifold.
So what ever they did helped for sure. Expensive though.

Their the best. I spoke with them last year about porting my intake. They have different stages of porting, $600, $1100 and$1600 or something like that. The guy I spoke with said best
thing I could do would be to trim the clover leaf out on the carb pad and add a 4 hole tapered. So I did. Thinking about sending back for some more work. Think it could use some good blending.

That looks nice and I found a used one for a low deck I may pick up soon to start collecting parts........

Think that's a good idea. Not easy to find.

I don't think I saw a link to Andy's Wilson Indy 400-3 intake thread posted on here: https://board.moparts.org/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/2383960/400-3-indy-intake.html

Not sure if that's the $1G or the $1G++ work, but the pics he posted show a LOT more work than "some good blending". If you decide to have Wilson work on your intake, I'd ask them about what they can do to help improve intake manifold runner velocity when the head runner itself may be "big". I'm sure they can downsize the runners to improve how the manifold works w/ the heads, since I'd believe that getting the air-fuel mixture speed up before it reaches the head could help.

Of course, it's always easy to spend someone else's $$$...

I called them yesterday. It's not inexpensive by any means. $1600 for competition port job. They sent me a form to fill out and send. Will get a more accurate price when they call me.

I feel pretty confident I could get over 700+hp out of a 511 with ported MW Victors and an Indy 400-3......... without having to spend $1600 on manifold porting.

Yeah, 700 hp shouldn't be a problem with a MW head, 511 inches, pump gas compression and a solid roller cam. I think you would need some intake porting as well as some other "cleanup" to hit the 800 hp mark though.

^^^^^^^^^ This would be a great choice! Send it to Dwayne! He will take care of you!

Thanks for the vote of confidence Ted, but that’s not really what I was getting at.
I actually don’t like porting intake manifolds........ so about all I ever do is a little port matching and deburring of the plenum.

I’m not saying the full Wilson job won’t make power, I just dont think it’s necessary to reach the power level Dave says he trying to achieve.

No worry here. I dont have that kind of money to spend on intake porting. I think Hughes offers a comp port job on intakes for about $500. I could blend the intake ports into the plenum myself and save a bunch. Gonna concentrate my money on the heads for now. Missed the call from Wilson's today. I will see what the minimum charge is thou

Dwayne....I would like to see you do Dave's engine. I think you could save him some money without the hassle he may go thru.

I thought you already did a bunch of grinding on your Intake, this is your picture

That plenum seems freaking huge.

What's an out-of-the-box one look like?

Yeah, it is on the large side. That's what I ended up with after removing all of the clover leaf. I use a Wilson 4 hole taper spacer on top. I think it could still use the roof of the ports blended into that plenum.

The before pic was at the top of the post. Here's another Andy had done.

451RB, 340cfm MW SR’s, .650 lift roller with 1.5’s, 13:1, 1050 carb.

440-3 with a mild gasket match and some very minor plenum blending(basically just deburred the runner dividers).

712hp@7200.

Nice combo. 13:1 and a solid roller does alot for your combo imo. Still wish I would have built a 470.

Here's Dragula's Indy

I don't believe there is anything wrong with the engine it self. Its whats on top that's the problem imo. Some compression and a roller with a good intake would fix it right up. Before I spent that kind of money on port work, which I would never, I would do it myself. I have all the tools. I will talk with Wilsons today and get their take on what needs to be done. I think i'll cut those roofs back myself its that what they suggest. I know there are a few that don't think so, but I believe the compression boost is going to make quite a difference in performance. Too many proven combos just like mine going fast, but they all have more compression and a roller. 12.5-13:1 should be plenty. If I had E85 in my area I would push it further.
If the intake rears its ugly head as a problem, I might just move on to the T ram set up at that point. Dwayne just might end up with these heads, will see. First things first, I have a plan.

Do you have a budget for modifying or replacing your current intake?

I know Wilson is top of the heap, but someone like Chad Speier (Speier Racing Heads) could likely do mods like add runner divider extensions and maybe some other stuff he thinks would help for a good bit less (I a$$ume) than Wilson. ==> http://speierracingheads.com/hand-burr-manifolds.html

Just another unsolicited idea from the peanut gallery...

P.S. Gotta chuckle to myself when Dwayne admits publically that he doesn't like porting intakes.

