ATK 408 Short Block

[Frodee]

Thats how you want flat torque all the and fast rising hp nice! Thats the Blueprint right?

Yes and looking for Johnny Mac's phone # so you can talk to him and get more info.

 

[63Dart170]

What do the heads have printed on them? I assume Edlebrock but can’t quite tell? Is it a modified head? Do you know who makes the lifters/rockers?

Edelbrock heads. I don't know about the lifters and rockers.

 

[63Dart170]

Is that gooseneck a blueprint part or something you bought aftermarket?
That would be useful to me if anyone knows who makes it

Not sure what you mean by gooseneck.

(edit) I take it you mean the thermostat housing with the riser. That came from Blueprint.

 

[4eighteener]

Not sure what you mean by gooseneck.

(edit) I take it you mean the thermostat housing with the riser. That came from Blueprint.

Excuse the 70's vernacular
Perhaps thermostat housing, or coolant outlet neck would be more precise, since gooseneck describes a bend, which yours does not have.

 

[NC Engine Builder]

Is that gooseneck a blueprint part or something you bought aftermarket?
That would be useful to me if anyone knows who makes it

That's simply a stock water neck for a magnum 5.2 or 5.9

 

[4eighteener]

That's simply a stock water neck for a magnum 5.2 or 5.9

It looks like it might allow the hose to clear a top mounted ac compressor and a centrally located thermostat housing on most intake manifolds

 

[NC Engine Builder]

It looks like it might allow the hose to clear a top mounted ac compressor and a centrally located thermostat housing on most intake manifolds

I think that's why it's made that way. Magnum engines have the compressor right up top, it gets the hose up high enough to get to the clamp.

 

[mopowers]

Edelbrock heads. I don't know about the lifters and rockers.

I was told the rockers are Elgin. No idea on the lifters. You'd have to call and ask.

 

[Newbomb Turk]

This is mine on the dyno from blueprint

View attachment 1716494134

Interesting. Blueprint uses a different correction factor.

Off the top of my head without looking them up, the CF they use will show lower corrected power than if they used the STP correction factor

 

[Newbomb Turk]

I think that's why it's made that way. Magnum engines have the compressor right up top, it gets the hose up high enough to get to the clamp.

Not to derail this thread but…how is your dyno coming?

I’m sure I’m not the only one interested.

 

[Frodee]

Interesting. Blueprint uses a different correction factor.

Off the top of my head without looking them up, the CF they use will show lower corrected power than if they used the STP correction factor

I'm no mechanic just a simple body man Newbomb. Could you explain that to me please.

 

[Newbomb Turk]

I'm no mechanic just a simple body man Newbomb. Could you explain that to me please.

There are several different correction factors people use.

The most common is what I use and that’s the SAE J607 which corrects the observed power from the dyno (the actual power the engine makes on that day at that time with those conditions.

The correction factor then takes the observed numbers and “corrects” them to whatever factor you are using.

For example, I use the above CF which corrects the observed numbers to 60 degrees, 29.92 barometer and zero humidity. I call those Disney Land conditions.

But, I can drive about 3.5 hours from here and in the spring and fall I can get those conditions and better.

They roughly convert to a density altitude of about 100 feet.

The CF that Blueprint is using converts the observed numbers to a higher temperature, lower barometer and higher humidity.

The exact numbers I would need to look up but their corrected number will be lower than my corrected numbers for the same observed numbers.

Damn that’s a horrible picture. If you look at the bottom right corner you will see my current readings. Some of them anyway.

You can see the actual density altitude is 1672 feet and the correction factor is 1.059. That means that my corrected numbers (if I were making a pull but today I’m developing a timing curve so ignore the unzero’d torque number) will be 5.9% HIGHER than whatever the observed number is.

On Monday my CF was 3.3% and for where I’m at that is smoking good.

In the summer I’ve seen the CF be as high as 13%.

And that is exactly what the correction factor is for. It allows me to test year around and using the corrected numbers I can tell if any changes or upgrades I made actually made power. Or lost power.

