Pump Gas Non Stroked 340, 537 Hp

-
If your starting with just a block thats a very expensive build..537 with the money spent i'd expect more..my 416 although its a stroker ran way less cam,carb,heads,intake and cranked out 520 h.p....
 
Yeh but you have 70 odd cubes more...
Youd expect that.

Did it say how much money was spent?
i dont recall seeing it.
my short term mem,is shithouse lol.
 
It talks about how they need to make a cheep engine but it doesn't talk about how much it cost. I would like to know.
 
Lots of nice parts, I would guess that the price would be some where around $6,500.00 total for the engine, and it very well maybe more. I know they went after durability and thats what the crank, rods, and pistons were for. But being for a street engine I think that it may be a bit of over kill, from the carb to the pan.

I too think that it would have made more TQ. with a smaller runner, and with smaller valves as cylinder filling efficentcy would increase. We just tried this with a set of canfield heads with a 2.10 and a set of SVO 302 heads with a 2.02 valve and the filling efficientcy of the canfields were 90 % and the smaller valve of the SVO 302 head was 92%. We even tried this with a 1.94 valve size, and it was 91%. But keep in mind that this was on a Ford engine with a high piston speed and long stroke. The canfield head was a 210 cc runner and the SVO was a 180 cc runner. This just go's to show that the smaller runners have more velocity and better cylinder filling capabilities, with smaller valves.

But back to the artical, I could see where the cost could come down some. And maybe a change of heads to something smaller, as I noticed that the HP at lower rpm's went up then down before it came back to make peak HP @ 6,200 rpm's. To me this shows the port being too large and a loss of port velocity when the valves are in the overlap position. But this could be cured by changing the centerlines and valve timing, then the use of the larger ports may be a advantage, but I don't think so with such a small CI engine. To me this engine would be over headed. I would think that the engine would have made more with a 190 cc head, or maybe even something smaller. Basically the 349 engine would get you the same results or better with less cost. I believe that you could do this kind of HP and TQ for somewhere around $4,500.00 or a bit more. But this IMO.
 
So if you did about the same and stroked it it would be about a 600 lbs beast, and have a lot more low end torque too.


That is very good power for a non stroker, but keep in mind you need to spin that baby fairly decent right, so life span may be and should be considered too.
 
I'm willing to guess it cost upwards of $9k to build that motor from scratch...
 
BJR Racing said:
Lots of nice parts, I would guess that the price would be some where around $6,500.00 total for the engine, and it very well maybe more. I know they went after durability and thats what the crank, rods, and pistons were for. But being for a street engine I think that it may be a bit of over kill, from the carb to the pan.

I too think that it would have made more TQ. with a smaller runner, and with smaller valves as cylinder filling efficentcy would increase. We just tried this with a set of canfield heads with a 2.10 and a set of SVO 302 heads with a 2.02 valve and the filling efficientcy of the canfields were 90 % and the smaller valve of the SVO 302 head was 92%. We even tried this with a 1.94 valve size, and it was 91%. But keep in mind that this was on a Ford engine with a high piston speed and long stroke. The canfield head was a 210 cc runner and the SVO was a 180 cc runner. This just go's to show that the smaller runners have more velocity and better cylinder filling capabilities, with smaller valves.

But back to the artical, I could see where the cost could come down some. And maybe a change of heads to something smaller, as I noticed that the HP at lower rpm's went up then down before it came back to make peak HP @ 6,200 rpm's. To me this shows the port being too large and a loss of port velocity when the valves are in the overlap position. But this could be cured by changing the centerlines and valve timing, then the use of the larger ports may be a advantage, but I don't think so with such a small CI engine. To me this engine would be over headed. I would think that the engine would have made more with a 190 cc head, or maybe even something smaller. Basically the 349 engine would get you the same results or better with less cost. I believe that you could do this kind of HP and TQ for somewhere around $4,500.00 or a bit more. But this IMO.
Click to expand...

Always apreciate your opinion bobby.
You really know your stuff!
 