Chad also has a cnc program for the Victor heads that supposedly gets them into the 400cfm range.

Thanks for the tip Brad. I know nothing about Chad. I will look into that.

Dave we can trade motors my rotating assembly is at the machine shop now (good luck you'll find the missing piece)

I dont think you would want my motor. It has 1 thin cylinder. I filled the block to within 3" of the deck per Best Machine advise to better support that cylinder. No issues yet. I have another 77' block that will one day be a 470 with much better heads than I have now.

That makes no sense to me. Everything you're trying to do should be easier w/ more cubes.

I can't count the # of times over the years that Dwayne & Andy have said (in effect, if not exactly) that it would have all come together for me much more easily if I'd stuffed in more cubes, rather than continuing to push a stock-stroke N/A 440 closer to its streetable limits.

Never have I claimed to be a quick learner.

When I bought my Molnar crank last year black Friday sale at Mancini. I talked myself out of the 4.250 crank because I told myself to be conservative and not push a stock block. Like Dave I also have a E.T goal and still want street drive ablilty...Appt of good knowledge on this site Thanks everyone for sharing

So do I: 10.0s at about 3800 #s w/ a stock-stroke 440-based build on pump gas... mostly.

Achievable? Guess you'll all have to keep watching the (lack of?) progress reports.

I'm not in that camp more cubes the better. A 470 will out accelerate a 511 due to friction. Longer stroke, faster piston speed etc. I had a similar deal with my sb. I wanted a 3.79 stroke and everyone said more cubes the better. So I went 4". I have seen more bad ass 3.79 stroke combos than 4". I think the shorter strokes make it easier to get to you goal. Not saying longer strokes dont work, do get me wrong. This is just my opinion and what I have seen.

Some myths get repeated, some get rejected as wrong, if your talking about similar prepared street and strip motors with the same compression carb size, cam, heads, exhaust, tune up, chassis, tires and so on in the same car with all the same parts a 4.250 stroke 400 or 440 block will outrun a 3.91 stroke every day of the year
Been there done that
The only combo stroke I haven't used yet for a good drag race motor is 4.00 stroke with a 4.500 bore or so, maybe soon
Torque moves the mass, not HP

If torque is the name of the game, then why are racers not building 6" stroke motors with 2" bores? I dont disagree that longer stroke motors make more torque every thing being equal. I just believe the parasitic loses with the longer stroke cancel out some of that extra torque. Higher piston speeds and bad rod angles create friction. I have see more bad ass short stroke big bore motors than square motors. Just look at Doms 470 for example. Nothing real fancy mild roller with rpm heads and it makes more power than any 511 I have seen. I believe he's making way over 700hp with that. Andys 470 was a bad ass compared to his 512. One other thing, short stroke spins higher and rpm is hp. Pro stock runs short stoke motors, under 4", 3.6 I believe, but they do have other reasons for that, CI limited.

Too long of a stroke can cause some issues but a 4.250 stroke in an RB engine with 7.100 long rods isn't going to be a problem. That is actually still a really decent rod to stroke ratio. I know what you're trying to say but I don't think that is the issue with your engine. There shouldn't be any issue making 700+ hp with a low deck 512.

My 512 and my 470 were two totally different engines. The 470 was designed to push the pump gas envelope as far as I could given my budget. I pushed it almost to 800 hp with OOTB heads which I thought was pretty good. My 512 is a street driver with a hyd roller cam so of course it doesn't make the same amount of power.

I can agree with that. Just like a 470 with the 3.91 stroke and a 7 rod. My 511 with the 4.25 stroke and 6.535 rod would have quite a bit of friction or parasitic losses at 7000rpm compared to the 470 at the same 7000rpm. So would those loses cancel out 100% of what was gained with the longer stroke? I dont know, but I'm sure it would eat up some of it.

If I'm building an engine for power then I always use the longest rod that will fit. I know that a lot of experts say that rod length doesn't matter but I prefer to use the longest one that works. The EMC engines went the other way on this starting a few years back but they operate under totally different rules so it makes sense for them. In either case I don't think rod length is the issue with your engine. A 511 low deck with 6.535 rods doesn't have the greatest R/S ratio in the world, but it still shouldn't have any issue hammering out 700+ hp.

