Moparchat - Home of MOPAR enthusiasts worldwide!



Go Back   Moparchat - Home of MOPAR enthusiasts worldwide! > Technical Forums > Performance Talk

Click here to search for Mopar cars and parts for sale.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-01-2000, 02:51 AM
Springfeet Springfeet is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 65
Question

How much power can I expect from this combo, and where do you think it would make it?

360 @ .030 over
4" cast crank
Edelbrock performer rpm heads
Edelbrock performer rpm cam
Weiand Stealth intake manifold
Heddman Hedders to 2.5" dual exhaust
flowmaster 40 series mufflers
Somewhere around 10:1 compression, maybe a little lower

I am probably going to port both the heads and the intake manifold
From what I've been told, this looks to be a fairly good combo, I was just wondering how much power it would make, and what different parts other people would use.
The engine is being built for a '68 Dart Convertible w/ a 4 speed. Mostly street use w/ some track duty. I need decent gas mileage and pump gas, preferably 89 octane.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-01-2000, 03:46 AM
rumblefish360's Avatar
rumblefish360 rumblefish360 is offline
Moparchat Bronze member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: C
Age: 57
Posts: 11,120
Post

I ran the combo on DYNO-SE. The program is O.K. Not to bad. Not to mention the price.
First I did the RPM Package in a 340cid.
This I used as The base to witch I got as close as i could. Got real close , not exact.
Then I went to your layout. This is what I got;

Between 2500& 5500 rpm Torque was over 400lbs. H.P. peaked @ 415. Then
I did it with the heads ported (fully ported because the Edelbrock heads are like pocket ported heads on this program. And in life.)
The torque line improved some with H.P. toping out at 440 @ 6000 RPM. This is only a program. It did get good reveiws though.
As far as using 89 octane. Well that won't get you any power. Use the 93-94 octane.
Also the Edel.heads being Aluminum, can live & perform at a higher compresion better than iron heads. A compresion ratio of 9.5 is where this combo starts to live. A lower ratio is not good for H.P.
Jet the carb well & milage won't be in a basement issue.
For the 10-15 cent diff I pay for the 2 grades. give me the hi-test.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-01-2000, 05:29 AM
Springfeet Springfeet is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 65
Question

Do you think that combo could run on 89 octane gas without pinging or detonation? At what compression does higher octane gas become a requirement? I didn't know that a higher octane gas would get you more power. I always thought that you only needed it because it burned slower than the lower octanes and prevented pinging and detonation.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-01-2000, 08:18 AM
451Mopar 451Mopar is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Age: 59
Posts: 1,831
Post

I pluged the numbers into Desktop Dyno 2000, using bore-4.030" and Stroke=4.00" which gives 408.2 cid.
I used Edelbrocks, unported head, advertised headflow numbers in the program (IE.249 cfm @ 0.500", 28".)
Compression was 10:1, Carb was 750 cfm, single plane intake (because at 408 cid most dual planes will be too small, look to use an Edelbrock Performer RPM or Mopar M1 simgle plane.)
I also chose small tube headers with mufflers for the simulation.

For the cam, I used the 0.050" duration numbers for better comparison results (Edelbrock rates their "Advertised duration at very small tappet lifts (I think 0.003"?)

Results:
Edelbrock Performer RPM cam:
HP = 393 @ 6,000 RPM
TQ = 419 @ 4,500 RPM

Hughes HE1923AL cam:
HP = 386 @ 5,000 RPM
TQ = 435 @ 4,000 RPM

Hughes HE2430AL cam:
HP = 401 @ 5,500 RPM
TQ = 427 @ 4,000 RPM

Hughes HE3038AL cam:
HP = 406 @ 5,500 RPM
TQ = 421 @ 4,500 RPM

Hughes HE3844AL cam:
HP = 406 @ 5,500 RPM *No improvement?
TQ = 408 @ 4,500 RPM

It looks like the HE2430AL would be the Torque cam, and when simulated with the Dual Plane intake, Peak Power and Torque did not change very much, but the torque curve was increased and flatter from idle to max torque.

