What would it take to make 1.44 lbs-ft per cid ?

-
There's always a lot to glean from long winded posts:

At full load on the brake before the engine is "released" for its acceleration run you will often see and hear the TQ and RPM drop a bit--Not that engine. From our prior 2 years experience at EMC the dyno operator liked to F@#$ with the newer teams and would deliberately hold us @ 2300-2400 rpm for as much as 10-20 seconds--which is a lifetime. That engine was different--It did not fall off or go into detontation at all, it just sat there and sat there and sat there making 400+ ft/lbs @ 2500rpm.

What carb did you have on it?

Can you remember the cranking comp?

What fuel?
 
A little (longwinded) backstory on that 371 because its pertinent to this discussion and sometimes I love to WouldaCouldaShoulda.

I had been using EQ heads since the early 2000's--Ford GTP's, Chevy (which were awesome) there was no Mopar offerings at that time, and then I kinda forgot about them from 2004- until early 2009. A catalog was sent to me and I noticed the CH-318A and CH-318B. I ordered a set for a mild street build 360 with an HR cam, immediately noticed the short stock I.H. and proceeded to bore the guides to 11/32" and use much longer Chev style valves and rockers. That engine made me think the dyno was out of whack as it made what I thought was remarkable power 470+ HP/470+TQ. Over the next couple of years I used them when budget and the customer allowed. Some were tested and some were not, my takeaway was that the dyno results were always impressive. Even the ones that did not get tested I had feedback that implied-WOW.

Fastforward to spring of 2011 and although I had entered and was accepted @ EMC 2011, I had thoughts of not really building anything serious or even anything at all. Time and $$$ were always an issue and I had done the EMC twice already and I knew my chances at a win were zero and I thought my chances at a third consecutive feature magazine article were zero-hence my lackluster attitude. So in the background I had built a nice 360 circletrack engine for a good friend of mine with W2 heads and a SFT cam, W2 intake, and 500cfm 4412 as per the rules...(447hp/440tq). He runs it for the season May-1st week of Sep. <<<We'll come back to this.

So during that summer I have no idea what I'm going to build for the EMC which is always the 1st week of October. I didn't know what displacement, bore size, stroke etc...I didn't even really have a decent smallblock core to use and the idea of using the EQ heads hadn't really been cemented either--but they were there in the back of my mind.

I had been working on another 360 build for a customer and he wanted ported EQ's. As I began shaping a bowl I realized how much better quality the iron was and how much time this was going to take and my wheels started turning. Enter the CNC idea. I took a head and mounted it on our 3axis CNC because I didn't really want to get too crazy and just wanted to knock some material out of the bowls with a simple interpolation program. So a small program was written with a custom venturi style shape and some ovality. Chips were made and off to the flowbench. A 2.02" valve size and ZERO blending=272cfm!!! Keep in mind there was a huge ledge where the CNC machining left off. I thought this was going to be so easy to get these into the 290's--was I wrong, but still even blending the ledge out only netted about 275-277cfm. Anyways this was in July 2011 and thats when I thought about using them on the the 371 shortblock in my buddys CT car. So I found the T&D shaft rockers on Moparts, and proceeded to make the heads the best I could for the month of August while I patiently waited for the CT season to be over. It was an excruciating wait because that engine could have expired while in the car or even on the dyno just weeks or days before the EMC.

Back to the heads--So like I said in an earlier post I had time to really scrutinize every port and exactly half of them needed substantial rework. 4 of them flowed the same at all lifts and 4 of them were as much as 10cfm behind at all lift ranges and turbulent as well. Anyways I sourced an old Weiand 7545 (awesome intake) and took my best shot at a custom roller cam from Comp. My friend pulled his engine the first week of September--I re-ringed it and changed the cam and top end which took me into the third week of September as I had to wait for different length pushrods. So here we are basically one week away from having to leave for the EMC and testing begins. I was shocked when it outscored 2010's 367 w/W2's on account of the incredible TQ. Like I said a bit of tuning and 513 ft/lbs on test 6 or 7 and off comes the manifold. I cut some runner extension ears out of .187" aluminum and tack welded them in thinking I'd pick up 5 pts. Nope--lost something like 11 ft/lbs. Off comes the manifold and I hack about half of the extensions off. Nope still down but coming back a bit. Off comes the manifold again and I wind up breaking 2 of the extensions off right at the weld. Oh well it worth a shot right? I try it again and have to live with it as we have to leave the next evening.