I agree with you Andy. My issue is somewhere in the induction system. I'm just saying a 470 is a more efficient running engine than a 511 at rpm imo. Here's some bad ass short stroke motors from the factory. The 340 was a bad ass, 3.4 stroke and 4" bore, 426 hemi with a 3.75 stroke and large bore, 440 with 3.75 stroke and large bore, the 327 chevy with 3" stroke and 4" bore, the 396 chevy with 3.75 stroke and large bore, the 427 chevy with 3.75 stroke and large bore just to list a few. The big 3 built short stroke large bore motors for a reason. The 470 mopar is just a better designed motor to hit you goals easier with less money imo. They don't need big expensive heads and big headers etc to get there. I have not seen a 511/512 build up that really impressed me. I have seen several 470's that were quite impressive. I could be way off base here, but someone show me an impressive 511/512 build that was built with rpm heads or something similar and made big power, 750+ horse power. From what I have seen 511/512 builds make about the same as a 470, so why piss with all the bound up friction and parasitic losses when you could build a 470 and have a more free running engine that's less likely to throw a rod or break your block? They rev quicker and accelerate faster"per Rerer and Morrison" than a longer stroke motor. A 470 is still in my future.

Combination, combination, combination...

Did I mention it's all about the combination?

You know you currently have a mismatched combination. You can:
- do nothing but tune what you have the best you can (0 - $),
- or Band-Aid your areas of concern ($-$$),
- or sh!t-can everything you suspect doesn't work w/ the combination and start over from some point in the build ($$$-$$$$).

Let's say you get it dialed in well w/ the current combination and it's running consistent 10.4s. How much are you willing to pay for each additional tenth in ET reduction?

Let's say you spend $1000 - $1500 on it and it drops into the 10.3s. Are you willing to call it good enough?

Let's say you spend $3500 - $4500 and it runs 10.0s in normal conditions and has the potential to dip into the 9.9s under really good conditions. That's around $1000 per .1 in ET reduction. Are you "done"? And was it worth it?

I don't know your budget, your REALISTIC goals, your STRETCH goals, or what your current plan is. What I do know is you have taken ME and raised the neurotic level up a couple of notches.... well, maybe only one notch... well, maybe not any notches, but you've gone more public with it.

We've discussed your build in public; we've taken it offline to multiple PMs; and I'm not sure you're any clearer re the above than you were the first time you posted about the engine not meeting your expectations.

I REALLY want to see YOUR stuff run well. I REALLY want MY stuff to run well, too. At some point, there has to be a definitive "It Is What It Is" point, though.

For ME, a 10.0 ET is as fast as my car will ever be legal to run (STRETCH GOAL). And I have a definite capped budget which, to be embarrassingly & publically honest, I haven't managed well. << ANYBODY NOTICE THAT I HAVE 2 NICE CARBS AND SOME SWEET VALVE TRAIN PARTS FOR SALE? >> Based on all the paper data -- an no empirical data, unfortunately -- my REALISTIC goal is 10.2s, with possibility of dipping into the 10-teens on really good days.

I think it's time for YOU to lock down something in terms of budget, plan, expectations, etc. It doesn't have to be public knowledge, but it's gotta be something you can put down on paper and say to yourself: "Yeah, I can live with this."

BTW, the LAST thing I'd change w/ what you have now, unless it's really not mechanically sound, is your current short block. I think your 470 vs 512 philosophy is fundamentally flawed, but will leave it at that.

That's everything that I can offer.

I always get a chuckle out the “cubes don’t matter” arguments.

If that were the case, then why is it in pretty much any racing series or class that has a cube limit........basically has the entire field running the max allowed?

Take NHRA Pro Stock.......bump the limit to 550ci.
No one that stayed at 500” would be competitive in a very short amount of time.

Having a combination be more “efficient” isn’t the same thing as making more “power”.

A 470 making 700hp is 1.489hp/ci
A 511 making 735hp is less efficient at 1.438hp/ci....... but it’s still 35hp more.

As for the 4.25 stroke/6.535 thing being some sort of hurdle to overcome........
This is one of their budget friendly combos:
https://www.shafiroff.com/chevy-drag-race-engine-sportsman/565-big-block-drag-race.php

Here’s another one....... more hp, more rpm...... same stroke and rod length:
https://www.shafiroff.com/chevy-drag-race-engine-pro/565-big-block-drag-race.ph

The rod ratio for a 6.535 rod and a 4.25 stroke is 1.53....... same as a stock 454 or 502 Chevy.

