340/418 Stroker questions

-
K

k7nqkb

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
11
Reaction score
1
Location
Buffalo, MN
Hello,

REALLY new to the forum. I'm building a 418 stroker from a 340. I have the block, Eagle forged crank and H-beam rods. Diamond pistons and Brodix B1BA heads. I'm also thinking of using a M1 single plain and a Holley 870 Avenger. The setup is going into a 1966 Dodge Dart GT - running an A500 tranny with a 3.55 posi rear end. The car will not see a drag strip - just a nice cruiser. And - I want to run it on pump gas. I need advice on a cam and lifter setup - something that will be bullet proof. I appreciate any and all suggestions!!
 
What is the CR? Are you wanting to run solid, hydraulic, roller? You want more streetability over power and idling quality? There are a lot of variables that need to be thrown in there to get you some sort of answer. The easiest thing may be to call Mike over at MRL Performance. He builds Mopar motors like you are probably wanting and can give you some great advice.
 
Brad, I'm partial to solid flat tappets. They are cost effective and will make any power level you want. If you want roller - go solid roller and properly prep the block. Did you get flow figures for the heads?
 
Thank You - I'm looking for more for the streetability since it won't see a drag strip. Just want to eat up a few local bowties that think they're all BA. I'll give Mike a shout and seek his opinion also. moper has been providing some good advice as well!
 
Moper - sounds like business is good - nice to hear! The heads are being used stock from Brodix since I'm not looking for max HP. Will probably do some light polishing and gasket matching if needed. As far as the tappets ??? Just looking for something reliable and fairly bullet proof - not so much concerned over cost right now ( glad my wife's not reading this) Thanks Again
 
I would run 9.7-10.0 comp run a hydraulic roller with 230-238 dur @.050 and I would run a dual plan intake for more TQ with a single plain you lose a lot of TQ at low rpm. with a hyd roller you have very low maint. and a very easy break in on the cam.
 
Brodix B1BA flow numbers @ .500

port volume - 195

65cc

249/190 - intake/exhaust

76.31%
 
sbmmustang said:
I would run 9.7-10.0 comp run a hydraulic roller with 230-238 dur @.050 and I would run a dual plan intake for more TQ with a single plain you lose a lot of TQ at low rpm. with a hyd roller you have very low maint. and a very easy break in on the cam.
Click to expand...
I'm running that exact cam in my stroker: Crane hydraulic roller, 230/[email protected]", .528"/.548" lift, 112-degree lobe separation. It makes good power (440rwhp last dyno) and is very streetable, with just enough "lope" to let you know it's there.

However, I run 11.4 comp with alloy heads and 100 octane fuel (equivalent 95 in the US). Mine's a bit high, but it's within the cam manufacturer's recommendation of 10-11.5 comp. 10.5 would be perfect for alloy heads and pump gas, IMO.

Also, in my opinion you're better off running a single plane manifold in a stroker (I run an M1), as they have big cubes and short rod ratios, and already make good torque and power at low revs. The single plane lets the engine breath up top (strokers need a lot of air), and the M1 provides better low and mid-range torque than other single planes. It just pulls straight off the line.

What you have to remember with strokers is that the extra cubes soak up big cams, big heads and single plane manifolds, so traditional "conservative" thinking has to be put aside when planning your intake.

Here's the cam: http://www.cranecams.com/product/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=24313
 
I think Aussie's cam sounds like a nice cam for street use and good power. I'd probably be looking at somethiong similar to that.
 
I am surprised that the heads don't flow a lot more than they do. Mike has my Eddys at 280 and I have seen them at 300. With a pump gas CR you may want to consider a flat tappet hydraulic. The Comp PP 292 was in my stroker and it ran great. Perfect for a 2500-3500 converter like the one PTC has.
 
Off the Brodix website:
B1 BA2.080 Intake1291802212492632672691.600 Exhaust119160182190195196198

.550 is 249, .600 is 263, .650 is 267, .700 is 269. These are the entry level B1 small block heads. With porting the BAs will give the 300 numbers at .600 lift. But the real magic is the potential in the MC heads, and the chamber design which is fatr better than Edelbrocks.


I've run that same Crane cam. Crane is one of my favorites. That one's a great piece but it's still peaky and it's hydraulic which means more spring needed and less rpms because of the plunger. Depending on the piston and quench you might want to go a little bigger. I'd run a flat tappet in the 250-255 @ .050 and around .580 after lash. Simple, effective, almost bullet proof, and cheap. If you want more steam I'd bush the lifter bores and run a solid street roller with a little less duration at .050 and a little less lift. Something that will be easy on the springs.
 
