How much HP...again

-
Sparky

Sparky

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 27, 2004
Messages
1,172
Reaction score
115
Location
British Columbia, Canada
I have not been unable to find a good free PC dyno, so I will preset this question for opinions. Around 400, a little more, I think. One thing I do know, it gets up and boogies in a big way. Thank you.
340,
40 over
rotating assembly balanced
Hughes engine hydraulic roller cam 571 lift
Eddy RPM heads for roller cam
Proform 1.6:1 roller rockers, cup style adjusters
Eddy air gap
Eddy 650 AVS2 carb
MSD blaster coil
TTI headers
Custom x pipe
 
More than a Briggs and Stratton and less than a cargo ship engine.
 
a-bodyguy said:
carb is way to small for the heads and roller cam 800 dp 850 dp
Click to expand...
What confuses me is if you ask the computer what each item adds in terms of estimated numbers, starting at around 320 as most mopar gurus say the 340 had stock, the numbers come out big, but not very accurate I would think. The carb question, sooo many different thoughts on this. I will be discussing carb size with my builder. Any thoughts on the carb are welcome, although I realize this has probably been beat to death here many times. Thanks Guys, spring is coming!!!!!
 
Sparky said:
I have not been unable to find a good free PC dyno, so I will preset this question for opinions. Around 400, a little more, I think. One thing I do know, it gets up and boogies in a big way. Thank you.

340,
40 over
rotating assembly balanced
Hughes engine hydraulic roller cam 571 lift
Eddy RPM heads for roller cam
Proform 1.6:1 roller rockers, cup style adjusters
Eddy air gap
Eddy 650 AVS2 carb
MSD blaster coil
TTI headers
Custom x pipe
Click to expand...
Need more specs on cam then just lift, but my guess with a 240 ish cam is 425-450hp 425 lbs-ft
 
Sparky said:
What confuses me is if you ask the computer what each item adds in terms of estimated numbers, starting at around 320 as most mopar gurus say the 340 had stock, the numbers come out big, but not very accurate I would think. The carb question, sooo many different thoughts on this. I will be discussing carb size with my builder. Any thoughts on the carb are welcome, although I realize this has probably been beat to death here many times. Thanks Guys, spring is coming!!!!!
Click to expand...
71 340 came with 800 cfm its the fastest stock 340 should be all you need to know
your cam and heads demand more carb
 
Sparky said:
I have not been unable to find a good free PC dyno, so I will preset this question for opinions. Around 400, a little more, I think. One thing I do know, it gets up and boogies in a big way. Thank you.
340,
40 over
rotating assembly balanced
Hughes engine hydraulic roller cam 571 lift
Eddy RPM heads for roller cam
Proform 1.6:1 roller rockers, cup style adjusters
Eddy air gap
Eddy 650 AVS2 carb
MSD blaster coil
TTI headers
Custom x pipe
Click to expand...
Put up your compression and cam timing specs if you want the desktop dyno answer. I had to solder in a whole bunch of capacitors in the old pc to make it work again
 
Sparky said:
I have not been unable to find a good free PC dyno, so I will preset this question for opinions. Around 400, a little more, I think. One thing I do know, it gets up and boogies in a big way. Thank you.
340,
40 over
rotating assembly balanced
Hughes engine hydraulic roller cam 571 lift
Eddy RPM heads for roller cam
Proform 1.6:1 roller rockers, cup style adjusters
Eddy air gap
Eddy 650 AVS2 carb
MSD blaster coil
TTI headers
Custom x pipe
Click to expand...
Free and good doesn't belong in the same sentence. :poke: :lol:
 
Nothing better than a before and after *** dyno and a trip down the 1/4
 
A .571 cam means nothing, what are the specs? Cam card if you got one!

