How can i make 700 horse from a 410 stroker

-
273 said:
He'd need to make over 1.42 lbs-ft per cid to make 700 hp under 7000 rpm, 1.25 lbs-ft per cid would be 8000 rpm.

Hp x 5252 / tq = rpm, Displacement x lbs-ft per cid x .9 = torque at peak hp.

Torque generally around 90% of peak torque at peak hp why the .9
Click to expand...
Right. IMO, that’s asking a lot even with a “big” small block. W8-W9s that flow 350 cfm of air plus a real intake, 2”+ custom headers, Jesel belt drive, T&D Rockers...Start saving up now.

Is a power adder in the equation or does it have to be N/A? That would be easiest. Tube frame truck should probably accommodate whatever plumbing is needed. Turbo, Nitrous, Procharger... all would work. Do you have EFI?

Obviously 700hp N/A can be done but it seems like you’d be starting behind the 8 ball. I’m a small block guy myself but I fon’t play in the W head sandbox. I also understand that BB torque is different than a small block in that it’s inherent in the architecture of the motor. Why not take advantage of that? These days 700 hp and 650 ft lbs of torque under 7K RPM N/A is ‘cake‘ with a big block.

My basic iron head 340/416” made 500 ft lbs. of torque but only 500 hp @ 6,200 RPM. I don’t think you can have real big torque numbers without sacrificing some top-end power and vice-versa - if you’re spinning the thing to the moon to make power in general you’re going to be down on torque.

What do I know though. I’m sure I’ll get slammed for all this. Prove me wrong!
 
rmchrgr said:
Right. IMO, that’s asking a lot even with a “big” small block. W8-W9s that flow 350 cfm of air plus a real intake, 2”+ custom headers, Jesel belt drive, T&D Rockers...Start saving up now.

Is a power adder in the equation or does it have to be N/A? That would be easiest. Tube frame truck should probably accommodate whatever plumbing is needed. Turbo, Nitrous, Procharger... all would work. Do you have EFI?

Obviously 700hp N/A can be done but it seems like you’d be starting behind the 8 ball. I’m a small block guy myself but I fon’t play in the W head sandbox. I also understand that BB torque is different than a small block in that it’s inherent in the architecture of the motor. Why not take advantage of that? These days 700 hp and 650 ft lbs of torque under 7K RPM N/A is ‘cake‘ with a big block.

My basic iron head 340/416” made 500 ft lbs. of torque but only 500 hp @ 6,200 RPM. I don’t think you can have real big torque numbers without sacrificing some top-end power and vice-versa - if you’re spinning the thing to the moon to make power in general you’re going to be down on torque.

What do I know though. I’m sure I’ll get slammed for all this. Prove me wrong!
Click to expand...
Spot on!
 
rmchrgr said:
I don’t think you can have real big torque numbers without sacrificing some top-end power and vice-versa - if you’re spinning the thing to the moon to make power in general you’re going to be down on torque.

What do I know though. I’m sure I’ll get slammed for all this. Prove me wrong!
Click to expand...
Torque per cid generally goes up on high hp builds, torque needs basically all the same things as hp difference its on a per stroke basis not over time (rpm).

But as peak hp rpm climbs engines under 3000/4000 rpm declines which people generally consider as a loss of torque even though the can be making huge tq per cid.

1.25 lbs-ft per cid should be no problem, above 1.35 lbs-ft gonna take a good builder above 1.4 is pro territory, the engine probably gonna make peak hp around 7500-8000+ rpm.
 
I'll take the 543 ci tractor over the 410 any day. you can rev and I'll just be Gordon Lightfoot. :D
 
Does the engine itself see a different amount of stress accelerating a heavy truck through mud over (time?) than a light car in a few seconds ?
 
273 said:
Does the engine itself see a different amount of stress accelerating a heavy truck through mud over (time?) than a light car in a few seconds ?
Click to expand...
Yes it does. There's a difference trying to move 1.5 ton compared to 4-5 ton.
 
273 said:
Torque per cid generally goes up on high hp builds, torque needs basically all the same things as hp difference its on a per stroke basis not over time (rpm).

