The average 408...

-
1wild&crazyguy said:
If you went with ported Indy 360-1 aluminum heads,12.5 comp and a nasty solid roller, you could have 600hp without the funny stuff.

It'll make good power MAD.
Click to expand...

I know I should have at least used the Indy heads/top end kit on my engine. Too late now...I'm still happy.

Talked to Dave at Hughes Engines as well...he said I'll be just fine with my engine where the oil pressure is at. They modified some of the oil restrictions that the factory block had, causing the oil pressure to drop slightly. Nothing to worry about is what he said...I'll be fine.. :)
 
500-550hp is pretty easy to achieve with a base smallblock say a 360 for example. 600hp is doable, if you have the right parts. on a no power adder 360 your gonna need heads that flow aprox 300cfm, cams in the .620"++ range tons of duration, lots of compression 11.5+, a crossram or tunnel ram intake, at least twin 700cfm carbs, huge headers and 7000rpm min.

same holds true with strokers that are 400+cid, but you don't need as much intake, cam, or rpm. i notice alot of those builds they dont have nearly enuff camshaft or compression, or they slap on a set of 260cfm heads and wonder why i only makes 475hp. torque is usually pretty good tho. 500+ft-lbs range. you want 500+hp then you hafta realize you gonna trade off something. usually RPM and streetability. there is no magical formula for a non power adder 400+ cube engine thats gonna make that kinda horsepower with "mild" parts. cant just slap on a set of Indy 360-1s and go LOL.
 
Mad Dart said:
Yes I agree. I started my 410 build with 600hp as the goal based on the CRAP off the internet and a GURU on this site that turned out to be FOS and you all know who I am referring to.

Based on what I see as REAL numbers now. If it hits 520hp/500tq I better just be happy and deal with it! We will see on Friday at the Dyno...

It WILL make over 600 hp when I SHOVE a 200 shot down its throat for sure!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

That's the spirt! I beileve this makes you and the Dart truly MAD Darts!

P.S. Please video tape kills of the Chevy and Fords for us !!!!!
 
LOL, your right, not to mention that huge single plane and a cam of 260 @ 050, big whoppin port heads with a 1,000 cfm carb.

HEY! Built for power and showing it, yes and i think it's great. But it's a show pony in my eyes. Rare is it you'll find a guy on the street with a set up like that much less drive it 2 times during the week for shows and a beer run. Put on a hundred miles a week with it.

Though, I'd like to try it out....
(Fades off into day dream world...again...)
 
moper said:
This is why I think EM is cool but almost useless for real world. It's not about the heads... Lightened crank, custom pistons with gas porting, rings 30% narrower than 1/16 rings, low tension narrow oil rings... Are you kidding me? It was designed to last for the dyno thrashes.
Click to expand...
DODGESTRIKE is right. its all about the heads for that hp level. gas porting is a bit much. but nessesary if you wanna use ultra narrow rings. & obviously a drag race only kinda thing. Lightened Cranks are always a ++. stock or otherwise. how long to you think a bore will last with 5/64 rings 6500+rpm? 2x 1/16 compression rings is all thats needed. we're not talkin about the old iron rings anymore. its all relavant. if i could get a set of pistons that mirrored a 302 chamber I would, custom prices be damned. do you wanna have a middle of pack smallblock or a killer smallblock? thats up to you. most of those "tricks" listed were being implemented when i was a itch on my Daddies nut. so it must have some merit.
 
