600HP 408 with no quench ???

-
When was the law passed that said you had to have quench to make power? When was the law passed that said you had to have quench to not detonate?
 
Says in the dropdown on the first picture that it's the smallest Crane in the catalog. That would make it the #698521.

[ame]http://www.cranecams.com/162-163.pdf[/ame]

After "Franken's" issues, I don't know what to think anymore...smh.
 
RustyRatRod said:
When was the law passed that said you had to have quench to make power? When was the law passed that said you had to have quench to not detonate?
Click to expand...


With a tunnel ram, a really good set of heads (W2s that flow 3oo at .500), that cam with 1.6s, and Westec's standard fluff factor - that's a perfectly acceptible number to me. Aluminum heads, low static - no problem with pump super.
 
Bingo ding ding ding ding ding!!!!!!
 
moper said:
With a tunnel ram, a really good set of heads (W2s that flow 3oo at .500), that cam with 1.6s, and Westec's standard fluff factor - that's a perfectly acceptible number to me. Aluminum heads, low static - no problem with pump super.
Click to expand...

Did they make an aluminum W2 head? Every one we ran in NASCAR in the 70's was iron.

Fluff factor? Well I ran on that Westech dyno in 2007/8, better yet, I now own that very dyno, and I can tell you there was/is no fluff factor in it.
 
Diamonds and Batten made aluminum w2 heads...in fact I was looking at a set on Tuesday morning ...but they have been out of production of decades...
 
Okay thanks. I haven't read the entire article nor the previous one, but from the pictures they look like the iron W2 econo's.
 
They ARE iron W2's and the article clearly says that they will retest with the lower compression as it can be an entire article in and of itself. The results you see are at 11+ compression not the 10.4. I have not seen the lower compression results myself. That is an old article. Steve Dulcich built a much cooler 340 stock stroke with W2's that made 596 hp with a tunnel ram around that same time. Awesome engine. This engine made me go and buy my first set of W2's--Yes they are that good. J.Rob
 
RAMM said:
They ARE iron W2's and the article clearly says that they will retest with the lower compression as it can be an entire article in and of itself. The results you see are at 11+ compression not the 10.4. I have not seen the lower compression results myself. That is an old article. Steve Dulcich built a much cooler 340 stock stroke with W2's that made 596 hp with a tunnel ram around that same time. Awesome engine. This engine made me go and buy my first set of W2's--Yes they are that good. J.Rob
Click to expand...

Right from the Article

In the meantime, we just jacked up the chamber volume by 9ccs with a head gasket change, dropping the ratio to 10.4:1. At that ratio, it's a pump-gas engine in anyone's book. We'd run it this way as a base, and later change the combo for more exotic thermal and pressure management.
 
MRL Performance said:
Right from the Article

In the meantime, we just jacked up the chamber volume by 9ccs with a head gasket change, dropping the ratio to 10.4:1. At that ratio, it's a pump-gas engine in anyone's book. We'd run it this way as a base, and later change the combo for more exotic thermal and pressure management.
Click to expand...

This is future tense. They did not run it at 10.4 I don't think. I will ask Steve next time I speak with him. Although reading from the beginning of the article it does say:

"We already knew it had to be a serious combo, even though we changed one specification and dialed the compression back from our original plan of 11.7:1 to a pump-gas friendly 10.4:1 (see sidebar: Compression Quandary).

I stand corrected and must read from the beginning. J.Rob
 
If it is the same motor that I remember, he blew the bottom end out of it when one of the Eagle SIR I beam rods let go.

And it was a multiple article build, that was just the "pay-off" article, so if you want more detailed info you'd have to find the rest of the articles.
 
...and I don't see how they say 10.4:1 is a pump gas motor in anyone's book. That's just not true. It CAN be, but not every time.
 
That is a unfair and bad comparison between the 318 & the HEMI. The combustion chambers are worlds apart. But I agree, quench is often hyp'd up pretty good. While it does add a few nice things to the engine and power, it is not a must.
 
Quench means a lot on 2 strokes. Not enough and they double fire at higher RPM's. I have played with methanol 2 strokes for a long time. You can create a bubble with low quench. I fought this for a while until I figured it out. Gettng the quench to work with the power jet flow was the trick to extreme high RPM power band. Makes the spectators sort of cringe when it goes by on the straights. The rpm's climb so fast it sounds like a grenade with the pin pulled.
 
Its a magazine article. You all know they are FOS right?:D

It is also OVER the blocks limit, they would never do that! Lol
 
RustyRatRod said:
...and I don't see how they say 10.4:1 is a pump gas motor in anyone's book. That's just not true. It CAN be, but not every time.
Click to expand...

not all that uncomon realy with 10.4:1 compression on pumpgas,just needs a bit of cam and it will work fine.
the first version of my 340 ran fine on pumpgas with alitle over 11:1 compression with a solid roller with similar duration that i suspect the W2 motor in that article uses,its not realy rocket science.
 
Ok - so they are iron.. Still not a big deal IMO. There's enough cam and head for it and I personally don't feel detonation would be a problem on pump high test so what's the big deal?
I am a believer and user of quench theory. It works for me and many manufacturers. It doesn't need to be used in hemis. The plug is in the center and by virtue of the chamber shape and piston top it pushes everything towards it anyway. It's part of the reason Hemis have such a good reputation.
As far as Westec's dyno - It's not the brand - it's the setup and operation and you know that. It's very difficult to get a dyno to be repeatable. The reason is the conversion and sampling rates - which differ by manufacturer and software. It's not a big deal and it's not an attack on Westec or any brand or even operator. Sorry if it was recieved that way.
 
Hebrews10:26 said:
flow is more important than quench. thats my point.
Click to expand...

I agree though a nicely build engine with a good quench set up inside that cylinder is nice. I build my small blocks this way. (Or when possible)
My current Edelbrock headed 360 @ .030 overbored and a zero deck night slugs.

The last cam I had in it was the Purple Hyd. 292/.509, current cam is a Comp solid @ 248 & .050 .525 lift. (I think this one is gonna get pulled out later)
Runs fine on 93. The cam size has a bit to do with it.
 
1Fast340 said:
not all that uncomon realy with 10.4:1 compression on pumpgas,just needs a bit of cam and it will work fine.
the first version of my 340 ran fine on pumpgas with alitle over 11:1 compression with a solid roller with similar duration that i suspect the W2 motor in that article uses,its not realy rocket science.
Click to expand...

I know what it needs and how to do it. But for a car rag to throw out statements like that without clarification is stupid. Makes people think they can whoop up a 10.5 motor and all is well. It's not that simple and they should have said that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top