But as peak hp rpm climbs engines under 3000/4000 rpm declines which people generally consider as a loss of torque even though the can be making huge tq per cid.

1.25 lbs-ft per cid should be no problem, above 1.35 lbs-ft gonna take a good builder above 1.4 is pro territory, the engine probably gonna make peak hp around 7500-8000+ rpm.
Click to expand...
I get what you’re saying but from a practicality standpoint, the stated goal of 700 hp has to be easier and cheaper to accomplish with a 500” + BB. I get the OP has the good SB stuff already and changing to a BB is a PITA but that said, (IMO) the goal will be harder to reach and will be harder on parts staying with the SB. A 512” with decent heads and 2 1/4” headers you’ll be well over 700hp.

Bigger stroke might help the SB but can the resto block take a 4.100+ bore to take advantage of say a 4.25” arm? 450+ cubes could be in the ballpark for 700 N/A but you did originally ask about your current 410”. IMO that size is going to limit your output especially N/A.

This is a really heavy vehicle (5430!) with huge amounts of unsprung weight. (tires etc.) If he’s got 500 ft lbs. of torque at say 2,000 RPM as opposed to 600ft lbs. of torque @ 4,500 RPM it will get the truck moving faster.

Torque generally starts to fall off before peak hp so running it up to higher rpms for whatever amount of time might not be as useful as keeping it closer to the torque peak. It really depends on the application but peak torque makes more sense to me here vs. peak hp.

79Powerwagon, does the application need more top end hp more than peak torque? Where does higher RPM come into play?
 
rmchrgr said:
I get what you’re saying but from a practicality standpoint, the stated goal of 700 hp has to be easier and cheaper to accomplish with a 500” + BB. I get the OP has the good SB stuff already and changing to a BB is a PITA but that said, (IMO) the goal will be harder to reach and will be harder on parts staying with the SB. A 512” with decent heads and 2 1/4” headers you’ll be well over 700hp.

Bigger stroke might help the SB but can the resto block take a 4.100+ bore to take advantage of say a 4.25” arm? 450+ cubes could be in the ballpark for 700 N/A but you did originally ask about your current 410”. IMO that size is going to limit your output especially N/A.

This is a really heavy vehicle (5430!) with huge amounts of unsprung weight. (tires etc.) If he’s got 500 ft lbs. of torque at say 2,000 RPM as opposed to 600ft lbs. of torque @ 4,500 RPM it will get the truck moving faster.

Torque generally starts to fall off before peak hp so running it up to higher rpms for whatever amount of time might not be as useful as keeping it closer to the torque peak. It really depends on the application but peak torque makes more sense to me here vs. peak hp.

79Powerwagon, does the application need more top end hp more than peak torque? Where does higher RPM come into play?
Click to expand...
I agree, I'd build like 543 if it was me. It's up to OP it's in the realm of possibility for a 410, but I'd definitely would be shopping for a good builder that builds 700+ hp sbm all day long.
 
I'm pretty sure the small block Victor heads will flow well enough for your goal.
But it seems like they are very expensive when you add the rockers ?
I'm surprised more people don't use them ?
 
79Powerwagon said:
I have a good foundation lol and to the other guy that said it won't last long I strongly disagree. I have a 450 horse engine now I've been running for 13 years....Cast crank to boot. I also have available to me large port commando heads with w2 offset rockers(pushrod holes are moved over on these heads) and a .640 mopar roller cam

View attachment 1716087006
Click to expand...

What size mains does this block have 340 or 360?

Tom
 
Build a 410 Cleveland with CNC ported Trick Flow heads.
 
jimmer said:
I'm pretty sure the small block Victor heads will flow well enough for your goal.
But it seems like they are very expensive when you add the rockers ?
I'm surprised more people don't use them ?
Click to expand...
Looking at the truck and the projected cost of a 700+ HP small block, I don't think an extra $1000-$1500 for a set of good rockers is going to crash the budget. If that thing is going to have to spin 7-8k rpm, you are looking at special springs and titanium valves ($$$) for whatever head they go in.
 
fishmens67 said:
Amazing, that's about the same weight as my factory 73 W200.
Click to expand...
With axles like these your bound to put on some pounds lol

20220725_190949.jpg
 
79Powerwagon said:
I have a good foundation lol and to the other guy that said it won't last long I strongly disagree. I have a 450 horse engine now I've been running for 13 years....Cast crank to boot. I also have available to me large port commando heads with w2 offset rockers(pushrod holes are moved over on these heads) and a .640 mopar roller cam

View attachment 1716087006

View attachment 1716087007

View attachment 1716087009

View attachment 1716087010
Click to expand...
I’m only slightly surprised that you have good parts and that you purposely held back what you have. You left it to a guessing game of varied answers and suggestions.

