414 Dyno results: Missed combo?

-
Killer6 said:
The CFM per RPM was dropping quickly by the time it crossed 4K, not enough cam for big HP numbers, & I woulda opted for 1.6 rockers Myself at least on the intakes.
I agree w/longarm, I'd like to see a 650DP pull, and the torque curve.
Click to expand...

I agree, these heads don't really get with the program 'till .600". A 650 would make the dynos job a little harder at the bottom. J.Rob
 
rumblefish360 said:
Perfect engine for my "Towing Dakota."
Tow the race car to the track, tow what it ate off the track.... race around town with it.
Click to expand...

Rumble, I did
Pascamp said:
My guess here(from reading his previous posts) is that he knows exactly what the hell he's doing. I'll wait for the punchline before I tell him how to do his job.
Click to expand...

Love the vote of confidence but I am learning just like you. J.Rob
 
iw378 said:
Well ?
Click to expand...

The majority of FABO was right on the $$$. But I don't blame the cam even 40-60%. J.Rob

414Camcard.jpg
 
MOPAROFFICIAL said:
Also notice those 1 5/8 - 3" headmans holding their own through 500 Hp/tq with 4" arm and the small lift cam.

I'm not surprised, actually, saw this with my own 410.
Thank you RAMM for another very interesting and light shedding post. I always enjoy reading your stuff, always relevant and reaffirming.
Click to expand...

I don't fluff stuff up--I'm like Trump--BS serves NOBODY. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, If I'm right-you know the rest. Oh and thankyou. J.Rob
 
moper said:
Something's making the intake side struggle more than it should have to. I look forward to seeing the cam card.[/QUOTE
Agreed, I am kind of confounded by this. I have observed 580 HP @ 417 ci @ 10.5 comp with these heads. But diff lift, carb, cam , etc..... J.Rob
Click to expand...
 
So now that we've seen the cam card... was it your choice to pick the Crane camshaft or did a possible customer supply it?
 
Why not try retarding the cam to 110-112 icl and maybe 1.6 rockers on the intake to reach your goal?
 
How much for a set of heads like those....in Canadian pesos? You can PM the price if you don't want to post it. Thanks
 
MOPAROFFICIAL said:
*Notice the 30-31 degrees of timing*
Click to expand...

This Is noteworthy. Timing was way too advanced. I dropped timing because I kneq
RAMM said:
'
Pretty impressive I thought 15.5- 16" idle was good.This engine was slated for someone-J.Rob
Click to expand...

I
stixx said:
So now that we've seen the cam card... was it your choice to pick the Crane camshaft or did a possible customer supply it?
Click to expand...

The cam choice was all mine based on real driveability and a relatively high comp ratio. This engine would actually make a great "crate" style engine--23 dyno tests, all rapid and pretty much back to back and repeatable.
joec said:
Why not try retarding the cam to 110-112 icl and maybe 1.6 rockers on the intake to reach your goal?
Click to expand...

Retarding the cam has never worked for me, all it has ever done has killed power everywhere. J.Rob
 
Here's a screenshot @ idle. Idle RPM was actually 1000-1040--not sure why the picture shows different. Either way when settled @ 800-900 rpm it was 15.5-16" manifold vacuum. J.Rob

414Idle.jpg
 
Very cool dude. Thanks for sharing this with us.
 
I think sometimes when a cam is on the small side putting it in straight up helps everywhere . This is only on the few i have seen that were undercammmed(im no expert).Actually I have seen less hp from the rocker change than moving the cam around.
 
Given we don't have the full flow test including the test bore used... My take... The combination of a 300cfm head, 1.5 ratio rockers, 2.08 intake valve on the 4.03 bore, and cam with (very) limited lift are all adding up to what I see as a dip in the ability of the intake tract to properly feed the engine at WOT as the rpms climb. Valve shrouding does have an impact, especially at low lift. If the heads flow well at higher lift there's usually a sacrifice in off-the-seat and low lift ranges. Then the intake valve is opened against the cylinder wall and not far enough to really let the unshrouded areas make up for it. It's making "good power" as it sits on the dyno and not knowing anything else about the intended use or owner. Given the numbers produced for them it's probably going to be fine. In my opinion I think the heads and camshaft choices could have been a better fit in this case due to the bore size but my truck doesn't rev over 4K even when I'm using it hard so the question of "does it matter" comes into play.
 
