Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Re: Dual Plane Intake Porting Pics [Re: roadrunner2] #3081078
09/27/22 10:45 AM
09/27/22 10:45 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,904
U.S.S.A.
JohnRR Offline
I Win
JohnRR  Offline
I Win

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,904
U.S.S.A.
Originally Posted by roadrunner2
I ran the old motor again this year (451” 10:1). It did improve to an 11.51 @ 119.78 besting all the 383builds before it. New motor spun a bearing on its first outing. Culprit was loose lifter galleys and a too inattentive driver. Once it got warm the oil pressure went down the drain. Maybe I’ll get it out next year, maybe I’ll work on putting the little motor into the 11.20s.

Bill


Bill do you have a picture of what was stamped on the ID pad of that block? Chrysler did some goofy stuff saving blocks and had oversize lifters to fit in oversize bores, the 400 block we used for enginemasters had some odd scuffing of the lifters before we had the block bushed if I'm remembering right ..


running up my post count some more .
Re: Dual Plane Intake Porting Pics [Re: JohnRR] #3081238
09/27/22 07:41 PM
09/27/22 07:41 PM
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 888
Oh
P
parksr5 Offline OP
super stock
parksr5  Offline OP
super stock
P

Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 888
Oh
Originally Posted by JohnRR
Originally Posted by parksr5
Originally Posted by fast68plymouth
Quote
If I'm understanding you correctly, if the cam had a little less duration, it would potentially pick up peak torque and HP and carry the gains for a little longer?


Not exactly......... and without testing you wouldn’t know for sure.
And since the intent is to run it with ex manifolds, it would need to be tested that way.

What I’m saying is........ a shorter duration cam “might” make a higher peak tq number.
“If” that happened, and the fall off after peak tq was the same drop in tq/rpm as the current cam, for enough rpm after peaking........ it could end up making more hp.
But.... We’re not talking big changes here.
And I’m not really advocating you change anything........ I’m more just “thinking out loud”.
Again, the test would only be valid if you used the ex manifolds.
Trying to do R&D for an ex manifold combo........ by testing with headers...... is pointless.


Thanks for clarifying!

I was bummed we didn't get to test it with the manifolds. We'll just have to see what it does at the track.


Curious , why wasn't the testing done solely with the exh manifolds?


The engine builder and dyno operator wanted to monitor EGT's and the dyno headers were set up for that. Things really didn't go as planned with the dyno, I felt like I was kind of at the owner's mercy on when we could get the engine in. I did think about bringing the maniflods and head pipes with me to make a few pulls with them but, I knew he had other things going on that day and just didn't bring them or ask if we could switch things over.

Re: Dual Plane Intake Porting Pics [Re: JohnRR] #3081672
09/29/22 12:56 PM
09/29/22 12:56 PM
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 55
CT
R
roadrunner2 Offline
member
roadrunner2  Offline
member
R

Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 55
CT
Originally Posted by JohnRR
Originally Posted by roadrunner2
I ran the old motor again this year (451” 10:1). It did improve to an 11.51 @ 119.78 besting all the 383builds before it. New motor spun a bearing on its first outing. Culprit was loose lifter galleys and a too inattentive driver. Once it got warm the oil pressure went down the drain. Maybe I’ll get it out next year, maybe I’ll work on putting the little motor into the 11.20s.

Bill


Bill do you have a picture of what was stamped on the ID pad of that block? Chrysler did some goofy stuff saving blocks and had oversize lifters to fit in oversize bores, the 400 block we used for enginemasters had some odd scuffing of the lifters before we had the block bushed if I'm remembering right ..


I will check. But that block was decked severely and was probably erased.

Bill


1968 Road Runner 383 727 3.91 8 3/4 3520 with driver 11.04 @ 124.26 with 1.67 60’
Done on G70-14 redlines thru factory manifolds New quickest ever 383 build in FAST.
10:1 451” replaced with 14:1 499”.
Re: Dual Plane Intake Porting Pics [Re: roadrunner2] #3081918
09/30/22 09:45 AM
09/30/22 09:45 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,904
U.S.S.A.
JohnRR Offline
I Win
JohnRR  Offline
I Win

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,904
U.S.S.A.
Originally Posted by roadrunner2
Originally Posted by JohnRR
Originally Posted by roadrunner2
I ran the old motor again this year (451” 10:1). It did improve to an 11.51 @ 119.78 besting all the 383builds before it. New motor spun a bearing on its first outing. Culprit was loose lifter galleys and a too inattentive driver. Once it got warm the oil pressure went down the drain. Maybe I’ll get it out next year, maybe I’ll work on putting the little motor into the 11.20s.

Bill


Bill do you have a picture of what was stamped on the ID pad of that block? Chrysler did some goofy stuff saving blocks and had oversize lifters to fit in oversize bores, the 400 block we used for enginemasters had some odd scuffing of the lifters before we had the block bushed if I'm remembering right ..


I will check. But that block was decked severely and was probably erased.

Bill


Not a big deal , mostly curiosity , I don't think I've seen one yet that was marked for the oversize lifters.


running up my post count some more .
Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5






Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1