The HE3038AL cam seems to make the best HP and still retain allot of Torque. Simulation with the dual plane intake showed the intake hurting performance, although the Performer RPM would probbly work better than the simulation shows. I suspect the Performer RPM would have simular peak HP numbers as the single plane simulation, but with more low end torque.



[This message has been edited by 451Mopar (edited November 01, 2000).]
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-01-2000, 03:34 PM
rumblefish360's Avatar
rumblefish360 rumblefish360 is offline
Moparchat Bronze member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: C
Age: 57
Posts: 11,120
Post

451; I used to have the program you have there. I like that one better. Gotta get it again. Although on the SE theres a neat little cam math calculator. Is yours the newer program where you can plug in cyl.head cfm?

Springfeet;

Your right about how the gas burns. The high octane dosn't always pay off. You have to use what is good for the eng.
On older cars/performance eng's. , w/iron heads @ around 9-1 compresion. The good stuff is what it needs. With a alum. head, it's about a 1/2 - 1 point higher.
89 octane is for low compresion eng's. This is about 8 1/2 -1 and lower.
This is a general description and will vary as the quality of gas & air & air temp change. Others will tell differant stories of how there car is differant as well. Also some of the newer cars have raito's of 10-1 & run on 87. If you did that , you would not be able to run at full advance on your timing. There is big power to be lost & gained in timing. As well in fuel used.
The more compresion you have ,the more octane you need, the more power you make. Also, cams are designed to work with the eng.as a team. Part of the team is compresion. When not working together or on par with each other, the inbalance will cause a loss in power. It won't be max-a-mized. (ok the spelling was bad )
If you don't max out what you have, it's like throwing away your money. And if thats the case....throw it my way
In the '60's when a Hi-compres. eng. came from detroit. It was 10-1 and better. (Who remembers the Max Wedge @ 13-1) This with the iron head is hard to feed because of todays ceiling of 94. It's do-able but, then again real gas was PURPLE and was rated more like 100 @ the pump. (I remember the purple gas, but not the numbers they were rated at. I'm not that old. )
Will it ping...yea until you turn the distributor timing down until it stops. And as you turn the timing down, you turn your power down. It's not worth it. Pay the 10-15 cents more for the 93-94 octane.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-01-2000, 04:50 PM
451Mopar 451Mopar is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Age: 59
Posts: 1,831
Post

Desktop Dyno 2000 is the new version and it lets you plug in headflow numbers, not just guess at the head port flow. It also has the cam math calculator. You can save the head flow files and cam spec seperate so you can plug them into other engine combinations quickly.
The program also has the option of simulation with blowers, nitrous, and different fuels.
One neat part is the Iterator testing where you can specify a range of cam timming events and other engine parameters, and the computer will automatically try many thousand combinations to find the combination with the best power or torque in the RPM range you select.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-01-2000, 10:35 PM
rumblefish360's Avatar
rumblefish360 rumblefish360 is offline
Moparchat Bronze member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: C
Age: 57
Posts: 11,120
Post

NIIIICE I had the regular desk top dyno sometime back. Not the 2000. I see a new toy in my future. Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-02-2000, 05:20 PM
Springfeet Springfeet is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 65
Post

Thanks for the info. Who sells hughes cams? Would I get decent manners from the HE2430AL? What are the numbers on that cam? lift, duration, etc...? Does anyone have any flow numbers for the Performer RPM intake or the weiand Stealth intake? I'm going to go with a dual plane b/c of the torque factor, and I'm not planning on racing that much, maybe just stoplights occassionally...

[This message has been edited by Springfeet (edited November 02, 2000).]
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-03-2000, 03:56 AM
440Ramcharger's Avatar
440Ramcharger 440Ramcharger is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tempe AZ
Age: 65
Posts: 382
Post

www.hughesengines.com/cams/hydflatchart.asp
Here you go.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-03-2000, 05:01 AM
Hemi Mike Hemi Mike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Long Island, NY. USA
Posts: 128
Post

I ran the HE1424AL in the Mopar Performance 9:1 shortblock and Hughes stage I heads. Great cam for a daily driver. Lots of "snap" (torque), good HP. I now run their HE2430AL. I lost some off idle torque (will still pull a heavy trailer) gained LOTS of midrange horse power. Incredible cams!!

