Holley Strip Dominator vs. Edelbrock Victor 340

-
BVoelzke said:
Here’s the cam card for my 367, I don't remember the flow numbers but they are as I bought them over 25 years ago. This same motor made 549 hp / 450 tq when it was at 11.5 to 1 compression , a 590 lift cam and the same Victor W2 intake on race gas and went 10.40 in my Dart. When I first used the heads it was on a 340 with 12.5 to 1 compression , 627 lift roller cam, and a Strip Dominator it made 527 hp and I went 10.70s. So now with less compression and a mechanical cam in a 360 I m running the same with similar hp. on pump gas. When I was building my other motor ( 408 Stroker , R3 block ) I purchased another set of W2 heads for it but my engine builder talked me out of it and into using Indy 360-1 heads and I sold them I should not of listened to him as the Indy rocker gear has been troublesome and I cracked the Eagle stroker crank.
View attachment 1715886812
Click to expand...


What’s the issue in the Indy rocker gear? I know Russ and I had several conversations where they only thing we did was cuss each other out and then hang up. We had some battles over the years. Especially about the crap intake manifolds he was shipping out for his -1 heads.

I questioned him about geometry on those 360-1 heads with the fixed saddles. He pretty much told me I was stupid and my mother should have coat hangered me before I was born. Of course, the conversation went downhill from there.

At that time I didn’t know about the B3 correction kit, or even if Mike was making it back then.
 
Rat Bastid said:
What’s the issue in the Indy rocker gear? I know Russ and I had several conversations where they only thing we did was cuss each other out and then hang up. We had some battles over the years. Especially about the crap intake manifolds he was shipping out for his -1 heads.

I questioned him about geometry on those 360-1 heads with the fixed saddles. He pretty much told me I was stupid and my mother should have coat hangered me before I was born. Of course, the conversation went downhill from there.

At that time I didn’t know about the B3 correction kit, or even if Mike was making it back then.
Click to expand...

Well, when your totally full of yourself making your own heads/intakes, etc… the arrogance level shots past Pluto and 99.99999999% do t even know it. When your convinced you become closed minded. Any improvement, never happens. The mind is closed.
 
I’ve been over the dyno numbers with someone very knowledgeable. The conclusion was the BSFC numbers were not that great. When it made peak torque it was under .5 but the peak power number was over .5 which is essentially not using the fuel.

It was also questionable whether the dyno was calibrated properly because for the amount of fuel being used the power numbers didn’t add up. The correction factor was right but the idea was that the fuel amounts were off. They didn’t use a hat/fan thing either.

The dyno facility is at sea level and it was mine-shaft air that day. I’ve thought the correction actually took power away but that wasn’t the case unless the fuel calibration was truly off. There was also very little done in the way of carb tuning so there may have been some amount of power left by not working on the carburetor more.

There’s no definite answer here so I’m sort of left guessing at what could be holding it back if it is being held back at all. I spoke to the guy that did the heads afterwards and he said a “better” intake could be worth 15hp. Given the way the numbers look it makes sense.
 
rmchrgr said:
I’ve been over the dyno numbers with someone very knowledgeable. The conclusion was the BSFC numbers were not that great. When it made peak torque it was under .5 but the peak power number was over .5 which is essentially not using the fuel.

It was also questionable whether the dyno was calibrated properly because for the amount of fuel being used the power numbers didn’t add up. The correction factor was right but the idea was that the fuel amounts were off. They didn’t use a hat/fan thing either.

The dyno facility is at sea level and it was mine-shaft air that day. I’ve thought the correction actually took power away but that wasn’t the case unless the fuel calibration was truly off. There was also very little done in the way of carb tuning so there may have been some amount of power left by not working on the carburetor more.

There’s no definite answer here so I’m sort of left guessing at what could be holding it back if it is being held back at all. I spoke to the guy that did the heads afterwards and he said a “better” intake could be worth 15hp. Given the way the numbers look it makes sense.
Click to expand...
rmchrgr said:
I’ve been over the dyno numbers with someone very knowledgeable. The conclusion was the BSFC numbers were not that great. When it made peak torque it was under .5 but the peak power number was over .5 which is essentially not using the fuel.

It was also questionable whether the dyno was calibrated properly because for the amount of fuel being used the power numbers didn’t add up. The correction factor was right but the idea was that the fuel amounts were off. They didn’t use a hat/fan thing either.