I would expect to spend at least $9K on that build. The block prep (bushed lifter bores, align honing, plus the ususal stuff..) the parts (new crank, new rods, good pistons, the top end is $3K without any porting), and the head work... That's a pricey 340. It makes good power over all, but the whole package makes it do it at a higher rpm. I would not expect that engine to win a contest like EM that needs a strong average number. It's too peaky. Plus, the 420lbs open on a flat tappet... that isnt going to idle much if you actually put it in a car. I agree the intake valve is too large, especially with the 1.8 rocker on the intake. I'd be interested to see what the burn patterns on the pistons were and how much reduction came in the bowl area. Do they post the BSFCs and % efficiency on it anywhere else?
 
That's another big buck build. Like Moper says, I couldn't duplicate it for under 9K in this area due to the price of machining.

I also don't think that this engine would last very long as a daily driver with the low tension rings and high valve spring pressures, nor would it be very fun to drive with 1050 Dominator, but it would be fun on the strip with a torque converter loose enough to get over that odd dip in torque from 3000-4000 rpm. I'd imagine that would feel pretty funky when it was actually driven in a car. It seems odd that the article mentions that removing "X" amount of port volume did not hurt flow. That doesn't seem to be good for Indy and their CNC programs and seems to indicate dead air space.

Interesting point BJR in regards to associating the large valves with the torque dip. I would've thought it had something to do with the huge w-2 intake manifold combined with a 4 hole spacer. I was thinking that there was some type of pressure wave interference going on here. What's your take on my theory?

I was under the impression that the whole intake system from the carb on down to the valve should act as a funnel to increase velocity. It seems that this guy's mods throughout the intake system defeat this and may be the cause of the weird torque curve. There's no doubt that he got a lot of power out of his combo, but I think there's more than one way to skin a cat and it could be done cheaper and more efficiently with ported eddy heads, 108 LSA solid roller, 1.6 rockers, eddy victor, KB hyperutectics, Eagle H-beams, factory crank, Holley 850 HP. I bet it would get close (within 30 hp) and be easier to drive on the street although it still wouldn't be a daily driver getting 18 mpg.

Edit: Main caps 2, 3 and 4 don't look like stock pieces to me either.
 
The dip may have more to do with the fuel type than the intake and port. The dynamic ratio calculated by PipeMax is 9.3:1. That's kind of high for pump fuel. He even notes he thinks the fuel was limiting the low end pressure when they were trying to advance the cam and bring that number up. Th epower drops because the engine is detonating. That's why I'm interested in the burn pattern and BSFCs.
 
Shouldn't cyl. pressure be highest (chance of detonation the highest) at the torque peak?

The peak is way up around 5200 rpm vs. the 3K to 4k it's possibly detonating at. I'm running 10.2:1 with KB flat tops 213/220 and a 112 LSA with open chamber iron heads!! Of course my altitude has a lot to do with it though and my DCR is 8.981.

BTW, where did you get the intake valve closing point for that cam he's using? I plugged in some numbers of cams that have similar duration and LSA and come up about 8.6-8.7 DCR.
 
I love it when yous guys get into the tech talk. lol

If it wouldnt be any good on the street as a daily driver
due to low tension rings etc, to me its just another
boat anchor. Thats why i like posting these engine builds,
theres always more than meets the eye when you read about it.
An then i get the downlow from yous guys.
 
I like how hotrod mag says there's no proof 1 way or the other about what affect rod ratios can have on performance then points out that long rods pull harder/longer on the heads.
here's the
...Regardless of any Internet jabber about rod-to-stroke ratio, in reality, there is little proof one way or the other that the rod does little more than connect the piston to the crank. In some cases, a long rod might act as a crutch for poor cylinder heads [end quote]





btw hotrod it's called dwell time or how long the pistons at TDC, yes there's proof.
Click to expand...
 
1wild&crazyguy said:
I like how hotrod mag says there's no proof 1 way or the other about what affect rod ratios can have on performance then points out that long rods pull harder/longer on the heads.
here's the
...Regardless of any Internet jabber about rod-to-stroke ratio, in reality, there is little proof one way or the other that the rod does little more than connect the piston to the crank. In some cases, a long rod might act as a crutch for poor cylinder heads [end quote]





btw hotrod it's called dwell time or how long the pistons at TDC, yes there's proof.
Click to expand...