Anyways we get to Ohio and Johnny Hunkins spots the heads right away as he is good friends with Eric Haughland @ EQ--he is all excited and films some of the dyno footage himself and sends it Eric's way. That engine was so strong at the bottom it never wavered or faultered or fell in rpm. At full load on the brake before the engine is "released" for its acceleration run you will often see and hear the TQ and RPM drop a bit--Not that engine. From our prior 2 years experience at EMC the dyno operator liked to F@#$ with the newer teams and would deliberately hold us @ 2300-2400 rpm for as much as 10-20 seconds--which is a lifetime. That engine was different--It did not fall off or go into detontation at all, it just sat there and sat there and sat there making 400+ ft/lbs @ 2500rpm. The dyno operator made a comment and even the tech director Wes did as well. I still wonder what that engine could have done being fresh and with a trick set of pistons with a better ring pack and more time--always more time. LOL. That engine was thee best bang for the buck EMC engine I ever did. Sorry for the longwinded story.

The 4 takeaways here are:

1. I should have left the ridge and tested with a 2.02" valve. ( I got greedy chasing #'s)
2. I should have committed to a plan and built a slightly smaller cubic inch before September
3. I should have recognized I would likely not exceed 1.38 ft/lbs/ci and leave well enough alone.
4. I should have ordered a pallet of EQ heads and waited...Or bought bitcoin--LOL.

J.Rob
Thanks for sharing , always like build from the time I read it in the magazine, It pretty impressive, shows the might of the 360.

Sounds like someone should make an aluminum copy of the EQ heads, too bad they stopped making them.
 
Thanks for sharing , always like build from the time I read it in the magazine, It pretty impressive, shows the might of the 360.

Sounds like someone should make an aluminum copy of the EQ heads, too bad they stopped making them.
It's funny you say that about the aluminum copy--When I went to the PRI show in Indianapolis in 2015, I met Eric H @ the EQ booth and he told me it was in the works and was a strong "maybe". Too bad...J.Rob
 
A little (longwinded) backstory on that 371 because its pertinent to this discussion and sometimes I love to WouldaCouldaShoulda.

I had been using EQ heads since the early 2000's--Ford GTP's, Chevy (which were awesome) there was no Mopar offerings at that time, and then I kinda forgot about them from 2004- until early 2009. A catalog was sent to me and I noticed the CH-318A and CH-318B. I ordered a set for a mild street build 360 with an HR cam, immediately noticed the short stock I.H. and proceeded to bore the guides to 11/32" and use much longer Chev style valves and rockers. That engine made me think the dyno was out of whack as it made what I thought was remarkable power 470+ HP/470+TQ. Over the next couple of years I used them when budget and the customer allowed. Some were tested and some were not, my takeaway was that the dyno results were always impressive. Even the ones that did not get tested I had feedback that implied-WOW.

Fastforward to spring of 2011 and although I had entered and was accepted @ EMC 2011, I had thoughts of not really building anything serious or even anything at all. Time and $$$ were always an issue and I had done the EMC twice already and I knew my chances at a win were zero and I thought my chances at a third consecutive feature magazine article were zero-hence my lackluster attitude. So in the background I had built a nice 360 circletrack engine for a good friend of mine with W2 heads and a SFT cam, W2 intake, and 500cfm 4412 as per the rules...(447hp/440tq). He runs it for the season May-1st week of Sep. <<<We'll come back to this.

So during that summer I have no idea what I'm going to build for the EMC which is always the 1st week of October. I didn't know what displacement, bore size, stroke etc...I didn't even really have a decent smallblock core to use and the idea of using the EQ heads hadn't really been cemented either--but they were there in the back of my mind.

I had been working on another 360 build for a customer and he wanted ported EQ's. As I began shaping a bowl I realized how much better quality the iron was and how much time this was going to take and my wheels started turning. Enter the CNC idea. I took a head and mounted it on our 3axis CNC because I didn't really want to get too crazy and just wanted to knock some material out of the bowls with a simple interpolation program. So a small program was written with a custom venturi style shape and some ovality. Chips were made and off to the flowbench. A 2.02" valve size and ZERO blending=272cfm!!! Keep in mind there was a huge ledge where the CNC machining left off. I thought this was going to be so easy to get these into the 290's--was I wrong, but still even blending the ledge out only netted about 275-277cfm. Anyways this was in July 2011 and thats when I thought about using them on the the 371 shortblock in my buddys CT car. So I found the T&D shaft rockers on Moparts, and proceeded to make the heads the best I could for the month of August while I patiently waited for the CT season to be over. It was an excruciating wait because that engine could have expired while in the car or even on the dyno just weeks or days before the EMC.