Merit, yes. In the right environment. Reality simply isnt a part of EM. At least the winning entries. I never said the right heads didnt make power. I said EM is a magazine shootout that does very little to advance engine building because nothing they do is designed to do anything more than pull on a dyno.
 
yup agreed the some of those EM engines are in fanatsy land. but i do disagree when you said it " does very little to advance engine building... ". it does give some very good insight on what can be done and it up to us on how to impliment it for street use.
 
rumblefish360 said:
LOL, your right, not to mention that huge single plane and a cam of 260 @ 050, big whoppin port heads with a 1,000 cfm carb.
.)
Click to expand...

for me that is great and something to be proud to run on the street not a bad thing , but maybe thats just me 8)
 
moper said:
This is why I think EM is cool but almost useless for real world. It's not about the heads... Lightened crank, custom pistons with gas porting, rings 30% narrower than 1/16 rings, low tension narrow oil rings... Are you kidding me? It was designed to last for the dyno thrashes.
Click to expand...

do you think that with stock crank , no gas porting , standard rings it will loose what 90hps ? 100hps ?
 
some are talkin bout the track being a REAL dyno. well lets see.

i did 10.279 @ 127.16 1.372 60'
my car weighs 3020lbs

thats works out to 485 RWHP. sounds about right.
my engine @ the crank makes 540, so thats a 55hp
drivetrain loss. thank god for tight converters, 10.5"
wide tires, and superlite rims. not bad for a worn out
engine.
 
MPH and weight will tell you rear wheel HP.
Click to expand...

(sorry for the OT ) but I would caution anyone into thinking automatically that strip mph/weight calculations are RW HP.

Th evidence says otherwise - even if half the caculators on the net claim it to be RW.

First, read the first few paragraphs of the link - but the important bit is quoted below-

http://www.stealth316.com/2-calc-hp-et-mph.htm

And lookie what he writes -

"MPH" is the terminal speed (trap speed),
"ET" is the elapsed time,
"224" is the empirically determined coefficient that includes the necessary unit conversion factors,

Here it is - "hp" is the peak engine horsepower output at the clutch (net power), and

"weight" is the the total weight of the vehicle (with driver) in pounds.
Click to expand...

Now -

I don't want this to get into a p1ssing contest, and I know for some Im telling them the moon is blue - but...........

(and I hope 360Z28 won't mind me using his figures.)

The calculator provided in the link I posted says 525 CRANK HP.

So thats pretty close to 360Z28s appx. crank HP of 540 using his 10% losses and his own formula.


So..............whats the issue?

Lets look at 360Z28s #s -

IF - we believed the common opinion that the calculatoirs tell us RWHP - then he is making 525 RWHP,

OR - 590 Minimum at the crank !!! - and only running 127 mph.

So itd be obvious to anyone who's been at the track, that the 525-ish is crank HP.

(which he agrees with anyway)

So to the point - after a fair bit of research -

The only solution I can come up with is that they all basically still read CRANK HP.

.............some may read "low" - but whats the option? 590- 610 crank???

I think even 360Z28 would acknowledge thats not happening.

So the message is - don't assume the formulas are RWHP - assume Crank and add or take 10-17% and you'll know when its compared to what others have done.

Now back to your regular program :D
 
1wild&crazyguy said:
Do any of you guys have any dt dyno programs that you could run my #'s through?
Click to expand...

If you IM me your head flow figs, your valve specs, your intake, your cam profile including events and the block CUI I can run it through in the next few days....to show what a nice guy I am! LOL!!! ;)
 
I stick by what I said. If you want to see advanced engine tech look at anything in Formula 1 or a superbike. Nothing with a carburetor is advancing anything any more. What EM does is force competitors to produce a maximum average with minimum monetary expense for a very short life span. Not explore deeper into technoloigcal advances. All the items I mentionned, plus the cylinder head development, and even head flowing and dyno testing advances have come from Formula One efforts. When we see coil on plug, pnuematic valve train controls, multiple valve and over head cam engines then we'll be pushing envelopes. Until then, it's just fun to see who can do what for the 10 pulls it might take. And most of them do it without any regard for longevity. Like the old qualifying engines in NASCAR. So very little will translate into any street power plants. As far as numbers gained with that stuff, I think around 10%....50-75hp is probably close to what is gained with that stuff. I dont disagree on the cam or intake/carb choices. Those are solid choices IMO. But I'm sure there's oil control initiatives in addition to the narrow and low tension rings that would make such an engine very short lived in anything that races or drives on the street. Take away that 50hp and you're in typical 410/416 territory with a good top end. Nothing trick.
 