The dyno facility is at sea level and it was mine-shaft air that day. I’ve thought the correction actually took power away but that wasn’t the case unless the fuel calibration was truly off. There was also very little done in the way of carb tuning so there may have been some amount of power left by not working on the carburetor more.

There’s no definite answer here so I’m sort of left guessing at what could be holding it back if it is being held back at all. I spoke to the guy that did the heads afterwards and he said a “better” intake could be worth 15hp. Given the way the numbers look it makes sense.
Click to expand...
I have broken a few, I am not reving the motor high ( 6500) I have already spoken to the “ New Indy “ and they no longer make replacements . When I fix the broken stroker crank in the motor I am going with either a Hughes or T&D rocker set up

6A578F64-26D1-4537-A49F-89AC41E5888E.jpeg
 
The Hughes’s are nice, I have a 1.6 set for the Edelbrock heads, but the TD or Jesel is the bomb.
 
BVoelzke said:
I have broken a few, I am not reving the motor high ( 6500) I have already spoken to the “ New Indy “ and they no longer make replacements . When I fix the broken stroker crank in the motor I am going with either a Hughes or T&D rocker set up

View attachment 1715887175
Click to expand...
You might want to contact me before you make that decision. If you are interested in good geometry on an Indy head, it would be well worth your time. Oh, and I won't insult you, or your mother.

P.S. Don't wait until the last minute. Things take more time than usual these days, as I'm sure everyone has noticed.
 
Rat Bastid said:
What’s the issue in the Indy rocker gear? I know Russ and I had several conversations where they only thing we did was cuss each other out and then hang up. We had some battles over the years. Especially about the crap intake manifolds he was shipping out for his -1 heads.

I questioned him about geometry on those 360-1 heads with the fixed saddles. He pretty much told me I was stupid and my mother should have coat hangered me before I was born. Of course, the conversation went downhill from there.

At that time I didn’t know about the B3 correction kit, or even if Mike was making it back then.
Click to expand...
I have a build in the shop now with a set of 360-1's, lash caps and all. I'm trying to convince him to go with the rockers we have so we can eliminate all the poor geometry nonsense.
 
The pic of broken rockers in post #106 is an inherent problem, I believe, in the SBM. The rocker is too short, part of the original design, but nothing wrong with for it's original purpose. When you start using really stiff springs, you are ok with steel rockers because of the superior strength of steel [ over alum ]. With alum rockers, there is not a lot of section for the wrap around/metal thickness under the shaft; a highly concentrated stress area.
There was another thread on here a few days back about bushing alum rockers. I hope the OP is reading this because post #106 is a veeeeeeery good reason why you should not do this; you weaken an already weakened section of the rocker.
 
RustyRatRod said:
You ain't jes whistlin Dixie.
Click to expand...
Thanks B3RE, as I said I was skeptical about using the Indy pieces to begin with , I don't think it was caused by a geometry problem as my then engine builder took great pain in making sure the geometry was correct. Its worth noting that on my W2 heads with the old ductile iron non roller style rockers I have never had a problem after a few thousand runs and over 25 years only replacing an adjuster bolt once. I just think it was a design problem in the rocker itself as a friend that ran the same set up had the same problem. I have already spoken to Hughes and sent them an Indy rocker and they say their rocker is the same size which would be good as I don't really want to change push rods. Fixing the 408 ( cracked crank and rocker problem ) is on hold for now as I am running my 367 for now until I decide what to do , I have considered selling the whole set up as the R3 block alone is worth quite a bit of cash but I have been advised not to sell so when the funds become available I will fix it
 
BVoelzke said:
Thanks B3RE, as I said I was skeptical about using the Indy pieces to begin with , I don't think it was caused by a geometry problem as my then engine builder took great pain in making sure the geometry was correct. Its worth noting that on my W2 heads with the old ductile iron non roller style rockers I have never had a problem after a few thousand runs and over 25 years only replacing an adjuster bolt once. I just think it was a design problem in the rocker itself as a friend that ran the same set up had the same problem. I have already spoken to Hughes and sent them an Indy rocker and they say their rocker is the same size which would be good as I don't really want to change push rods. Fixing the 408 ( cracked crank and rocker problem ) is on hold for now as I am running my 367 for now until I decide what to do , I have considered selling the whole set up as the R3 block alone is worth quite a bit of cash but I have been advised not to sell so when the funds become available I will fix it
Click to expand...
I guess it would depend on the engine builder's definition of geometry. I know the stand position on the Indy heads is waaaaay off, so no rocker by itself will correct that. Now, move the shaft where it needs to be, and then a properly designed rocker can be made. Something that no off the shelf rocker can live up to.
 