moper said:
Given we don't have the full flow test including the test bore used... My take... The combination of a 300cfm head, 1.5 ratio rockers, 2.08 intake valve on the 4.03 bore, and cam with (very) limited lift are all adding up to what I see as a dip in the ability of the intake tract to properly feed the engine at WOT as the rpms climb. Valve shrouding does have an impact, especially at low lift. If the heads flow well at higher lift there's usually a sacrifice in off-the-seat and low lift ranges. Then the intake valve is opened against the cylinder wall and not far enough to really let the unshrouded areas make up for it. It's making "good power" as it sits on the dyno and not knowing anything else about the intended use or owner. Given the numbers produced for them it's probably going to be fine. In my opinion I think the heads and camshaft choices could have been a better fit in this case due to the bore size but my truck doesn't rev over 4K even when I'm using it hard so the question of "does it matter" comes into play.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with your entire statement here. These heads are somewhat of a waste on this engine. They had very good flow all throughout the curve---241-242 @ .400" , 275-280 @ .500" I remember. Problem is if I put any less cylinder head on it I know power will fall off--I've done these 4" arms enough. Look at Enginemasters TV--they made a whopping 431HP and 479 tq with stock Eddy's on a 408--which is spot on. I'm really looking at the intake and cam as they are not really getting along the way I thought they would. With that being said I am about 20HP off from my unspoken guess so I doubt I will tear into it--but..... J.Rob
 
I took the opportunity to do some really rare and cool air cleaner testing with this engine it was so consistent. A friend of mine is obsessed with finding more efficiency with his small Chevy and purchased the entire R2C air cleaner set with interchangeable center sections--like the old K&N stub stack. Yes I flow tested all of them and of course the highest flowing assembly did NOT result in the most power. J.Rob



R2C1.5open.jpg


R2C1.5open.jpg
 
Until yesterday I have never seen an air cleaner assembly match or beat the air turbine which is essentially a velocity stack. Usually an air cleaner will knock 6-10 HP off. We tried all sorts of combos just minutes apart. This 4 hole deal was the worst-which did flow a lot less than a bare carb. J.Rob

4holeR2C.jpg
 
RAMM, what is the engine going in?

IMO, if the car is heavy, (normal car weight and loaded from the factory) and the owner just wants a powerful reliable daily driver, this engine fits the bill real nice I think.

It still has tons of head room for growth and that's not a bad thing. Taking maximum advantage is t allways the goal and nor should it be.

As I mentioned earlier, this would be a smokin kick *** engine in a small Dakota truck or even in a well equipped A body.

Oh! How did a stub stack do?
 
This raised 2" insert from R2C actually hurt on the flowbench. Was I ever surprised when it equalled and even beat the dyno hat! J.Rob
rumblefish360 said:
RAMM, what is the engine going in?

IMO, if the car is heavy, (normal car weight and loaded from the factory) and the owner just wants a powerful reliable daily driver, this engine fits the bill real nice I think.

It still has tons of head room for growth and that's not a bad thing. Taking maximum advantage is t allways the goal and nor should it be.

As I mentioned earlier, this would be a smokin kick *** engine in a small Dakota truck or even in a well equipped A body.

Oh! How did a stub stack do?
Click to expand...

Totally agree with you Rumble-this engine was designed to be SUPER driveable with tons of TQ. It starts at the touch of the starter button, idles excellent even after yanking the throttle back after a full WOT dyno pull. You never have to play with or tickle the throttle ever. It does meet the criteria in that respect, I'm just a little surprised it didn't reach 500HP and RPM better. I wish I had some 1.6 rockers to test with. Who knows if it would help? I sure don't know. J.Rob
 
RAMM said:
Until yesterday I have never seen an air cleaner assembly match or beat the air turbine which is essentially a velocity stack. Usually an air cleaner will knock 6-10 HP off. We tried all sorts of combos just minutes apart. This 4 hole deal was the worst-which did flow a lot less than a bare carb. J.Rob
View attachment 1715019275
Click to expand...

I played with one of those stub stacks, i put it back on the shelf to collect dust. I think the idea was good but maybe not quite dialed yet "15 years ago..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top