I can guarantee you.That you will not need that dual-plane for more torque.Your problem will be controlling it,Kevin.
 
Thanks everyone - I really appreciate all the advice! I gave the link from Aussie to the engine builder as well as all your comments/suggestions. I'm looking into a solid street roller also. That way it has potential for some future upgrades as well. By the way - this is my son's car - just graduated with his Automotive Service Tech degree and has a job lined up with the local Dodge dealer. What we won't do for our kids!! Someday - maybe - I'll own a nice hot rod also?!?!?
 
moper said:
I've run that same Crane cam. Crane is one of my favorites. That one's a great piece but it's still peaky and it's hydraulic which means more spring needed and less rpms because of the plunger. Depending on the piston and quench you might want to go a little bigger. I'd run a flat tappet in the 250-255 @ .050 and around .580 after lash. Simple, effective, almost bullet proof, and cheap. If you want more steam I'd bush the lifter bores and run a solid street roller with a little less duration at .050 and a little less lift. Something that will be easy on the springs.
Click to expand...
I really like the Crane retro hydraulic roller lifters, and have had my engine up to 7000rpm with 1.5 rockers using the above cam. With 1.65 rockers and plenty of spring (.585"/.605" lift), the engine still revs 6500+rpm all day and makes gobs of torque right off the line. Peak power is at only 5500rpm. It would likely make more and peak a bit higher with a decent set of headers, as I'm only running 1 5/8" shorties until I get some custom pipes made.

Current spring pressures are 170lb on the seat and 375lb over the nose. Springs are Manley LS ovate beehives with 353lb rate. Crane says it's safe to run over 360lb of pressure on their hydraulic rollers, and 200lb/400lb is not uncommon - but they'll go even higher.

Here's an article on an 8500rpm engine running Crane retro hydraulic rollers. Admittedly it's a Chev :sad10: but with 570lb over the nose, it gives solid rollers a run for their money: http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/1402_crane_hydraulic_roller_lifters/viewall.html

Here's my latest dyno. Red line is without the air filter, green line is with. The flat torque curve makes for a nice street engine. And my car runs easy 11s with a stick shift.

http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/Valiantdude/media/Dyno.jpg.html
 
That's good to hear. I wouldn;t compare Chevies capabilities to Mopars. The designs are not apples to apples even if the lobes themselves are interchangeable. Pushrod angle & lifter weight would be advantages in a Chevy. It's probably the beehives that allow your rpm and for me it's usually a financial decision to avoid them. Std dual springs will give up earlier than that but I typically don't go that much higher than peak and like you say - it's peaking at 55-5800 so the dual springs are fine and don't require retainers and locks to use them. If those rpms were a "must have" for the customer then spending would be no problem but these guys aren't winding them that tight.
 
The beehives save a bit of weight and are pretty common now. But the Crane HR is pretty easy on the valvetrain, so I think a lot of it comes down to lobe design. Prior to the 1.65 rockers, I just ran the stock Edelbrock springs (130lb/320lb seat/open) with 1.5 rockers and the engine regularly saw 6500+rpm - which was my shift point.

Roller lifters are heavy (especially .904 Mopar lifters), so if you use a 1.6 rocker to do some of the work, you can get a bit of extra lift and faster valve action without hurting revs too much. The 1.65 T&Ds are overkill on my engine (heavy compared to other rocker designs), and I needed the extra spring to keep them under control, so if I did it again, I'd just stick to Crane or Hughes or another lighter style of rocker.

Of course, I've had to learn all this as I go along :)

I was originally going to run a solid flat tappet as Moper suggested - I agree with everything he's said about them being cost-effective and up to the job - but I obviously don't regret going with the hydraulic roller. They're quiet, low-maintenance, easy on the valve train and can handle moderate revs.

The downside is they're expensive, but they don't need to be broken in and should last longer than a flat tappet, which could save a little money down the track. You can also swap cams without resurfacing/buying new lifters (composites are the same, but cost as much as roller lifters anyway). A solid roller is a little higher maintenance (not that much, really), but will obviously make more power.

If I was going to rev much past 6500rpm, I'd go solid. But the beauty of the stroker on the street is you don't really need to. That's my 2c.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top