Back to the heads--So like I said in an earlier post I had time to really scrutinize every port and exactly half of them needed substantial rework. 4 of them flowed the same at all lifts and 4 of them were as much as 10cfm behind at all lift ranges and turbulent as well. Anyways I sourced an old Weiand 7545 (awesome intake) and took my best shot at a custom roller cam from Comp. My friend pulled his engine the first week of September--I re-ringed it and changed the cam and top end which took me into the third week of September as I had to wait for different length pushrods. So here we are basically one week away from having to leave for the EMC and testing begins. I was shocked when it outscored 2010's 367 w/W2's on account of the incredible TQ. Like I said a bit of tuning and 513 ft/lbs on test 6 or 7 and off comes the manifold. I cut some runner extension ears out of .187" aluminum and tack welded them in thinking I'd pick up 5 pts. Nope--lost something like 11 ft/lbs. Off comes the manifold and I hack about half of the extensions off. Nope still down but coming back a bit. Off comes the manifold again and I wind up breaking 2 of the extensions off right at the weld. Oh well it worth a shot right? I try it again and have to live with it as we have to leave the next evening.

Anyways we get to Ohio and Johnny Hunkins spots the heads right away as he is good friends with Eric Haughland @ EQ--he is all excited and films some of the dyno footage himself and sends it Eric's way. That engine was so strong at the bottom it never wavered or faultered or fell in rpm. At full load on the brake before the engine is "released" for its acceleration run you will often see and hear the TQ and RPM drop a bit--Not that engine. From our prior 2 years experience at EMC the dyno operator liked to F@#$ with the newer teams and would deliberately hold us @ 2300-2400 rpm for as much as 10-20 seconds--which is a lifetime. That engine was different--It did not fall off or go into detontation at all, it just sat there and sat there and sat there making 400+ ft/lbs @ 2500rpm. The dyno operator made a comment and even the tech director Wes did as well. I still wonder what that engine could have done being fresh and with a trick set of pistons with a better ring pack and more time--always more time. LOL. That engine was thee best bang for the buck EMC engine I ever did. Sorry for the longwinded story.

The 4 takeaways here are:

1. I should have left the ridge and tested with a 2.02" valve. ( I got greedy chasing #'s)
2. I should have committed to a plan and built a slightly smaller cubic inch before September
3. I should have recognized I would likely not exceed 1.38 ft/lbs/ci and leave well enough alone.
4. I should have ordered a pallet of EQ heads and waited...Or bought bitcoin--LOL.

J.Rob
You said you would've liked to have built it a smaller cid, what size ?
Would've that been because of limited port volume ?
 
To exceed 1.4 tq/ci NA on true streetswill pump fuel will probably require:

1. 12.5-14+ static comp
2. Very well scienced induction, no more cylinder head and no less than required for goal
3. No more and no less camshaft than required--probably variable ICL, like modern stuff
4. Very well scienced exhaust, no more length/diameter than required. Focus on collector design
5. Attention to friction reduction
6. Lots of time to develop and test and re-try things = $$$
7. The planets to align

If E85 is available you will probably want to crowd the high end of point #1. J.Rob
 
You said you would've liked to have built it a smaller cid, what size ?
Would've that been because of limited port volume ?
I would have targeted 345-353 cubes as every CI equaled 6pts then. The heads would have been better suited to this range and could have possibly put us in the top 5 or better. J.Rob
 
I decided to do some Google search on the 360's and I found a interesting build. Engine Labs built a 360 with stock heads with 2.02/1.600 with port work. 650 demon carb, air gap intake manifold and a xe268h cam. The best they got was 387 horsepower and 434 LbFt of torque. I tried to load the article her but I couldn't get it to load. I'm not saying that this is true or a fact. But if they got 434 from a mild 360 then I would think that getting the extra 91 Lb Ft shouldn't be hard to get.
 
I decided to do some Google search on the 360's and I found a interesting build. Engine Labs built a 360 with stock heads with 2.02/1.600 with port work. 650 demon carb, air gap intake manifold and a xe268h cam. The best they got was 387 horsepower and 434 LbFt of torque. I tried to load the article her but I couldn't get it to load. I'm not saying that this is true or a fact. But if they got 434 from a mild 360 then I would think that getting the extra 91 Lb Ft shouldn't be hard to get.
The article you have brought up has already been posted in the "Magazine Builds" thread.

You would also be wrong about gaining another 91 ft/lbs being "not that hard to get". J.Rob

Modifying And Testing A Dodge 360-Cube LA Small-Block On The Dyno
 
I decided to do some Google search on the 360's and I found a interesting build. Engine Labs built a 360 with stock heads with 2.02/1.600 with port work. 650 demon carb, air gap intake manifold and a xe268h cam. The best they got was 387 horsepower and 434 LbFt of torque. I tried to load the article her but I couldn't get it to load. I'm not saying that this is true or a fact. But if they got 434 from a mild 360 then I would think that getting the extra 91 Lb Ft shouldn't be hard to get.
Torque is extra hard to get, it's on a per power stroke basis so you got to get the most you can out of each stroke, hp can make up for a lack of torque by just spinning higher in rpm.