Shafiroff also sells a 440” small block with a 6.00 rod and a 4.00 crank, which has a slightly poorer rod ratio of 1.50...... that one makes 950hp.
Peak tq @6800....... peak hp @8100.

Yes, I do get it. I agree, combination is key. When I drew this up in the planning stages I thought my combo would be a good one. I'm on a constant learning curve here as we all are. I appreciate and respect all of you guys comments and opinions. Some here do this stuff everyday as a job and some as a hobby. You are the ones that really know what works and what dont and I understand that and hope to learn some of this stuff from you. Some here, as I, do this as a hobby and past time, so we learn as we go because we dont do this everyday. I welcome and respect all opinions here. I think i have mine figured out and it should run much stronger next season, so will see. Compression and a solid roller will make it run as it should.

That puts things into perspective. This is what I like to sharpen my teeth on and well put Dwayne. Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree here. I dont disagree on more cubes make more power, no doubt about that, but I'm not totally onboard with longer stroke being a win win situation for every combo. I have never seen a 502 that was impressive either. Still learning.

Dave a 327 was a 4" bore by 3.250 stroke the 302 was a 4" by 3.00 stroke which was really just a 350 block with a 283 crank with the compression raised to 11 to 1.

Then how come so many 500+ ci motors can't get into the 9.70's? I have LOTS of customers that wish they were faster but run much slower than my lowly 470 and they have real heads and max wedge ports with much more volume compared to my rpm's. There has to be something said about short strokes and rpm's and one guy I did a pr. of super trick 850's with BLP NASCAR thinned blades and shafts goes 5.20's so far at 331 cubes and he shifts at 9700+ rpm's.......One thing I think helps some cars especially traction/tire limited stuff is not torque but the ability to rev the snot out of em and not have em hit the tires so hard that they spin off the line........

Yeh....... big motors don’t rev

Yes..... it’s 1005ci........ making solidly over 2hp/ci

My mistake, but yeah I forgot about the 302. Another bad ass short stroke motor..

I take it from your question that all 470’s must be runnng 9.70’s then.

Or at the very least that more 470’s are running 9.70’s or quicker than people with motors that are 500” or bigger.

If the 470 is so much more efficient than the 511, and efficiency is in fact the key to making more power....... then it just stands to reason that keeping it at 400” would be even more efficient....... less friction from better rod ratio....... you’d make even more power!!!

Have you found that the same cubic inches with a lesser r/s ratio require more cylinder head flow and/or more cam timing to peak at the same rpm?

I wouldn't say long stroke motors cant rev . We know otherwise. It just seems short stroke motors can do it with ease. The problem with the parasitic losses in the longer stroke motors is that they cant be seen and cant be measured, so some dont believe they are there. There is an article over on Rerer&Morrison about this and I have no reason to not believe it .

Look at it in the most simple of terms......

440 vs 383.
Both running 10:1 Cr, ootb rpm heads, rpm intake manifold, 850 carb, 1-7/8” headers, MP 509 cam, same rockers.

Which wins that battle on the dyno and at the track in a 3500lb street/strip car?

KISS

I was just thinking I should take 3/4" of stroke out of my motor so I can go faster next year.

No sir and as we know some people can screw up anything but I've beat bigger motors a lot and power adder cars on the street easy so it boils down to the COMPLETE combo. But, top fuel 330+ mph and only 500 cubes.................What's up with that........

I understand, but in all fairness the 440 has a bigger bore allowing the 440 to breath better.

LOL!

Yeah, the issue with this conversation is the possible parasitic loss cant be measured , cant be seen. No way to prove it either way. I just look at it from a mechanical common sense view point. I remember when I build my motor and the pan was still off, I noticed how bad the rods were layed over when the piston was at BDC. I would sure think there would be alot of friction with the piston side loaded like that . Just think how bad that would be at 7000rpm or even 6000rpm. sure seems like that would create alot of friction dragging things down a bit. Either way, it cant be a good thing.

Just shooting from the hip here, but I'd imagine the power curve on the 512 you built is a bit different than the small block you were running.
I guess a dyno session could maybe shed some light on that, but anyways, maybe you need to make a few changes to the car to get it down the track a little faster...maybe take better advantage of the torque from the 512...
Gearing and/or the converter?