B3RE said:
I guess it would depend on the engine builder's definition of geometry. I know the stand position on the Indy heads is waaaaay off, so no rocker by itself will correct that. Now, move the shaft where it needs to be, and then a properly designed rocker can be made. Something that no off the shelf rocker can live up to.
Click to expand...

best thing to do is get rid of the shaft
 
B3422w5 said:
best thing to do is get rid of the shaft
Click to expand...
If I had to do that I would just get rid of the Indy heads and go back to W2s as the expense of moving the shaft or going to another type setup like a Jesel ( I don't even know what they offer ) is way beyond my financial means. Good points though!
 
B3422w5 said:
best thing to do is get rid of the shaft
Click to expand...
Getting rid of the single shaft doesn't fix geometry. It just allows stand adjustability, which can aid in correcting geometry, and that is provided the rocker is designed right. Figure in the machining of the heads, and the lifter bore bushings to pushrod oil, and combine that with the increased cost of the paired (still a shaft) rocker system, and you are going to drop some serious coin for that upgrade. Don't get me wrong, it's a nice system, but the only advantage it has over a proper single shaft set up is the ability to remove /install one pair of rockers at a time. Is it worth the added expense for most folks for the added convenience? Only they can make that choice.
 
Last edited:
BVoelzke said:
If I had to do that I would just get rid of the Indy heads and go back to W2s as the expense of moving the shaft or going to another type setup like a Jesel ( I don't even know what they offer ) is way beyond my financial means. Good points though![/QUOTE

had Jessel sportsmen setup( for W2/W5 ) heads in my W5 motor.
Chuck at Best machine said that was the best geometry he had ever seen on a 59 degree deal. Machining the heads for the stands isn’t a big deal.
Did that about 17 years ago. Rocker setup is still in use, zero replacements, zero issues. All that time with roller cams.
Click to expand...
 
Nobody seems to care enough about small block Mopars anymore to make a mid-level standard port head that addresses all their inherent flaws. For example, I don't get the whole idea behind the SB Trick Flow heads. When they are available, they're certainly nice and seem to flow well and please correct me if I'm wrong but it's basically just an updated version of a stock head. If they're sinking money into development why not address the rocker stands and whatever else would make them a step beyond an aluminum upgrade? I'm not saying move the pushrods or raise the ports because those types of things require "specialized" parts that go beyond the target market but at least make sure the rocker geometry is right. When you step up into W or Indy head world, you're putting together a serious piece but that does not mean that the standard port offerings shouldn't be the best they can be until you get to that point. Maybe if they were good enough some guys wouldn't feel the need to take the next step and invest crazy money into an entirely new top end. Oh well.
 
rmchrgr said:
Nobody seems to care enough about small block Mopars anymore to make a mid-level standard port head that addresses all their inherent flaws. For example, I don't get the whole idea behind the SB Trick Flow heads. When they are available, they're certainly nice and seem to flow well and please correct me if I'm wrong but it's basically just an updated version of a stock head. If they're sinking money into development why not address the rocker stands and whatever else would make them a step beyond an aluminum upgrade? I'm not saying move the pushrods or raise the ports because those types of things require "specialized" parts that go beyond the target market but at least make sure the rocker geometry is right. When you step up into W or Indy head world, you're putting together a serious piece but that does not mean that the standard port offerings shouldn't be the best they can be until you get to that point. Maybe if they were good enough some guys wouldn't feel the need to take the next step and invest crazy money into an entirely new top end. Oh well.
Click to expand...


You just explained the issue. Without moving the stands/shafts and getting the pushrod out of the way and raising the port there isn’t much you can do.

You are limited by that stuff. Certainly TF improved on the ports by a country mile, but the low port angle and pushrod pinch are still the limiting factors.

And of course, we are still dealing with an in-line wedge valve arrangement. Moving to a canted valve wedge would be a massive improvement. And that mostly died when NHRA killed Pro Stock Truck.

