Search results for query: *

Bet torque flat enough to peak a good chunk of 4300-5300 rpm.

To me ? I didn't see him mention peak tq rpm either.

They must of open the port openings fairly big to get a 1.39 lbs-ft per cid 440 to peak 6300 rpms.

You hear about hydraulic flat tappet having problems, what about solid flat tappets anyone experienced or heard of people having similar problems ? I imagine the problem still has to be on the relatively low side or they wouldn't be able to sale flat tappet cams if failure rates where overly...

I think your on the right track, I watched a cam grinders video the other day, he measure the new lifters tapper and hardness, hardness was fine but all the tappers were way off and had to resurface them all. I also heard that should make sure the lifter can spin freely in the bore cause that...

This just makes you sound like an idiot, you must be a fun guy to hang around lol, I thought being so anal to join a site over engine vs motor which most have used interchangeably over the years, even if you were correct (seems not) It really bother you that much, insane :)

Darin Morgan said the intakes work better with shorter decks and the gains are enough to offset running a shorter rod ratio.

I heard with longer rods engine needs more overlap and higher velocity ports, short rods from what I heard starts pulling the intake charge sooner so putting less need for overlap and fast reacting ports to get it going. Don't know if that equals better filling though.

Most of us aren't building for a highly competitive race series so you don't need every advantage to make X amount of HP, It's generally easier to build a less efficient larger displacement than a highly efficient smaller displacement. Eg. 365 x 1.45 torque per cid = 530 lbs-ft vs 408 x 1.30...

I basically see it as the Top end is the power you want and displacement is where you want it (rpm).

I like the idea of a 496/440 gives a good bore, rod to stroke ratios, decent piston height etc..

This guy is too much, makes wild *** assumptions then has strawman arguments. No one is saying a smaller bore is better, just for 200-400 or so hp you don't need a huge bore a 318 bore is more than adequate, even a 273 bore could handle those power levels without too much work, I bet the block...

What I was trying to show was two engines of the similar hp and lbs-ft per cid (efficiency) but at different rpms (displacement) the higher revving one I THINK has more chance of making more hp at peak torque and therefore should be a better under the power curve than the lower revving one.

Another possibility that rpm has an advantage that occurred to me. I don't know how to put in words so I'll give an example. Take two engines making same peak power and same lbs-ft per cid but one engine is half the size of the other and the smaller one makes peak power at twice the rpm. And say...

Not bad for a house on wheels.

R5P7 would make the most sense, sbm or bbm your choice is pretty much 340/360 or 361 or a destroke bigger block. If going production engine I'd probably go 361 bored to 371.

I would assume now days you'd turn the crank to a chev size and use one of there aftermarket rods.

Maybe they started with rods before any machining was started, might have enough material to allow them get down to size.

Probably had stock length rods, doesn't mean you have too, if you used around a 6.30" rod pretty much can go with stock height pistons.

It's was Darin Morgan saying that so I imagine it's top end examples of each.

Apparently wedge engines can efficiently work up around 9,500 rpm then you start to need to go canted valve to go higher rpms to finally hemi for max rpm.

Agreed, why a lot of debates on here are really people talking past each other cause of different meanings/perceptions.

What was done to the 273 for 12's ?

Plus if you look at the 400 hp recipe for each 318/340/360 there basically the same.

Always thought 5.2l magnum make a great race engine, Cam intake headers should give high 300 hp/400 hp. It's an engine most don't want, buy a few and race the **** out of them you got spares. If want a little more out of it pocket port and do some milling.

Agreed, sometimes the only choices you got are the least worst compromises.

Not try and or saying he's wrong, just point out possible problems if trying to use his 90% with generally used mopar heads.

I get that but that, but leaves us using fairly small valves if we were to try to get close to 90% nevermind more, I doubt a set of speedmaster could do a 2.02 valve at 90% nevermind a 2.08, I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. But most seem get there flow from using 2.02-2.08 in a set...

Port volume 1.78 = CSA 2.01" sq which = 163 cc 1.88 = CSA 2.25" sq which = 183 cc 1.92 = CSA 2.35" sq which = 191 cc 2.02 = CSA 2.60" sq which = 211 cc 2.08 = CSA 2.75" sq which = 223 cc Fairly big volumes for those valve sizes, and that minimum would be larger if went more than 90% here and...

One thing might be a problem (ish) with his 90% rule is most heads could only use pretty small valve, which might not be a problem if it makes the hp. Port CSA at 90% of valve 1.78 x 90% = 1.60 which = CSA 2.01" sq which = 230 CFM @ 275 FPS - 268 CFM @ 320 FPS 1.88 x 90% = 1.69 which = CSA...