G stock racing 10.80-11.0

Don't tell me they have 500+ hp 340's.

The track can only tell if all you're sht is perfect.

Spin tires all the way into 3rd [like me]running 13's @104+mph and it'll tell you that you have 300'ish hp.

Waiting to hear the combo still 360z28
 
DODGESTRIKE said:
for me that is great and something to be proud to run on the street not a bad thing , but maybe thats just me 8)
Click to expand...

LOL, true, true, for some of us, very true. Just not these engines build in particual.
 
the lil rings will burn oil on the street in the long haul.
the 5/64 ring has more surface area to seal along with pin height keep the pistons more square in the bore, but thats a diff argument for the chevy guy here later....
 
1wild&crazyguy said:
the lil rings will burn oil on the street in the long haul.
the 5/64 ring along with pin height kepp the pistons more square in the bore.
Click to expand...

As will the gas ports... The rings will be rubbed away in less than a drag season up north here. To really work well that engine should be using a vacuum pump which again means no longevity.
 
What would be interesting is an EM for head porters,

Everyone runs the same short and cam / intake profile supplied by "Cats *** racing" or whoeever

and then their preferred head, valve, seat cut, port work and valvetrain and they run what they brung.

Here's the kicker - Each competitor nominates a peak HP and see who gets closest.

The "nearest to pin" idea means its about knowledge, not buying the best castings and porting crazy.

Just a thought...........
 
moper and wild both you guys gotta brush up on your ring tech. 1/16th rings wont hold a pistons square in its bore? COMPLETE bs. gas ports/vacuum pumps as i said are for ultra low tension rings.. has nothing to do with real world cars. if whoever use those kinda rings on the street. thats not very bright. also some of those chamber and piston mods are truely ingenius. and can easily be adapted for street use. not to mention ports and intake mods, knife edging the crank counters weights. all came from MAX EFFORT drag race only engines and adapted for street use.
 
I can see I should have trimmed that quote. I didn't say the rings hold a piston square. Is this what you believe by your response? I quoted and perhaps I should have clarified that quote... My comment was about oil burning, ports plugging, and rings wearing out. Rings don't conrol the piston at all, and in fact the piston moves around and rocks every time it cycles. That's controled by piston-to-wall, pin clearance, and pin-to-lock clearance. I've been running file-to-fit "Race" rings for years. That was what they called 1/16 rings in the 80s. The EM engine uses rings 30% thinner than 1/16. You're starting to sound a lot like someone else who liked to toss impressive numbers around.
 
Moper,
yup your right. wild said "keep em square in the bores" so i appologize to you.
anyways,
who am i started to sound like? throwing what impressive #s? 540hp? thats not impressive. any backwoods redneck can get those kinda #'s from a smallblock. its not rocket science.
or is it the fact that some 302's did that #? heres some facts right from GOD HIMSELF (aka RyanJ):

“302” CASTING SWIRL PORT 318 HEAD PORTING
----------stock------------ported
.100”-----51.8/N/A--------71.8/N/A
.200”-----92.5/70.7--------148.4/86.3
.300”-----130.1/104.3-----212.2/113.9
.400”-----163.9/113.2-----241.5/131.1
.450”-----169.1/115.2-----244.6/137.7
.500”-----170.4/117.3-----246.7/139.7
.550”-----172.2/119.0-----242.6/144.9
.600”-----172.5/120.4-----240.8/144.9

those are 500hp capable heads right there (in his feable ported effort). he also used a 2.02/1.60 valve combo. if you look at the pics on his site, he left alot in the intake ports. i know for a FACT it can be taken out MUCH larger. and still maintain reasonable VELOCITY (but hey.. under 2000rpm who gives a crap). makes you wonder what they would flow with a MAX port effort with 2.05/1.625 valves eh? hmmm. POINT being and this isn't pointed towards anyone in particular. if you havn't done it.. then you don't know jack squawt about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top