Your combo looks real good. Pay close atention to your final compression ratio. With the HE2430AL, my cylinder cranking pressure is 180psi. Any more than that and I'd have ended up with a daily driver that I couldn't fill at the pump. Timing is 16*BTC initial, 36* total. All in at 2200RPM. It runs on 93 octane but well worth it. Vacuum advance is functioning and adds even more low end torque.

------------------
Stoplight action in a street fightin' '85 M-body 360ci. or '68 Hemi GTX 4spd.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-03-2000, 04:55 PM
RDABIKE RDABIKE is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: St. George, Utah USA
Posts: 300
Post

Ray Braton Engines just built two of these. With the heads you have mentioned and 10:5-1 compression and a silghtly larger cam. 240 at .050 and 530 lift, they had a run of 520hp at 5600 and 530 tq at 4300. Hope this helps. I have just just had one of these built with Mopar Performance ported heads and a computer cam 204-210 @.050 480-512" on a 114 lobe center. This in conjunction with my whipple supercharger should really make the 4x4 fly. I'll post the results in a week or so.

Mark
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-04-2000, 06:17 PM
Tim_K Tim_K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Southwest Pennsylvania
Posts: 899
Biggrin

Springfeet, we can sit here all day and send messages back and forth about "do you think it won't ping on 89" or whatever. The bottom line is that when you actually build this motor, if it pings on 89, you will have to use more octane, no matter what test or person told you whatever. A friend of mine disassembled his dad's '70 340 motor last winter for a rebuild. He and his dad both told me how they beat this 340 like crazy, it had "at least" 10.5 compression, and it NEVER pinged on 87 octane. Well, I was there the day they pulled out the pistons. Every top ring was shattered into multiple pieces, several second rings were broken, and every piston was cracked down the sides in one place or another. "It never pinged!" Yeah, right.
After the motor was rebuilt and bored 30 over it ran well.
I personally think there is too much emphasis (EMphasis ? emPHAsis? ) put on this whole compression ratio thing. Certainly, there are situations where it is important, but in a street motor with iron heads, it isn't such a big deal. Your motor is planned with aluminum heads, so you can use more CR on the same octane, but there is still a limit to this. Don't think you can use high compression and low octane just because you have aluminum heads. It isn't that easy. There still are requirements of physics that must be met, or you'll ping your rings into a hundred pieces like this other guy I know did.
I've seen a couple of charts of how power production and CR are related, and I think unless a race engine is being built, backing off the CR by 1/2 to 1 point will make you happier at the gas pumps. Raising the CR from 8 to 9 gains you something like 3 or 4 percent more horsepower, going from 8 to 10 CR gains about 7 percent. Because I'm cheap and drive my cars a lot, I'll give up the last 6 or 7 horsepower to be able to buy more gas and drive more.
My weekend street racer '79 Aspen R/T 360-4's engine was rebuilt this spring. The only change compression-wise was using Fel-Pro 0.040" head gaskets instead of the stock thin steel ones. After careful use of micrometers and cc tools, The total compression ratio was measured to be 7.92 to 1. This motor runs 42 degrees timing between initial and mechanical, and does not ping AT ALL on 87 octane. After it was broken in, I turned the timing up another 4-5 degrees to see if it would then ping on 87, and it still wouldn't! Put the timing back where I wanted it. (42 degrees). The car weighs 3780 lbs with me and the spare tire and toolbox in it. With the stock lockup 727 and 2.71 Sure-Grip, it runs 15.8 at 88 in the 1/4 mile. I should also mention it has some junk aftermarket "340" cam that actually measured 268 degrees with only 0.410" lift. It runs 3 tenths better than when it has a 268/272 .450"/.455" Purple Shaft in it. It also has a lot of mid range torque, and runs very well on the street. I have modifications planned, like a new 727, high stall converter, 3.90 gears, a decent Hughes or Comp cam, and a set of ported heads with 2.02 / 1.60 valves. However, compression will not change much. I might go up to 8.3 or 8.4, but that's it.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-05-2000, 10:04 AM
Springfeet Springfeet is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 65
Post