I agree. I wouldn't be surprised if there is 2 tenths or more left in the car. I'm working on that as well. Double adjusts for the front as a start. Next time I go to the track the car will be in race trim. I guess a 10.20 is the new goal and a tunnel ram will happen regardless of results. There is another example, my 408 with 4" stroke and 4" bore ran a best of 10.38@131 mph. This 511 with 4.25 stroke ran a best of 10.40@129.75. So more cubic inches are not always a win win and I have seen a few of Millers w8 motors put a big block to shame.

It can’t?

No problem...... 426 vs 383. Same bore and the 383 has the higher rod ratio.

Or better yet..... 383 vs a 383 stroked to 442(4.25 bore x 3.90 stroke).

383 rod ratio = 1.88
442 rod ratio = 1.71

Same scenario...... 10:1, rpm heads, rpm intake, 1-7/8 headers, 509 cam, 850 carb........ which wins that battle?

Not only will the bigger motor make more power...... I’m thinking the difference in power will be at least what the difference in the cubes is.

Top Fuel motors use a smaller bore with a longer stroke than the same C.I. motor that Pro Stock use, two different motors with the same C.I. rules but not in the same world are they
H.D. Diesel ruck motors use a lot longer stroke than bore also, correct As well as inline 6 cyl. instead of V8 also
Apples to apples and dust to dust

I can agree with that. I would never say longer stroker motors are a bad thing. I think they all have there place and if we could remove the paracidic drag that they create as you go up in stroke, how much would there be to gain. who knows, just something to think about

Sure, theres alot of true here, but top fuel motors burn crazy fuel that equivalent to liquid dynamite or worse. In my case with what I use these motors for, I think the 470 would of been the better pic . It may not be for everybody. My 511 would make a great combo for a mild roadrunner imo.

Think about this Mopar dave, all things the same except the stroke , the smaller 470 cid has to turn more RPM than a 512 to make the same HP, more RPM is ALSO more friction per minute

my point is ,the parasitic loss also goes up with more rpm

So you're thinking a 470 w/ the same top end package from your 511 would run faster?

sooooo , you go 10.40@129 ?
Mine will go 10.30@129 at nearly 3800lbs
Around the same HP ? What is you sixty,1/8th numbers ?
You better look beyond just the motor . As noted before look at chassis, converter , gearing , tyres .
I am with Brad , if you have no absolute goal you will never be happy at any point
I see no point in throwing $ in the air hoping for results

Tex

I wont muddy the waters of the engine debate. Just going to add I picked up .3 and 3+ mph once swapping converters from a good custom converter to another. They stalled the same RPM...

I dont know about faster, but wouldn't surprise me if the 470 out accelerated the 511. Maybe a better 60 or 1/8. If would be interesting to see an actual experiment like that.

The 60 was a 1.45. 1/8 was a 6.66@105 I think. Will have to look at slip.

Oh yeh.
When the converter just isn’t “right”, the car will never run the number.

I did spring for the competition porting on my 400 Indy from Wilson. It is a very pretty piece.
Why did I do that? The ultimate goal was to eventually have that manifold sitting on a low deck Indy block.
However I found a deal on a World RB block after I had the porting done on the manifold. So that idea went out the window. Would I spring for manifold porting again? I’m not sure? Like Dwayne says. Lots of ways to spend $ in different ways compared to what it costs for manifold porting.
I don’t regret the porting. I know it helped.
Also on a side note I have changed only a converter before and found 2/10ths and 3MPH before.
The right one makes a world of difference.

Yes, I am aware of that and have been on the phone with Lenny. He pulled the file and said the vert should operate as expected. He offered to loosen, but said once I find other issues and fix in the motor, it might be too loose . Its last on my list as of now, but thanks

ok .
good mph to 1/8
my example : 1.448 - 6.536@102.91 - 10.301@129.74
have you videoed your tach on a run ?

Tex

Yes, I had an in car video going down the track that I posted awhile back.

