414 Dyno results: Missed combo?

-
My guess here(from reading his previous posts) is that he knows exactly what the hell he's doing. I'll wait for the punchline before I tell him how to do his job.
 
If you built this engine for your car you'd rule the streets, with
no problems with the valve train if the lift isn't outrageous.

EQ heads ported 2.08/1.60 300 cfm @ .600"+

Plenty of room for a little bigger cam.
Be interested in the vacuum readings.
 
Last edited:
Pascamp said:
My guess here(from reading his previous posts) is that he knows exactly what the hell he's doing. I'll wait for the punchline before I tell him how to do his job.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm sure, lol! I'm thinking more of a "gotcha", than a punchline.......I would still like to see a pull w/a 650DP...........
Obviously that combo isn't intended for hi rpm, the "gotcha" is the heads w/300CFM, everyone expects the intent to be max RPM/HP with them..........
what it proves is what I've been saying since I was out of High school, higher flowing heads allow you to run a smaller cam to make the same HP,
actually improving lower rpm numbers, as long as they are efficient(not way oversized ports i.e.boss 302 fords etc.)
 
He might be testing floats made of a new material....and seeing how much vacuum it takes before they collapse.
 
Killer6 said:
Oh, I'm sure, lol! I'm thinking more of a "gotcha", than a punchline.......I would still like to see a pull w/a 650DP...........
Obviously that combo isn't intended for hi rpm, the "gotcha" is the heads w/300CFM, everyone expects the intent to be max RPM/HP with them..........
what it proves is what I've been saying since I was out of High school, higher flowing heads allow you to run a smaller cam to make the same HP,
actually improving lower rpm numbers, as long as they are efficient(not way oversized ports i.e.boss 302 fords etc.)
Click to expand...
Not much mystery there.
If a head flows for 500 horsepower @.400 lift....it can take a tamer/mild.mannered 280 adv cam that sports more lift , on the street side.....as opposed to a .400 lift cam with 300 degrees of duration, similar to stock class, you can do it either way, point was that I'm saying the valve train will last forever when the valves don't have to be slammed to oblivion.
There's always some difference, variables... but mostly a switch a roo Of methods to get to the same conclusion....whatever fits the bil. Imo
 
Last edited:
i've seen multiple posts of guys saying they made best power in the 31* timing range with magnum combustion chambers.

curious to see the vacuum numbers and the cam specs.
also what is the cranking pressure?

looks like a badazz truck motor...
 
Ya, Ramm set out to do whats was intended. Build a gas engine that would pull down a house.:thumbsup: Cummins killer lol
 
Also notice those 1 5/8 - 3" headmans holding their own through 500 Hp/tq with 4" arm and the small lift cam.

I'm not surprised, actually, saw this with my own 410.
Thank you RAMM for another very interesting and light shedding post. I always enjoy reading your stuff, always relevant and reaffirming.
 
cookietruck said:
i've seen multiple posts of guys saying they made best power in the 31* timing range with magnum combustion chambers.

curious to see the vacuum numbers and the cam specs.
also what is the cranking pressure?

looks like a badazz truck motor...
Click to expand...

You can include us guys with quench domes as well. All utilized and cyl pressure up where it should be...shouldn't need more than that.
 
roccodart440 said:
HP was still climbing and 484hp/544tq is no slouch. I am impressed.

Small cam and ultra conservative timing too. You might have a little more on the table with a timing change.
Click to expand...

Started with timing @ 36 total--backed it off to 29 with no real loss anywhere except a bit of torque @ peak. Seems happiest @ 30-31 total. J.Rob
 
longarm said:
Seems like a well tune engine to me.
I'd like to see a pull with a smaller carb, maybe a 650, then bigger headers on another.
Laugh if you want but I'd be interested in what it does for torque numbers.
Click to expand...

You aren't wrong in your thinking--total air consumption is well under what a 650 will provide. A good 650 carb wouldn't hurt this asthmatic engine one bit. J.Rob
 
yellow rose said:
It gained exactly 2.3 HP from 5000-5700 and only 9.8 HP from 4700-5700 RPM so I wouldn't say it was still climbing.

He only posted lift numbers. Maybe Ramm is doing a mind squeeze on us and it's some kind of a low lift cheater grind just to make us go off the reservation. IMO, it's way down on lift.

From my experience, that power curve will make the car run the same ET whether you shift at 5000 or 5700. I'd like to pile another 50-60ish and run it to 6500 RPM.
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree with everything you've said here, although it ain't no cheater cam. Specs on the way. J.Rob
 
yellow rose said:
BTW, I think I asked this before, because it seems that's your dyno carb....what Venturi size is that 750? How about the throttle bores...what size? That means more to me than advertised CFM rating.
Click to expand...

Carb is an untouched Holley 750 XP purchased , Sep 2016 , 1.375" venture. I flow tested it and it flowed 865-868 cfm @ 20.4 H20 dry. Funny thing is I flowed my buddy's 750 QFT old style HP zinc body with ALL the same measurements and it flows 929-931 cfm. Guess which carb made more today? J.Rob
 
cookietruck said:
i've seen multiple posts of guys saying they made best power in the 31* timing range with magnum combustion chambers.

curious to see the vacuum numbers and the cam specs.
also what is the cranking pressure?

looks like a badazz truck motor...
Click to expand...
Chebby,World Product Heads,close to the same squeeze.......liked 26deg best on pump premium..........................
 
Something's making the intake side struggle more than it should have to. I look forward to seeing the cam card.
 
Walker434 said:
You mentioned a truck oil pan soooo is that the reason for the mild cam? Maybe building a mean stump pulling engine for a 4x4??
Click to expand...

The truck pan is just an artifact of convenience. I have about 5 truck oilpans and they are easy to seal. J.Rob
 
Lustle said:
I think the "lack of power" is sort of a slight combination of things. I think it's funny it's considered less than stellar results given you got over 100% VE. Which is considerable in itself.

The carb is a hair on the small side.
The cam is a hair on the small side.
The headers are a hair on the small side.
1.6 rockers would be nice.
Over 100 VE is great. Curious what your dynamic compression ends up being.

With you mentioning sub 500 lift cam. And your current power placement. I'm going to guess the cam is FTH in the 220 duration area? I would be curious to see a pull to say 6k rpm. I know it won't make more power. Given where the max torque is. But I would be curious to see what the powerband does.

What ignition setup are you running?

In either case. That's a buttload of torque and down low. That thing would be very hard to control on street! Curious to see what cam is in there.
Click to expand...

First of all--The carb is NOT too small. Second--the cam is probably a large part of the lack of HP productions. 3rd-headers are fine. 1.6 rockers would probably yield a big HP increase but at a reliability deficit. Bang on with the cam duration guess. J.Rob
 
pishta said:
drop in a MP .590 cam and retest. plug everything into a shareware desktop dyno program and see the difference on that simulator, very useful tool if not being a little generous on HP ratings.
Click to expand...
\
I always had to fudge other numbers so bad to align with real world it never worked out with that program. Maybe its just me. J.Rob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top