Search results for query: *

There's a stock (4bbl & headers) magnum 360 vs 410 but they added almost 2 points of compression when they stroked it, it gain 29 hp, 305 hp vs 334 hp but obviously a chunk of it's from more cr. There's also a more performance build 360 vs 410 using same parts think it was Edelbrock headed, and...

There might be another issue here with DV way of picking cam, for him it's all about lsa and overlap and get the duration from those specs, a tighter lsa with same overlap would be less duration so probably lowering top end even more. Also he really don't give much info on how to pick overlap...

I thought mission impossible was his first mopar, pretty sure when picking the cam he used the ford or chevy formula saying it should be close enough for a mopar.

Funny thing, these quarter mile calculators a lots seem to hold in high regard don't care about cid and torque, it's all about hp and weight. If torque played a significant role outside of hp these calculators would have to factor it in or they would be useless.

Think he's raced Mini's. I think his books are a good first step, overall if you follow his advice you generally gonna have decent results, problem is some take it as the final word in performance theory.

Smaller engines definitely can use more gear, even very mild ones.

To me the only way to test it is say DV say a 260° @ 0.050" on a 107 lsa with 75 overlap is the cam for whatever build, someone would need to test it with cams probably at least from 102-112 lsa in 1 degree increments while maintaining the 75 overlap (of whatever it works out to be in the made...

Haven't seen your name pop up in while. It's the overlap mainly responsible for idle, overlap is duration and lsa, a 204°/214° cam isn't gonna have huge overlap even with a 108 lsa.

Narrower LSA generally makes more mid range torque, no one in the world is arguing that it doesn't, how does that prove DV's claims that his formula always gives the optimal lsa #, and gonna get huge gains over off the shelf cams and be like him the 1%er of top builders and pick cams that get...

It's shouldn't be up to others to prove DV right or wrong, he made the claims he should provide the proof apparently he has done 10's of thousands dyno runs, he apparently has done more than just about everyone else (his claim) should be able to provide 100/1000's of examples. I'm not a DV...

Yes that's the video that started this thread back in Feb, post 1, cause I didn't really find that it proved it to me. Guess depends how you see DV's claims are.

I've yet to see anyone prove it on even one engine.

Depends how you look at it, from a drag racing point of view your only concerned about stall to shift points there's no reason a 340 can't make as much and or more between those two points just gonna happen generally at higher rpms. Yes the larger the engine is almost always gonna make more low...

Did not, said it felt like someone trying to get you to join their religion, like those dudes that show up to your door, obviously I was joking. But some of the DV guy's take everything he says as gospel and if I just read his words (which I have) I'll understand the true way.

How so ?

I agree with you there, it's like a bad infomercial where they stumbled around, scratching their heads to make 500 hp until they pullout the all new shiny 4" crank then everything goes easy as pie :) I don't get why people over sale the hardship of less displacement they make it sound near...

It's only a crank you can build 500-550+ hp with any of them, question here is which one will suit the OP the best.

Your answer for everything :)

Just curious how much horsepower does your engine make ? sounds pretty bad ***.

Depending how efficient you can build it 1.25 vs 1.35 vs ? Lbs-ft per cid can make a big difference. Say 1.3 lbs-ft and say you need 625 hp (by an online calculator). 345 cid (625 x 5252) / (1.3 x .9 x 345) = 8,132 rpm 408 cid (625 x 5252) / (1.3 x .9 x 408) = 6,876 rpm Around those rpms...

If shooting for more like 550 hp your probably gonna need some sort of stroker not that a 340 can't make 550 hp just most of that gain gonna be 5500-7000 + rpms at least you have 4.56 gears but the higher rpms you make the power at the harder it is to get into the powerband at normal road speeds...

We know the power wanted (500 hp) and the gear ratio to be used (4.56). To me the question is at what peak rpm X would work best for this combo in the street and run the crank that's gonna make 500 hp @ X rpm.

True if those things matter to the OP or not, if streetability and rpm ain't a huge deal to you then the advantages of cid might not be a huge selling point, depends what the OP wants. But yes seem most generally would prefer the advantages of cid. They should/could be putting similar torque to...

If you want to guesstimate peak power rpm for a given cid at around a decent 1.25 lbs-ft per cid. Obviously if less efficient more rpm, higher efficiency lower rpms to make 500 hp. 500 hp 2,626,000 / (cid x 1.13 ) = peak hp rpm (Hp x 5252) / (cid x 1.13) = peak hp rpm

To me if your ok with running more rpm build the 340 if not build a larger engine there's a few strokes to choose from you can tailor the powerband to your liking and gear ratios.

I see your point but your definition of harder differs from mine ordering different pistons and cam to me ain't harder. And a 512 still needs heads cam carb etc.. That supports 500 hp, it ain't gonna pull 500 hp from stock 440 RV parts. To me harder is going above and beyond with parts...