The ring pack used and the cylinder wall finish has a lot to do with how much friction the motor has to overcome.
Dave, have you used a torque wrench to measure how much resistance your motor has for break away and rotational torque? If not you might try that I have and still do that
Along those lines think about adding .350 longer stroke to the crankshaft which adds .175 piston and ring travel at the top of the stroke and .175 to the bottom of the stroke which doesn't seem to be a problem on any of the motors I've built, raced and dyno tested
Theory is one thing, results are another
My NHRA legal M.W. stocker motor ,4.280x3.750 that had to use 5/64,5/61/3/16 ring package had a lot more friction than my first pump gas 400 block stroker motor (4.375x4.250 had with the 1/16,1/16, 3/16 standard tension oil ring pack had
The stroker motor made 612 HP at 5500 RPM with a set of mild 906 heads and a six pack intake, the Stocker motor struggle to break 525 HP with two4 barrel carbs and a lot better head
I love stroker motors

No I havent tried that cab. I used to on my sb. I think it was 13#. It had 1/16 rings and so does this 511.

I think your looking at the wrong part for your issue. I run low 6.70's at 100 mph in the 1/8 with a 1.45 60ft. If your doing 105 mph your car is pulling good, but not leaving. To be low 10's typically you should be in the mid to high 1.3x 60'. Have you checked your convertor slippage? Is your fuel system up to par for the engine? Figure out how to get your 60' better and I bet you'll find the "lost" ET that your shooting for.

My vert slippage is 5.75%. I think a few here got the wrong idea about what I was getting at with the 470 vs 511. My point here was if I were starting fresh and had the option of building a 470 or a 511 for street duty, some track and to just tinker with I think the 470 would hit my goals of 700+hp with less money. From a mechanical stand point, just look at the design of the rotating assembly. The rod angles are better and the piston speed slower for the 470. The longer rod is the big deal here for the most part. With the shorter stroke your cylinders fire quicker behind each other in secession as well which I think would create better flow. It just seems to me it would be a more free spinning engine too. If ya think im wrong, just go over to Rerer&Morrison, they have an article on this subject. As far as CI aways making more power, in my case not so. My 408sb was faster and quicker than my 511.

Well, my only response to that line of reasoning is this.......

You might be able to get 700hp out of a 470 easier and cheaper than you can from a 511....... but I can’t.

When you dyno tested that 511....... on the same dyno you tested the 408 on....... how much less did it make?

If you changed the rotating assy from the current 511 to a 470...... and changed nothing else....... how much more power would it make?
For less $$$ than the $1675 it would cost to send your intake to Wilson, you could sell your 511 rotating assy and replace it with a 470 rotating assy.

LOL! I'm not that serious about it. I look at Dom's and Andy's 470's and they made or make what seems to be easy power and it doesn't require anything real expensive as far as heads and rockers. My rockers alone cost me $1150 and there not T&D or Jesel. Second thought, maybe my combo would have made 700+hp with RPM heads and a much smaller intake. The big stroker motors need a lot of cylinder head from what I have seen. My next combo will be a 470 with a very good cylinder head expensive or not. I still think its a better machine. Heading to Detroit now. Back later.

This thread makes me want to start drinking again after 14 years LOL

As for Rener-Morrison worrying about the efficiency of stroke and rod ratio....... you did see that the smallest BB crate motor they sell is 540ci.

Sooooo, if you bought Victor heads, and put them on a 470....... the rockers are cheaper?

You could have just as easily put heads on your 511 that used cheaper rockers.

A 511 costs zero extra dollars over a 470.

For me it’s really as simple as this........ if one can’t figure out a way to make extra power from the additional 41 cubes..... they’re doing something wrong.

BINGO !!!!!

An engine produces peak torque at the rpm where it is most efficient. Efficiency is the result of many factors, including airflow, combustion, and parasitic losses such as friction and windage. Comparing two engines with the same displacement, a long-stroke/small-bore combination is simply less efficient than a short-stroke/big-bore combination on several counts.
Big bores promote better breathing. If you compare cylinder head airflow on a small-bore test fixture and on a large-bore fixture, the bigger bore will almost invariably improve airflow due to less valve shrouding. If the goal is maximum performance, the larger bore diameter allows the installation of larger valves, which further improve power.
A short crankshaft stroke reduces parasitic losses. Ring drag is the major source of internal friction. With a shorter stroke, the pistons don’t travel as far with every revolution. The crankshaft assembly also rotates in a smaller arc so the windage is reduced. In a wet-sump engine, a shorter stroke also cuts down on oil pressure problems caused by windage and oil aeration.
BINGO!