Carb is way to small, as in ridiculous.
Exhaust pipe size would help.
Cup adjusters are nice! Meaningless for HP guessing/
 
Don't get sucked into the bigger carb has to be better......While a bigger carb may make a few more outright hp [ & it may NOT.....], there is something called throttle response & drivability that needs to be considered for a street driven car. That was why Chrys used the TQ carbs with small primaries; it gave great throttle response & driving feel. The big secondaries were there for the top end.....but the 340 never used the full 800 cfm capability of those carbs in stock form.
The 383 used the same 625 cfm Carter AVS as the 340. A 1969 Super Bee with a 383 ran a 14.04 1/4mile. A 428 Ford with 715cfm Holley ran the same 14.04 1/4. Both had 3.5 rear rear ends. Another 428 Ford/715 Holley ran a 1/10 th at quicker, 13.94......but it a 3.9 axle. You would expect it to be slower with a 3.5 axle like it's stable mate.......

Sooooo, you have the 383 giving away 45 cubes to the 428 Ford & getting the same 1/4 times.....with a smaller [ & better ] carb.

All the cars were in showroom stock condition....which was the purpose of the test to compare showroom stock.
 
273 said:
Need more specs on cam then just lift, but my guess with a 240 ish cam is 425-450hp 425 lbs-ft
Click to expand...
1709589462585.jpeg


This is the cam that is in there.
 
Bewy said:
Don't get sucked into the bigger carb has to be better......While a bigger carb may make a few more outright hp [ & it may NOT.....], there is something called throttle response & drivability that needs to be considered for a street driven car. That was why Chrys used the TQ carbs with small primaries; it gave great throttle response & driving feel. The big secondaries were there for the top end.....but the 340 never used the full 800 cfm capability of those carbs in stock form.
The 383 used the same 625 cfm Carter AVS as the 340. A 1969 Super Bee with a 383 ran a 14.04 1/4mile. A 428 Ford with 715cfm Holley ran the same 14.04 1/4. Both had 3.5 rear rear ends. Another 428 Ford/715 Holley ran a 1/10 th at quicker, 13.94......but it a 3.9 axle. You would expect it to be slower with a 3.5 axle like it's stable mate.......

Sooooo, you have the 383 giving away 45 cubes to the 428 Ford & getting the same 1/4 times.....with a smaller [ & better ] carb.

All the cars were in showroom stock condition....which was the purpose of the test to compare showroom stock.
Click to expand...
The road test disagree with you 383 b-body never ran 14.0 stock unless you pushed it off a cliff
the quickest were high14s with a good driver 15.0 was avg 15.2 common
14.0 stock never

www.v8buick.com

Best Musclecar 1/4 mile times from 1960-1972

I came across this web site yesterday that lists the best 1/4 mile times for musclecars from 1960-1972 as reported by all the magazines of the day....
www.v8buick.com www.v8buick.com
 
No, dummy, 14.04 sec for a 383 Dodge Bee. Get your facts straight before you start calling people liars....

img349.jpg
 
Should add that in the text it was said:
- the 383 had 2.5" exh pipes[ 2.25" std ] & a dual pt dist. None of those are going to make a 1 sec difference with exh manifolds.
- implied in the text was that the 428 Ford [ also ran 14.04 ] had tyres that gripped with full throttle applied. None of the other cars had these tyres. Implied was that the other cars in the test had to ease out of the hole to avoid wheelspin. So the 383 might have made 13s with the Fords' tyres....
- the S/bee was about 120 lbs lighter....but also gave up 45 cu in to the 428. 3.3% v 11.7%.
 
Weight the car at a truck Weight Station or a scrap yard or some drag strips have them... and take 1/4 mile pass at a drag strip post the Weight and slip and we'll give you a pretty darn close answer...
 
Bewy said:
No, dummy, 14.04 sec for a 383 Dodge Bee. Get your facts straight before you start calling people liars....

View attachment 1716216768
Click to expand...
I Never called you a liar
Ever hear of ringer cars for tests
383 b bodys are high 14 sec car 15.0 avg 15.2 common
The fastest 383 was 14.4 with a 4spd 4.10 superbee in fact
440 cars were 13.9 13.8 you really think that test is right only 1/10 slower then several 440 b body test or the 69 m code 440@ 13.71
there is hundreds of road test showing 14.8 to 15 .2 you come up with 1 magic time vs the other 50 test
Oh and the exhaust was bigger but nothing else was changed lmfao
You should know better
Invalid test try again
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top