'Pop's Engine' another 440 on the dyno.

-
I see a lot of you in your Pop after reading that article. Like they say, apple dont fall far from the tree.

With the small valve heads, thats a great street slammer. Good idle, nice torque curve. Now all you have to do is get the compression up, the quench down and make more power with less fuel LOL

the truck would have loved that engine.
 
Outstanding article!!!
You sure do make the old man proud!

I really love the fact you guys are making
astounding torque and power with minimal
compression and valve/ cam size.

Do you document fuel usage during your dyno pulls?
And later when you perfect these engines, do you think
it would be possible to test oil additives to see if there
are any gains to be had.
Slick 50/Seafoam/Marvel and oil/fuel additive type stuff.
I'd like to know your opinions on these products and
their effectiveness.
 
MRL Performance said:
I see a lot of you in your Pop after reading that article. Like they say, apple dont fall far from the tree.

With the small valve heads, thats a great street slammer. Good idle, nice torque curve. Now all you have to do is get the compression up, the quench down and make more power with less fuel LOL

the truck would have loved that engine.
Click to expand...

Yep Mike, with those things the engine would be more efficient.

What we've been able to establish with the 7.8:1 440 and this 8.9:1 engine is that higher compression isn't absolutely necessary to make pretty good power. You can make an engine with a lot of parts you just have laying around. Of course if you build a new engine designed with specific parts you'll really have something. After this mornings runs the heads will be removed and we'll make some modifications to them and perhaps dyno some more tomorrow.

longarm said:
Outstanding article!!!
You sure do make the old man proud!

I really love the fact you guys are making
astounding torque and power with minimal
compression and valve/ cam size.

Do you document fuel usage during your dyno pulls?
And later when you perfect these engines, do you think
it would be possible to test oil additives to see if there
are any gains to be had.
Slick 50/Seafoam/Marvel and oil/fuel additive type stuff.
I'd like to know your opinions on these products and
their effectiveness.
Click to expand...

We have a lot of data from the pulls including fuel usage, bsfc, egt and fluid temperatures that I generally don't publish. We do keep the water 175-180 degrees and the oil temps to around 155-160 for the pulls.

These trials are specifically to test some of our cylinder head theories but of course there is a possibility of oil, intake manifold and other tests.
 
Yup low compression is not always a bad thing. My 360 Classic Cruisers are 8.9-9.1 to 1 and they are putting out 380HP 410TQ with some very mild ported smog heads. Cam choice is paramount, and with the cams we have today no reason to use cam tech from 40 years ago. Just by stabbing a Comp XE or a Lunati Voodoo in a old engine will make a HUGE improvement.

I was just bustin yer balls on the compression/quench
 
IQ52 said:
Yep Mike, with those things the engine would be more efficient.

What we've been able to establish with the 7.8:1 440 and this 8.9:1 engine is that higher compression isn't absolutely necessary to make pretty good power. You can make an engine with a lot of parts you just have laying around. Of course if you build a new engine designed with specific parts you'll really have something. After this mornings runs the heads will be removed and we'll make some modifications to them and perhaps dyno some more tomorrow.



We have a lot of data from the pulls including fuel usage, bsfc, egt and fluid temperatures that I generally don't publish. We do keep the water 175-180 degrees and the oil temps to around 155-160 for the pulls.

These trials are specifically to test some of our cylinder head theories but of course there is a possibility of oil, intake manifold and other tests.
Click to expand...

I am curious actually what was your BSFC? It's always interesting to see how displacement plays into that...
 
Just curious to why you keep the oil temps that cool? My engine/Dyno guy won't make a pull until there is atleast 180 degree oil temp.
 
440dartsport said:
Just curious to why you keep the oil temps that cool? My engine/Dyno guy won't make a pull until there is atleast 180 degree oil temp.
Click to expand...

Right now it's a time and fuel issue. It takes so long to get the oil up to 180 degrees I don't want to waste the time and burn the fuel to do it. We're actually cheating ourselves on power because if we did take the oil to 180 we would get a higher horsepower reading. Some people get the oil to 220 degrees and keep the engine at 120 just to fudge the power level higher.
 
You're right Jim, it does take some time to get the oil temp to 180. I was just curious to see how critical it was.
 
Made some changes to the heads yesterday and the flowbench said we were fooling ourselves. Hey, we did make one more horsepower this morning.
 
Sometimes, that's the way it goes. Tweaking another professional's work,can do that occasionally. Frustrating, it can be. Best of luck.
 
440dartsport said:
You're right Jim, it does take some time to get the oil temp to 180. I was just curious to see how critical it was.
Click to expand...