I see that. the 540 has 4.250 stroke and 4.500 bore. The 511 has 4.250 stroke and 4.375 bore. I would think the 540 is a better package with the much larger bore than the 511, but what do I know. I have no personal experience with a 540.
I wouldn't use the victor on the 470. I would use the RPM, because I can get to same goal with less money. RPM heads are about $1600/pr complete and victors are about $1600 bare and take $1100 rockers, so I would say the 470 could be built with less money. Maybe i'm wrong, your in the business, so you should know better than i.

Have you thought about how much longer the crankshaft has power applied to it on a short stroke motor of the same C.I. as a long stroke motor with all the same parts on both motors
I have
I assembled and helped dyno test and tune a local drag race motor with a 4.440 bore and a 4.500 long stroke with all good parts,440-1 heads, 440-3X manifold and so on, I won't build one of those motors for myself
My next all out drag race motor will be a 4.500 bore with a 4.375 stroke crankshaft in a high nickel Koleno iron block with a set of B1-MC heads and two carburetors

cab, what were the results of the 558? From what I understand 20% of your power force is used up right after TDC firing, so what is better, a short stroke with each cylinder firing closer together or a longer stroke firing further apart with fading energy on the longer down stroke, but with a little more energy at TDC than the short stroke? I don't know, but this stuff is very interesting to me and I would sure like to know. To me , the longer strokes are fine as long as you can get a long rod in there. There are plenty of engine builders building long stroke motors that work and that's fine buy me. I have no issue with it. I still think for me personally, a 470 is a design of my better liking. I said this before, the Japanese build some pretty bad ass inline 4's. I had a couple. The last one was an 08 gsxr750 that I did a little super tune on. It made 140hp to the rear wheel and was almost scary to ride. 48.7mm stroke, not sure what that is in inches, but its very short, under 2". I understand torque moves the object and maybe the name of the game, but there are other things that come into play that pull it down a bit imo. no disrespect here to anyone, just try to learn.

Huh.

And yet the highly successful Ford coyote 5.0 is 3.63 bore with a 3.65 stroke....... while the old school 5.0 is a 4.00 bore and a 3.00 stroke.

You go for the 470....... I’ll take the 511.
41 extra cubes for zero extra dollars and zero extra effort is a win win in my book.

Good point and those coyotes do run strong. the next motor will be a short stroke big bore motor.

It would surprise the heck out of me. I've seen quite the opposite, everything else being the same.

I am sure this is true on the better breathing heads, but on heavily worked RPM's there was zero difference in flow between a 4.350" and 4.500" bore on my flow bench. I haven't tested any Victors, though.

I still love my Japanese inline fours, built quite a few. You do know that they sold stroker cranks for Gixer's ( and others ) and it made them faster?

Short stroke big bore motors run great!!

The only thing that beats them ( in Torque, HP, and ET ) are long stroke big bore motors.

I had no idea. I was happy with the way they came from the factory other than slip on's and power commanders.

I agree. There's just something about the 511/512 that doesn't do much for me. 470 or even the 528 looks good with 4.150x4.500 bore. Don't get me wrong about my 511 thou, it runs good and i'll get it figured out, just don't think it's the best mechanical design with 6.535 rods.

Yes, they were impressive mildly modified. But you could go stupid fast with silly money.

To be honest, I prefer RB's with a 4.25" or longer stroke (damn rod angles). But I wouldn't kick a 511 low deck to the curb if I had one, they run great.

There was a low deck 526(4.375 x 4.375) here for freshining a couple years ago.
Original Koffels combo, bowl ported B1 heads(384/262@.750)....... made about 830hp.
IIRC, that used 6.700 rods.

Came out of a mud truck.

wow, same rod/stroke ratio as my 511. Looks like it made some real steam. Nice

Same rod ratio as a BBC. They seem to get down the track OK.

Hemi Fred once told me the only purpose the rod length serves is to put the piston where you want it in the bore. This was in reference to that turbo engine he built. He got a bunch of new blower pistons from a TAD friend of his for almost nothing and built the engine around them and I think an old fuel crank and whatever length aluminum rod put the piston where he wanted it. I think he said he had $2500 total tied up in parts and machine work.

Kevin

Shafiroff does a 582 BBC with a 4.375 stroke and 6.535 rod......... 1.49 RR.
990hp@7200.

that's a very short rod on that stroke too. I thought 4.250 with 6.535 was bad. Doesn't seem to be much of an issue.

