440 Build Plan

-
JGC403

JGC403

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
1,046
Reaction score
48
Location
Baileyton, TN
I'm building a stroked 440. This is the plan I have so far:
Bore: 4.350"
Stroke: 4.15"
Rods: 6.760"
Block will be 0 decked, head gasket thickness will set quench.
Pistons have a 23.7cc dish
Trick Flow heads with a 78cc combustion chamber
Head Gasket Cometic C5461-036
gasket bore: 4.380"
gasket thickness: 0.036" (Quench will also be 0.036")

Static Compression Ratio 10.14:1

Hughes Engines Camshaft SER1822BL3-10
Hydraulic Roller
LSA 110*
ICL 106*
Duration @0.050" 218*I/222*E
ADV Duration 271*I/275*E ( this is what they emailed me)
Lift with 1.6 ratio: 0.539"I/ 0.549"E

Dynamic Compression Ratio 8.31

I think I did all of the math correct and the calculated compression ratios should be right.

What do you guys think? Should this be a good combo? I want to be able to run pump gas and I don't want a loopy/ or rough idle. Smooth idle is the goal. Anyone want to take a stab at power output? I don't know what intake manifold I'm using yet.
 
Someone smarter than me will chime in but that cam seems awful small for a stroker.Even with the smooth idle requirement.
 
That will work fine for a smooth running, high torque engine. Probably make about 450 hp and 550 torque. What you are building is very close to a Chevy 502 crate engine. The Chevy 502 uses a 210/230 hyd roller cam and it makes a ton of torque down low. It is a great engine for street rods and street machines. For your engine you could use a Performer RPM intake or even a low profile single plane like the Holley SD.
 
I don't know what you have already for parts but there is less grinding to install a stroker with chevy journals. Imo the cam is very small. The narrow lsa of 106 will move the torque lower and the stroke will move your torque down as well. It will be a stump puller for sure but your sacrificing the hp on the top end to do it. Your head choice is great but you can go 10 degrees bigger easily with the cam and it wouldn't hardly lope yet ...and stil sound like a stock engine. We did a 4.25 stroker 25 years ago originally used a mp 484 cam w narrow lsa. Stock valves in ported 452 heads. With 3.23s we averaged a best of 23 mpg over 120 mile trip. It loped lightly but we had 20 degrees more duration then the cam listed.
 
OK thanks for the input. So I can go up 3 cam sizes and still should pull plenty of vacuum. I just don't want to put to big a cam in it and be unhappy. The roller cams aren't cheap. Do to hood clearance I don't think an Eddy RPM will fit. More than likely will have to use a low profile single plane like the Holley Street Dominator or an Eddy Torker II.
 
JGC403 said:
OK thanks for the input. So I can go up 3 cam sizes and still should pull plenty of vacuum. I just don't want to put to big a cam in it and be unhappy. The roller cams aren't cheap. Do to hood clearance I don't think an Eddy RPM will fit. More than likely will have to use a low profile single plane like the Holley Street Dominator or an Eddy Torker II.
Click to expand...

I would go with a dual plane intake
 
If you want to stick with a FT cam, some companies have lobes to suit the 904 Mopar lifter. These lobes have more area under the curve & more lift than Chebby & Ferd lobed cams. While they don't equal a roller cam for area under the curve, they would certainly come close to some of the milder roller profiles.
 
You could make more power power with more cam, but I really like the choice. As Andy said, it'll slap be a stump puller down low. That'll be a lot of fun and fool a lot of people into thinking it's way more tame than it is. Can you say sleeper?
 
That Camshaft is really small! So if you want to stay with this tiny cam, you can save money and buy a set of stealth heads or edelbrocks.
You dont need the TF Heads with the cam.
If using the TF heads, i would go bigger with the cam.
For better idle quality just choose a 112-114° LSA.

I build a 451 with TF 240 Heads and a SFT Cam with 250-256 @.050 and 644 lift. But with a 112° LSA, because i want to keep my PB!
 
DieWilde13 said:
a SFT Cam with 250-256 @.050 and 644 lift. But with a 112° LSA, because i want to keep my PB!
Click to expand...
What SFT has .644 lift at only 250 duration? That sounds more like a roller. Even my mushroom cam (1.00" lifter) requires 272 to get .652 lift...
 
DrCharles said:
What SFT has .644 lift at only 250 duration? That sounds more like a roller. Even my mushroom cam (1.00" lifter) requires 272 to get .652 lift...
Click to expand...

