71, I am looking forward to your results, and just how much the build surpasses the horsepower i got. Care to share details of what you want to build?
440-1 flow numbers
- Thread starter 71Demon528
- Start date
-
Jeremiah (jd)
Well-Known Member
Do you have MW port window heads? Also, do you have access to an aluminum welder?
Jeremiah (jd)
Well-Known Member
I have looked at quite a few of -1, -13 and Victor MW flow sheets. They all seem to go 370-390 CFM on the intake @.700-.800 and the exhaust goes 265-285 CFM. Depending on the setup they are good for 750-900hp. The higher RPM (8000+) 500-540" engines seem to make the most HP.
Thank you for sharing data!
Thank you for sharing data!
Last edited:
Yeah, I can tig but no I have standard port trick flows.
Hi JD
Jeremiah (jd)
Well-Known Member
I have you tr here at shop
: D
Of course Greg! I highly doubt this build will surpass your current engine, that thing makes a ton of power. And with me only running the -1 head, I won't even come close. One day, just one day maybe, I will get the 572-13 head.
This engine will be 541"
Indy aluminum low deck block
14.8:1 compression
4.503 bore
4.250 stroke molnar crank
6.700 molnar rod
Indy 440-1 heads
Manley SS valves
Indy single plane intake w 1" HVH spacer
112 race gas
APD 1175 Dominator
Jesel 1.6 rockers
Jesel belt drive
Cam is 285/296 @ .050
111 LSA
.776/.752 gross lift with 1.6 rocker
I was at my engine builders today cleaning more parts to get ready for assembly. One more day in the shop of cleaning/prepping parts, and we should be ready to start.
The previous engine was a 528" with same heads, cam, intake. After breaking the 20 year old eagle crankshaft last season and causing other damage, we spent the last year getting things ready for the 541".
The 528 ran well and treated me very good. Best of 5.43 at 125mph in the 1/8 at 2825 lbs. Haven't ran that combo in the 1/4 to give a 1/4 best.
That's going to do some badassing .
Good stuff RJ
When I was there today, he said he won't even waste the electricity to flow a set of unported 440-1 heads because they are so bad out of the box. He dug through old files today clear back to the 90s. I can't remember the exact numbers from the one set of unported 440-1 heads he found flow numbers on (using the same bench), but they were very low. So low that I can't even remember the numbers lol. Tim has many years experience with flow benches and engine dynos. The flow bench he bought he used for many years at our machinist's shop.
We also looked at 572-13 heads that were CNC and he finish ported, wow those things are BAD A$$. I don't want to misspeak about the flow numbers he got from a 572-13 head, but it was substantially better (obviously) than my -1 heads. I want to say peak was around 420 cfm at .800 lift. No wonder they make such good power. He said they needed a good bit of work to get there. Every set of heads out of the box that enters his shop needs a good bit of work to make good power, even when they are CNC. He said that includes B1 heads, they are no better out of the box.
Thanks Korie, gonna be interesting.
Jeremiah (jd)
Well-Known Member
The heads I am referring to all had 2.20-2.250 intake valves. It seems like the 2.300 intake valves really picks up some power.
Thank you for sharing that info. It seems like the outlier heads are cnc and in addition hand ported to breach the 400cfm mark.
Of course there are people out there that claim 5,000,000 CFM from their Edelbrock RPM castings. Most of those combinations never make it to a track.
I think you need at least a 4.400" bore to go .800 net lift with a 2.30" intake.
All of my junk is 4.375" bore and 4.25/4.15" stroke.
I keep saying the last 400 block was my last stock block deal. Then I buy another 400 block.
Your welcome, happy to share.
Just like sharing something that I thought was a cool and interesting experience. I really enjoy learning and am very privileged to have great people close to me who are willing to teach me.
If you ever buy an aftermarket block, I would immediately punch it out to a 4.500 bore. When we took mine from 4.3750 to 4.500, we saw very good gains.
ValiantS
Well-Known Member
I've seen the -13 heads flow in the 420's.
Can’t wait to see a set on your car. Gonna fly
ValiantS
Well-Known Member
I 'only' am using the 2.25" and think it would make over 1000 with a couple of tweaks but, yes the 2.30' would show MINOR improvement. I'm using the TR 2x4 but, I feel if it's on a RB block and the 3x single is used it'd make more power. A custom intake 'done right' would be above that. I'm not sure at what point the head gets critically thin where it'll crack. My heads aren't done to that level FWIW.
ValiantS
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure yet if I'll do the Predators or the -13s ...our first rules meeting is this Sunday.
Thanks for sharing Sean. You’ll have to keep us informed of the direction you go. Either way, it’s gonna be cool to see how fast it goes.
ValiantS
Well-Known Member
I think where Jeremiah was going was there'd be measurable gains just hogging the 240's open to MW area and using a MW intake. This too would make your 'small' cam seem bigger.
ValiantS
Well-Known Member
I was probing the 'big' 460 Predators I have to gage the MCS and learned how SMALL they are. They'll definitely hit a brick wall without some welding. But that wall is over 150HP more than I'd expect the -13 can be. I'm looking for the flow sheet MCH has for the 2.25 -1 cnc program which is on a smaller bore than 4.500"
ValiantS
Well-Known Member
Viola!
Jeremiah (jd)
Well-Known Member
When I was typing and thinking of "outliers" I was thinking of YOU lol. : D
Bobzilla
Well-Known Member
So bad out of the box? Oh man, crushing my dreams.
So this brings up more questions. Is there a specific reason or area in the port he considers them "bad" like the shape of the short turn or maybe lack of effort in the valve job? Or is it more of a max effort gives you so much more kind of thing? That is, would a non-ported 440-1 do well on an engine that was not set up as maximum effort?
From your original post, this is the main reason I was asking about unported numbers, so there was a baseline on that bench with that operator. That means more than the raw ported numbers and would have been interesting to see. I wanted to build a flow bench like pittsburghracer had to try learning a little about flow but it is not in the cards for me in the near future. For now, I really enjoy good discussions like this thread is offering.
Basically everything you had hit on is my understanding for the reason flow numbers are so low out of the box. I know the valve jobs are poor when they are new. And yes the amount gained by a CNC and hand port/finish job is very substantial.
If there is anything I would recommend if you are leaving your -1 heads unported, I would CERTAINLY get a good valve job from an experienced machinist. That and ensure the heads are setup with the proper spring, lock, retainer and installed height for the camshaft you plan to run.
Of course you could put the heads on an engine that isn’t a max effort engine and they will work. Just how fast you want to go is the question, lol.
Yeah Sean, I think that is something I'm going to do this winter.
Bobzilla
Well-Known Member
The Trick Flow 240 has a 2.19 intake valve and I still do not know for sure if they are a different casting than the 270. Also I wonder what the minimum cross section is on the 240 head and if the gains of opening up to max wedge port size would be worth the effort. Of course, being able to do the work instead of paying for it makes everything more worthwhile from a cost versus benefit standpoint.
-