For most of us 1 to 1.3 lbs-ft per cid is the amount most are gonna get out of a displacement in this case a 360 = peak torque of 360-468 lbs-ft basically a low cr 2bbl to pretty hot 360. 1.40 lbs-ft to max effort 1.67 lbs-ft per cid is out of reach for most these are highly developed race engines. Which leaves 1.31 to 1.39 lbs-ft per cid very hard but possible if everything done right, generally if your getting above 1.25 lbs-ft per cid your doing pretty good which is peak torque of 450 lbs-ft for a 360.

Why I was telling you if you want lots of low end torque out of a 318 (1.25 x 318 = 396 lbs-ft) it's kind of hard above a certain point, more displacement is easier.
 
That's the article I was talking about. Do you think what they claim is accurate?
I don't think there's any reason to doubt it, I believe Richard to be honest. Plus he's not making huge claims.
 
Engine masters did a comparison of two 500 hp engines, a 372 sbc and a 454.
I'm away from my recorder at the moment, so this is from memory, but I think the 372 made more torque per cube (445 or so?) but at the meat of the torque curve, the big block made more than 100ft/lbs more than the small block.
The kicker is..... at the end of the episode, they threw in a joker, a tired, smoking, almost stock low compression 440 with log manifolds.... and a single turbo.
It made 514 hp, competitive with the other two engines, but it also made 660 ft/lbs of peak torque, a hundred more than the bbc.......
And 1.5 ft/lbs per cube.
Just think what could be done with a fresh engine built to exploit the turbo.
 
The kicker is..... at the end of the episode, they threw in a joker, a tired, smoking, almost stock low compression 440 with log manifolds.... and a single turbo.
It made 514 hp, competitive with the other two engines, but it also made 660 ft/lbs of peak torque, a hundred more than the bbc.......
And 1.5 ft/lbs per cube.
Just think what could be done with a fresh engine built to exploit the turbo.
And probably be able to hit peak hp rpm at the 1/4 mile finish line with highway gears.
 
And probably be able to hit peak hp rpm at the 1/4 mile finish line with highway gears.
Again, from memory, but I think peak torque was around 3500 and peak hp around 5200, clearly not a stock cam.... but yeah, I think performance could be pretty impressive even with 3.23s.
How quick/fast could a 514/660 engine be in a 2700 car with a good suspension and big tires? Street and freeway drivable nine second car?
 
Engine masters did a comparison of two 500 hp engines, a 372 sbc and a 454.
I'm away from my recorder at the moment, so this is from memory, but I think the 372 made more torque per cube (445 or so?) but at the meat of the torque curve, the big block made more than 100ft/lbs more than the small block.
The kicker is..... at the end of the episode, they threw in a joker, a tired, smoking, almost stock low compression 440 with log manifolds.... and a single turbo.
It made 514 hp, competitive with the other two engines, but it also made 660 ft/lbs of peak torque, a hundred more than the bbc.......
And 1.5 ft/lbs per cube.
Just think what could be done with a fresh engine built to exploit the turbo.
Way to convoluted this thread. This is neither here nor there. J.Rob
 
Again, from memory, but I think peak torque was around 3500 and peak hp around 5200, clearly not a stock cam.... but yeah, I think performance could be pretty impressive even with 3.23s.
How quick/fast could a 514/660 engine be in a 2700 car with a good suspension and big tires? Street and freeway drivable nine second car?
It would drive like a modern Cummins diesel and would in no way resemble a 9 sec car. Know how I know? Cuz you don't see them everywhere. I do see a whole bunch of diesel P-U,s everywhere however. J.Rob
 
Gee, I'm unbelievably sorry. I thought this thread was about building a bunch of torque, so I gave an example of lots of torque. My utter and abject apologies that it doesn't meet your standards.


Sarcasm, if you can't tell......



And I wondered about a 2700 lb car, not an 8700lb truck.
 
Way to convoluted this thread. This is neither here nor there. J.Rob
Overall to me the thread was worth it, with your and PRH's contribution gave me a better understanding, I appreciate it.
 
Gee, I'm unbelievably sorry. I thought this thread was about building a bunch of torque, so I gave an example of lots of torque. My utter and abject apologies that it doesn't meet your standards.


Sarcasm, if you can't tell......
It's alright I'm generally ok with my threads being all over the place, there's room for multiple conversation :)
 
Gee, I'm unbelievably sorry. I thought this thread was about building a bunch of torque, so I gave an example of lots of torque. My utter and abject apologies that it doesn't meet your standards.


Sarcasm, if you can't tell......
Really? Read the room. This thread was about NA Smallblock TQ PER CUBIC INCH of power production. This is about using atmospheric pressure to overfill the cylinders to achieve above average efficiency.
I don't think anyone's arguing that adding positive manifold pressure won't make outrageous tq/ci.

What do you think a locomotives V16 diesel-electric produces?
Is that an example of a "bunch of torque"? Sarcasm, if you can't tell. See how your post actually takes away and contributes only confusion to possibly those trying to learn? J.Rob
 
-
Back
Top