Probably a grind from Howards. They are known for very high lifts per duration.
 
RustyRatRod said:
Probably a grind from Howards. They are known for very high lifts per duration.
Click to expand...
There's still an absolute limit to a .904" lifter acceleration and width. They must be really pushing the contact point to the very edge of the lifter... better hope the bores are bushed and centered perfectly.
 
DrCharles said:
There's still an absolute limit to a .904" lifter acceleration and width. They must be really pushing the contact point to the very edge of the lifter... better hope the bores are bushed and centered perfectly.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah it's gotta be perfect, no doubt. This all coincides with why I like slow, old school lobes for street engines. No sense in beating the valve train to death.
 
DrCharles said:
What SFT has .644 lift at only 250 duration? That sounds more like a roller. Even my mushroom cam (1.00" lifter) requires 272 to get .652 lift...
Click to expand...

Yes i was close to decide for a Howards Cam, but then go to Hughes.
Its a Hughes Cam, and the Lift is rated with 1.6 Rockers.

STL5054AS.jpg
 
DrCharles said:
What SFT has .644 lift at only 250 duration? That sounds more like a roller. Even my mushroom cam (1.00" lifter) requires 272 to get .652 lift...
Click to expand...


I’m .624/.639 with 1.6 rockers at 250/254 @.050...now I need to go check to see exactly what I have...

Edit: my lift is .624/.640 so I was off by a thou.
 
Last edited:
OK, I was assuming 1.5 rockers.
1.6 rockers do make more lift (at the expense of more pressure on the cam/lifter)... are they actually making more power though? It seems not to be guaranteed, but more of a "try it and see".
 
DrCharles said:
OK, I was assuming 1.5 rockers.
1.6 rockers do make more lift (at the expense of more pressure on the cam/lifter)... are they actually making more power though? It seems not to be guaranteed, but more of a "try it and see".
Click to expand...


Making power is about valve lift and valve speed. Of course, you need to consider your minimum cross section and what the valve gear will take and if you can live with the lobe.

One issue that always cropped up for me was with my displacement (345 CID), and the tunnel ram about the best I could do was .750ish lift, because the next series of lobes that I wanted would have either had too much duration or the lobe was so aggressive I’d be looking at 25 runs for a set of springs. And that was 25 runs IF I didn’t get jacked up in the burn out or not pay attention and miss my 8800 shift and turn it past 9000. That’s a valve spring killer.

If I was 400 inches I could net .800 lift, but I wasn’t so I couldn’t.
 
yellow rose said:
Making power is about valve lift and valve speed. Of course, you need to consider your minimum cross section and what the valve gear will take and if you can live with the lobe.
Click to expand...
And if you have heads and intake that can benefit from the increased lift. The ideal lobe is a square one but that's also hard on valve springs :p

If I was 400 inches I could net .800 lift, but I wasn’t so I couldn’t.
Click to expand...
If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle. :D
 
DrCharles said:
And if you have heads and intake that can benefit from the increased lift. The ideal lobe is a square one but that's also hard on valve springs :p


If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle. :D
Click to expand...


LOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOL yep, and if my grandma had wheels she’d be a bicycle.

Most heads benefit from as much lift as you can give them. One issue is flowing the head without the intake manifold on. You’d be surprised what happens when you do.

My heads don’t flow any more at .600 than they do at .500 lift, but dropping the lift to .500 or even .550 would kill power. It’s about lift and valve speed, and not so much about flow.
 
yellow rose said:
It’s about lift and valve speed, and not so much about flow.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. Lifting the valve as far and fast as you can is precisely so that more air will flow into the cylinder! Like I said, the ideal lobe would be square. Instantaneous opening of the valve, staying at the desired lift for the entire intake event, instantaneous closing. Which obviously doesn't exist with a real-world lobe, lifter, pushrod, rocker, valve/spring.
There is always a limiting factor somewhere between the atmospheric pressure and the cylinder fill - whether too small a carb, restrictive manifold, intake porting, etc. So your heads are maxed out at .500, ok. The reason for using a higher lift cam is so that the intake will spend more time at and above .500, thus maximizing the volume of air drawn in. And at some point the cam becomes the limiting factor (beating up the valve train, too much overlap, coil bind, piston clearance)...
 
I use the Trick Flow 240 Heads, so they flow pretty good at .600 - .700.
And to have a benefit from these Ports, i go in the middle of that. We will see what it makes.
Anyway, enough for the little Valiant:steering:
combined with the 4-Speed will be hell of a Fundrive!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top