But then what do you expect from a mag. thats mostly Chevy, and Ford?
Click to expand...
 
They also say that all the Chrysler engineers must've been watching the Ramchargers race due to the lifter angles and it's amazing the engine didn't blow-up on the dyno. What a bunch of peckerheads. Then they say that the high cam tunnel is the cause of the lifter angle. NOT, it's a carryover from the poly 318. Then they show a R block with 45 deg. lifters and the same cam tunnel height!
 
ramcharger said:
They also say that all the Chrysler engineers must've been watching the Ramchargers race due to the lifter angles and it's amazing the engine didn't blow-up on the dyno. What a bunch of peckerheads. Then they say that the high cam tunnel is the cause of the lifter angle. NOT, it's a carryover from the poly 318. Then they show a R block with 45 deg. lifters and the same cam tunnel height!
Click to expand...

no sheeet huh,lol
 
Ram, the program only estimates. No more, no less. It's no better than anythign else taht runs these hypotheticals..lol It uses the duration at .050 and lift, plus the LSA which in this case, I took an public-school-educated guess on. Then figures from there. I may have been of anyway. It came up with peak power higher than what the dyno showed, and that was using racey rings. The thinner rings and low or med tension oil rings are what really frees up some good numbers. These EM engines are simply dyno shows. NOthing close to reality will ever make it to a car. EM is about simple self promotion, advertising, and chest thumping, not reality.
 
moper said:
Ram, the program only estimates. No more, no less. It's no better than anythign else taht runs these hypotheticals..lol It uses the duration at .050 and lift, plus the LSA which in this case, I took an public-school-educated guess on. Then figures from there.

I was just curious moper. I've always used the DCR calculator on the KB website and it requires the intake closing point @ .050" ABDC then add 15 degrees. :) I just thought you might have found a grind/lobe number for the cam he was using.

I may have been of anyway. It came up with peak power higher than what the dyno showed, and that was using racey rings. The thinner rings and low or med tension oil rings are what really frees up some good numbers. These EM engines are simply dyno shows. NOthing close to reality will ever make it to a car. EM is about simple self promotion, advertising, and chest thumping, not reality.
Click to expand...

Yeah man, they said they could spin the engine over by hand. I gotta say WOW to that. I agree that the EM Challenge is more about bragging rights then drag racing/driveability. If someone were to have read about those challenges for more than a few years they would hear of dyno fires from excessive blow by, cams grinding themsleves to nubs from crazy lobe designs, high spring pressures and ridiculous rocker arm ratios, tuning on the hairs edge of detonation, etc.
 
lol.. no... Pipemax uses actual valve lift, duration at .050, degreed centerline, and cam Lobe Seperation Angle to extrapolate e symmetrical lobe. Then it applies that curve to the crankshaft degrees and gets a number. So it's a figure based off a generalization, like all these programs. But, it's a fun thing to play with sometimes. I use the KB site for quickie calculations too. That uses a generalization for the "plus 15°" so again, it's a tool not bible. The inetersting thing is if the lobes spec'd were assymetric, and I'd bet they were... then it should have had MORE cylinder pressure than the 9.5... And probably more oil contamination of the chamber too.
 
moper said:
The inetersting thing is if the lobes spec'd were assymetric, and I'd bet they were... then it should have had MORE cylinder pressure than the 9.5... And probably more oil contamination of the chamber too.
Click to expand...

Good point, and we both know what oil contamination means... :read2:

I still don't like the his intake mods. A great big dominator, restricted by a 4 hole spacer inset into a single plane manifold with big runners, then restricted again at the intake port entry then out to a big 2.10 valve. The cross-section would look like balloon caterpillar.
 
ramcharger said:
Why not just use the right heads, ports, valves, intake manifold and carb to start? It seems to be a band-aid approach to improper part selection.
Click to expand...

yeah pretty much, and at the same time it's the instinct of a tuner to make it work somehow.crazy how they seem to be the same person in this case.lol
 
What's up with the 1.8 rocker?
So much for a custom ground cam by Comp Cams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top