There may have been some other factors involved, but his morning we started two back to back pulls without changes.

The oil started at 155 degrees the first pull and 159 degrees the second and there was a 9 HP difference. Changed spark plug wires and made two more pulls starting with the oil at 160 degrees and then 166 degrees and we saw an 11 HP difference.

Is that conclusive? I don't know. It's only four pulls. Maybe I'll keep better track from now on.
 
Abodybomber said:
Sometimes, that's the way it goes. Tweaking another professional's work,can do that occasionally. Frustrating, it can be. Best of luck.
Click to expand...

Just incase there is a misunderstanding here, we're tweaking our own work. The 346 heads are our's and our's alone. Hopefully there'll be some big changes once we start increasing the valve size.

I wish we were running a bigger cam right now, because this afternoon Cody pushed the 346 heads into the 280 cfm range @ .600" lift and 290 cfm range @ .700", with the stock 2.08" valves.
 
IQ52, can you get the same type/like results from '78, 452 heads? I do believe these are on my 400 B engine. How does the overall curve look?
 
rumblefish360 said:
IQ52, can you get the same type/like results from '78, 452 heads? I do believe these are on my 400 B engine. How does the overall curve look?
Click to expand...

Yes, the 452 heads should be on a '78 400. You can get the same flows from the 452 as the 346, I think. This is the first time we have ported the 346 heads and are far from finished. We've looked at the two heads and thought they looked almost the same but have not laid a burr to the 346 before. Refer to the first page of this thread for the flow from the 346. Some of the differences as we work them over will not be recorded in this thread. Cody has asked for privacy on some of our work as we test these things. I will respect my son's wishes.

These flows are from a 452 ported years ago by me (Cody is better than I am) with OOTB flows on our flowbench of an Edelbrock RPM head as a baseline. The 452 was using 11/32 guides and an Edelbrock 2.14 intake valve.

Lift...............RPM...............452

.100...............73.................92
.200..............148...............170
.300..............209...............224
.400..............254...............265
.500..............276...............287
.600..............287...............297
.700..............291...............302
 
IQ52 said:
Just incase there is a misunderstanding here, we're tweaking our own work. The 346 heads are our's and our's alone. Hopefully there'll be some big changes once we start increasing the valve size.

I wish we were running a bigger cam right now, because this afternoon Cody pushed the 346 heads into the 280 cfm range @ .600" lift and 290 cfm range @ .700", with the stock 2.08" valves.
Click to expand...

Yes there was ,on my part,sorry. .Those flow numbers,honk! The guy I know,has tipped that number,with a 2.14 intake valve. (years ago....)
 
Those lifts in the .100- .300 range look excellent considering the valve size. Beats my Indy CNC's!
 
Abodybomber said:
Yes there was ,on my part,sorry. .Those flow numbers,honk! The guy I know,has tipped that number,with a 2.14 intake valve. (years ago....)
Click to expand...


So did I. 288 @ .600, 2.14 valve on a 4.25 bore back in 2000. That's why I like the 346s the most of all of them.
 
So #1 we put the 346 heads back on with the increased flow using the Performer RPM manifold as before.
#2 swapped manifolds to a Torker II
#3 swapped manifolds again to a single plane M1
#4 installed a 2" Super Sucker 4 into 1 spacer on the M1.

RPM.............#1 TQ/HP.......#2 TQ/HP.......#3 TQ/HP.......#4 TQ/HP

3100...............444/262.........416/246.........423/249..........439/259
3300...............478/300.........447/281.........452/284..........467/294
3500...............496/330.........481/321.........480/320..........488/325
3700..............500/352.........488/344.........487/343..........502/353
3900...............486/361.........476/353.........485/360..........490/364
4100...............482/376.........464/362.........477/373..........487/380
4300...............485/397.........470/385.........488/399..........494/404
4500...............484/415.........489/419.........503/431.........514/441
4700...............476/426.........487/436.........490/439..........509/456
4900...............485/452........503/469.........504/471.........512/478
5100...............478/464.........485/471.........493/478..........502/488
5300...............486/490.........495/499.........499/503..........510/515
5400...............485/498........490/503.........493/507.........505/519
5500...............474/496.........475/497.........482/505..........495/519
5600...............437/466.........463/493.........469/500..........480/511
 
Just curious, what is the lowest rpm
that you can generate numbers from?
If you could I'd be interested to see
what the numbers are in normal driving rpm range.
 
#1 we pulled down to 2500. Haven't tried lower.

2500.........373 TQ/177 HP
2600.........382/189
2700.........383/197
2800.........389/207
2900.........400/221
3000.........434/248
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top