My thoughts on increasing the stroke with the same bore makes me think that the longer stroke will suck more air and fuel into the cylinders with the everything else remaining the same RPM are RPM, the motors knows how much air and fuel are run through it, I don't think it knows about piston speed or rod angles, does it
My thinking on piston speed and ring drag is the piston travels the same RPM but not as far on the short stroke motors, the motor doesn't know the feet or inches traveled per second
Hence more power with the longer stroke (within reason)
IHTHs

Yep, I understand that too. Maybe the paracidic loss is in the longer stroke having too speed up the piston at a higher rate to reach full speed than the short stroke does. I dont know and I dont think we will ever know for sure how much more drag is there in the longer stroke. No way to see or measure it. I think it's just theory right, but it is interesting. Then again with a longer rod you would have more weight. Does one cancel the other out? Does the oil or lubes make all this a non issue?

Here’s an example of how the $1675 for the manifold porting could be used in a different way.

You think the current heads are “too big”?

You can buy some std port stage 7’s(which is just a Victor head) from Mancini for $1300/pair with valves.
You can reuse all your current hardware and rockers. Headers will fit.
Sell your current heads and valves to finance some prep and porting....... and still have some left over.

Then you’d have std port heads, and that M1(or TF, or Victor) would fit just fine.

What would be a typical Pro Stock Bore/Stroke/Rod Length?

As far as a NA engines I think that would be interesting. I would think once boost is added a lot of things become less important.

That's a great idea Dwayne. I will keep that in mind as an option should I decide to sell these.

I agree with that as well. I know this is all kicking a dead horse, but I was relating all this to foot braking. If trans brake I would think the bigger stroke might have the advantage as your already up on the power.

I'm thinking 4.625 to 4.650 bore with close to 3.6 stroke and I have no idea on the rod lengths
I'm sure those motors never see below 8500 RPM at WOT after the clutch is let out until they let off the thottle

That would make a 489. Rpm is hp. Nice

How about 4.625 bore with a 4.650 or so stroke to make 500 C.I.?
I hear and see rumors about P.S. engine specs, me thinks you would have to be on a P.S. engine team to know the real specs

that would be a 625 cab. a 4.7 bore with 3.6 stroke would be 500.

I meant with the shorter stroke, 3.650 or so

I believe the reason many 408sb/500bb aren’t running as they should is not the cubic inches.
It’s cylinder head limitation.
I have ran 408/410 small blocks and one 511bb. The one thing I can say is that I will never go back to stock stroke engines. It is still easier to go faster with more cubic inches.

I agree, more cubic inch is better, but seems it is better to get there with the bore. I think since the 530 blocks have less core shift than the earlier blocks maybe I could take the bore out further than the typical 4.375. Anyone know how far the 530 400 blocks can be bored and still have plenty of meat left in them? Can they go 4.500? 4.400? 3.91x4.500 is almost a 500ci, 498.

I've seen massive core shift in some of the 400 block castings I have tested, including both versions of the vaunted "230 and 530" blocks
Have yours sonic tested by a good shop first before going bigger than 4.380
The thickest ones I can remember using had the thinnest major or minor cylinder wall thickness of around .160 somewhere from the top of the cylinder wall to the bottom of the water jackets before boring
I would love to have a 400 block (I have two in stock now that need sonic testing ) that had at least .220 before boring as the thinnest part of the cylinder walls
I bought one 400 block from Andy F several years ago that only needed .007 clean up to get the bores straight, it was a cold weather early block that had been sonic tested. I retested with my Dakota 1000 sonic tester and the thinnest wall I found was above .160
I raced that motor four 4 or 5 yrs and took it out of the car last winter, I'm hoping to get it apart this winter to freshen it

I was thinking a typical 400 block would be extremely lucky to even go 4.390, much less 4.40++

4.375 is often the end of the road. Sometimes you can hone them to 4.380 and get a little more life out of it. Maybe 1 out of 50 will be thick enough to go larger than 4.380.

After my final hone at Pettis, mine ended up at 4.377 and w/good cyl. thickness left...........

I see. I thought the 530 blocks were the good or should I say better blocks. My current 230 block had something like .115 on #1 thrust side before boring. It is now 4.375, but block is almost full of hard block. I'll run it til it breaks, then i'll build something alittle different. Thanks for that info.