Small block development pretty much stopped right there. I suggest had NHRA not killed that class that by now the canted valve wedge heads would be available to the end user for a reasonable (relatively reasonable anyway) price. Along with blocks and intakes to go with it.

What a shame.
 
At least Mopar developed some decent W series small block heads.
They produced garbage for the big block.
 
rmchrgr said:
Nobody seems to care enough about small block Mopars anymore to make a mid-level standard port head that addresses all their inherent flaws. For example, I don't get the whole idea behind the SB Trick Flow heads. When they are available, they're certainly nice and seem to flow well and please correct me if I'm wrong but it's basically just an updated version of a stock head. If they're sinking money into development why not address the rocker stands and whatever else would make them a step beyond an aluminum upgrade? I'm not saying move the pushrods or raise the ports because those types of things require "specialized" parts that go beyond the target market but at least make sure the rocker geometry is right. When you step up into W or Indy head world, you're putting together a serious piece but that does not mean that the standard port offerings shouldn't be the best they can be until you get to that point. Maybe if they were good enough some guys wouldn't feel the need to take the next step and invest crazy money into an entirely new top end. Oh well.
Click to expand...
They did address the rocker stands, and they are a lot closer to optimal. But, there is no "right" stand height for every application, so they have just made it a lot closer. More than can be said for all the other manufacturers that simply copy a factory head, which was never designed for a roller rocker. There are so many variables involved, that unless you were building a bunch of cookie cutter engines with the exact same parts and specs, you can't make a head with the exact correct stand position. It must be "adjusted" accordingly.
 
rmchrgr said:
Nobody seems to care enough about small block Mopars anymore to make a mid-level standard port head that addresses all their inherent flaws. For example, I don't get the whole idea behind the SB Trick Flow heads. When they are available, they're certainly nice and seem to flow well and please correct me if I'm wrong but it's basically just an updated version of a stock head. If they're sinking money into development why not address the rocker stands and whatever else would make them a step beyond an aluminum upgrade? I'm not saying move the pushrods or raise the ports because those types of things require "specialized" parts that go beyond the target market but at least make sure the rocker geometry is right. When you step up into W or Indy head world, you're putting together a serious piece but that does not mean that the standard port offerings shouldn't be the best they can be until you get to that point. Maybe if they were good enough some guys wouldn't feel the need to take the next step and invest crazy money into an entirely new top end. Oh well.
Click to expand...


Because most mopar guys want stuff that they can bolt on and run. Years ago when Edelbrock first brought out their SBM head I remember all the bitching because it didn’t look like a factory head. And heaven forbid a head that won’t use factory rockers or intake!
 
B3RE said:
They did address the rocker stands, and they are a lot closer to optimal. But, there is no "right" stand height for every application, so they have just made it a lot closer. More than can be said for all the other manufacturers that simply copy a factory head, which was never designed for a roller rocker. There are so many variables involved, that unless you were building a bunch of cookie cutter engines with the exact same parts and specs, you can't make a head with the exact correct stand position. It must be "adjusted" accordingly.
Click to expand...

Fair enough Mike. But, I think most would agree on the general point.

I sold my W2 stuff at Carlisle a few years ago. I did OK on it but kinda wish I held on to it because the investment to get back into them is probably close to cost prohibitive now. Live and learn.
 
rmchrgr said:
Fair enough Mike. But, I think most would agree on the general point.

I sold my W2 stuff at Carlisle a few years ago. I did OK on it but kinda wish I held on to it because the investment to get back into them is probably close to cost prohibitive now. Live and learn.
Click to expand...


Yep.
 
Rat Bastid said:
Yep.
Click to expand...
I hear ya rmchrgr... I sold the second set of W2 heads I had bought a few years ago for my stroker project when I went to the Indy stuff... hindsight I guess .. I shouldn't have listened to my engine builder and went with the W2 stuff like I wanted.. at least I made a few bucks on the sale.. W2 stuff is still out there sometimes at a good price... hard to believe that I bought a complete running 340 : 12 1/2 to 1 compression , 627 lift roller cam , W2 heads with a Strip Dominator back in the late 80s for $2400.. sure I kind of knew the seller ( friend of a friend ) but I remember thinking the heads alone where worth the purchase price .. still use the W2 heads today on my 367
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top