If we just used the observed numbers then any pulls I made on Monday would be about 2% higher than today so I’d be losing power from the conditions and I’d never know if I made 10 ho or lost 30.

That’s why you use a CF. As long as you use the same dyno and he uses the same CF every time you can trust those numbers. At least as far as if it made or lost power.

I watched a video the other day of something Just Mopar Joe had on a dyno.

The CF that day was MINUS about 3%!!! So the correction factor was LOWERING the corrected numbers back to STP correction. I believe that is the CF that dyno is using.

It’s not that Blueprint is wrong using the CF they do. In fact I can make the argument that for the customer base they have (I’m not knocking their customers at all, I’m just saying most guys buying from Blueprint want to drop in a tested engine and go) that using a CF other than STP is better.

It shows a lower corrected number and the engine in the chassis is more likely to make power much closer to what their dyno sheet says than if they used the STP CF.

That saves them a ton of phone calls and things like that.

So good on them for doing it and putting it on the dyno sheet so guys know what they are getting.

 

[Frodee]

There are several different correction factors people use.

The most common is what I use and that’s the SAE J607 which corrects the observed power from the dyno (the actual power the engine makes on that day at that time with those conditions.

The correction factor then takes the observed numbers and “corrects” them to whatever factor you are using.

For example, I use the above CF which corrects the observed numbers to 60 degrees, 29.92 barometer and zero humidity. I call those Disney Land conditions.

But, I can drive about 3.5 hours from here and in the spring and fall I can get those conditions and better.

They roughly convert to a density altitude of about 100 feet.

The CF that Blueprint is using converts the observed numbers to a higher temperature, lower barometer and higher humidity.

The exact numbers I would need to look up but their corrected number will be lower than my corrected numbers for the same observed numbers.


View attachment 1716494248

Damn that’s a horrible picture. If you look at the bottom right corner you will see my current readings. Some of them anyway.

You can see the actual density altitude is 1672 feet and the correction factor is 1.059. That means that my corrected numbers (if I were making a pull but today I’m developing a timing curve so ignore the unzero’d torque number) will be 5.9% HIGHER than whatever the observed number is.

On Monday my CF was 3.3% and for where I’m at that is smoking good.

In the summer I’ve seen the CF be as high as 13%.

And that is exactly what the correction factor is for. It allows me to test year around and using the corrected numbers I can tell if any changes or upgrades I made actually made power. Or lost power.

If we just used the observed numbers then any pulls I made on Monday would be about 2% higher than today so I’d be losing power from the conditions and I’d never know if I made 10 ho or lost 30.

That’s why you use a CF. As long as you use the same dyno and he uses the same CF every time you can trust those numbers. At least as far as if it made or lost power.

I watched a video the other day of something Just Mopar Joe had on a dyno.

The CF that day was MINUS about 3%!!! So the correction factor was LOWERING the corrected numbers back to STP correction. I believe that is the CF that dyno is using.

It’s not that Blueprint is wrong using the CF they do. In fact I can make the argument that for the customer base they have (I’m not knocking their customers at all, I’m just saying most guys buying from Blueprint want to drop in a tested engine and go) that using a CF other than STP is better.

It shows a lower corrected number and the engine in the chassis is more likely to make power much closer to what their dyno sheet says than if they used the STP CF.

That saves them a ton of phone calls and things like that.

So good on them for doing it and putting it on the dyno sheet so guys know what they are getting.

Wow I learned something new today and hope others watching this trend have also.
Thank you for explaining that Sir. I had no idea of the amount of work involved.

 

[junkyardhero]

It’s not that Blueprint is wrong using the CF they do. In fact I can make the argument that for the customer base they have (I’m not knocking their customers at all, I’m just saying most guys buying from Blueprint want to drop in a tested engine and go) that using a CF other than STP is better.

It shows a lower corrected number and the engine in the chassis is more likely to make power much closer to what their dyno sheet says than if they used the STP CF.

That saves them a ton of phone calls and things like that.

So good on them for doing it and putting it on the dyno sheet so guys know what they are getting.

the old: under promise and over deliver

smort. noice.