Why would you turn this into a game?

What’s the deal with those heads as cast and do you know anyone that has experience in porting them? I personally don’t know how far they can go but below is a good idea on a cylinder head to use for a NA engine, if you doing this as an NA engine.

pittsburghracer said:
W8 or W9 heads would simplify it.
Click to expand...
Those or the Victors.
273 said:
He probably needs to make over 1.42 lbs-ft per cid to make 700 hp under 7000 rpm, 1.25 lbs-ft per cid would be 8000 rpm.

Hp x 5252 / tq = rpm, Displacement x lbs-ft per cid x .9 = torque at peak hp.

Torque generally around 90% of peak torque at peak hp why the .9

So 512-582 lbs-ft puts 700 hp between 7000-8000 rpm.
Click to expand...
For what size engine is this calculation for?
 
rumblefish360 said:
I’m only slightly surprised that you have good parts and that you purposely held back what you have. You left it to a guessing game of varied answers and suggestions.

Why would you turn this into a game?

What’s the deal with those heads as cast and do you know anyone that has experience in porting them? I personally don’t know how far they can go but below is a good idea on a cylinder head to use for a NA engine, if you doing this as an NA engine.


Those or the Victors.

For what size engine is this calculation for?
Click to expand...
Didn't turn this into a game, just wanted honest replies and see what people have to say, I don't have these heads yet but they are available to me if they'll flow what I need. Going to talk to a reputable builder tomorrow to see if he has a port already figured out for them.
 
rumblefish360 said:
For what size engine is this calculation for?
Click to expand...
For the 410

Compared to the 376

if you take that 376, they're don't give exact numbers they said it dyno 737-770 hp at different dyno's and rev it up to 7500 rpm, so say 750 hp at 7500 rpm is 525 tq at peak hp so about 583 lbs-ft at peak torque, tq:cid = 1.55:1 insanely high. If the 410 was that high of peak tq of 636 lbs-ft it would only have turn to about 6400 ish rpms to make 700 hp.
 
Pump or race fuel? I think you could get 700 hp with eddy victors pretty easily, probably could with indy 245 cnc also. W8/9 would make 750 plus pretty easily set up correctly.
 
79Powerwagon said:
Didn't turn this into a game, just wanted honest replies and see what people have to say, I don't have these heads yet but they are available to me if they'll flow what I need. Going to talk to a reputable builder tomorrow to see if he has a port already figured out for them.
Click to expand...
OK, no worries, a little more forth coming information is helpful.
IMO, if you’re not supercharging the engine somehow, the heads will not be up to task for a NA engine to make that kind of power.
Again, IMO even fully ported. It’s worth checking into just to know.
 
79Powerwagon said:
Everybody on here seems scared of big small block and that's why no one will remember thier name. This truck has been working very well with a small block for many years, and ma mopar didn't make race blocks for 500 horse.
Click to expand...
I don't think they're scared perse. There's some experienced guys on here that have turned things up plenty. You gotta realize there's guys here every other week asking these same questions (I'm guilty of this as well) and these guys are skeptical or how real you are. However you've shown some good hardware including a stout block so you can definitely get there if you so desire and have the right combo.

700 hp out of any NA 400ish inch combo is definitely pretty turnt up.
 
jimmer said:
I'm pretty sure the small block Victor heads will flow well enough for your goal.
But it seems like they are very expensive when you add the rockers ?
I'm surprised more people don't use them ?
Click to expand...


Are you talking about the Edelbrock Victor Unicorn heads. I haven’t seen them available for years and she told me she didn’t know when they would be made but I could lay down my over 4000.00 and get on “the list”. Lol. Yaaaa right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top