Thanks for all the info. Right now I'm narrowing down my cam choices and compression ratio. I've decided to go with the stock crank and .030 over first, and maybe upgrade the crank in a few years to something a little more fun, but until then this will do just fine. I'm looking at cams from hughes, comp, isky, and mp, and I'll post specs on them when I have them handy. I think I'm going to run either the keith black hypereutic flat top pistons that are 10.7 w/ a 62cc cganberm; (9.8 w/ a 70cc chamber), or the sterling hypereutic flat top pistons that run 9.3 w/ a 62cc chamber. I have another question. I thought that the edelbrock performer rpm heads were fully assembled, but I haven't seen any listings for rocker arms on them. Did I just misread something and I have to buy new rocker arms for it or what? Could I reuse the stock rocker arms, even though they probably wouldn't be the best for performance? What ratio would you suggest? 1.5, 1.6, or what?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-05-2000, 02:39 PM
rumblefish360's Avatar
rumblefish360 rumblefish360 is offline
Moparchat Bronze member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: C
Age: 57
Posts: 11,120
Post

springfeet;

Rocker arms, shafts etc. , are not part of the head assembly. They are part of the valve train. Pick you cam before you get the rockers. Some cam makers will make the cam with HIGH lift.
The RPM heads flow well to there limit. (575) If you get a cam that has a .560 lift, @ a 1.5 rocker. A 1.6 will be to much for the stock RPM head.
You can use the stock rockers and stuff. You'll need adjustable pushrods for them. I personally went the route of roller rockers and a mech.cam.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-05-2000, 04:28 PM
451Mopar 451Mopar is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Age: 59
Posts: 1,831
Post

I like to build my engines with the compression ratio on the high side of what I think I may need. I found that it is much easier to lower the compression ratio than to raise it. To lower the compression ratio you can use thicker head gaskets, polish the cylinder chambers, or mill the pistons or add valve pockets to the pistons.

Here is my general opinion on compression ratios as compared to cam size for pump gas.

Advertised Duration: Compression Ratio:
260 9.0:1
265 9.2:1
270 9.5:1
275 9.7:1
280 10.0:1
285 10.3:1
290 10.6:1
295 10.7:1
300 11.0:1

At higher altitude or with the cam installed retarded (or with aluminum heads) you may be able to use higher compression ratios.
Note the compression ratios stayed fairly close from 290-300 because as the cams get this big, the lobe seperation is usually narrower and the cams installed in an advanced position.

Matching the compression ratio to the cam size also makes the engine more efficent besides adding more power

My old 360 truck engine was built with 9.0:1 compression and a mild 264 Duration cam (208@0.050") and the truck never pinged. This was a really good RV engine.

My aluminum headed 451 stroker runs 11.0:1 compression on pump gas with a roller cam that has 251 duration @ 0.050" (I don't know what the advertised duration @ 0.006" is on this cam?

My new 360 RV engine will probbly end up around 9.5:1 compression with a dual pattern cam. The intake was originally 208 duration @ 0.050" also, but with the 1.6:1 ratio rocker arms it will look more like 211@0.050" duration. (Advertised duration @ 0.006" would be about 260.) This is about 1/2-point higher than my estimate above, but I am using "Quench" pistons, polished chamber heads, and running the engine at 6,000 ft altitude.
If I ever get the correct valve spring retainers (long story), I can finish assembling the engine and let you know how it runs
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-06-2000, 02:44 AM
Springfeet Springfeet is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 65
Question

OK, another engine combo. I saw dyno results for this one in car craft and I just wanted to see what the desktop dyno would say. I'm not sure of all the exact specs for the engine, so I'll just use something a little high just to be sure.

360 @.030 over (it might be std 360 bore)
performer rpm heads
isky 270 megacam
duration @.050 221 \
adv. duration 270 } int & exh
lift .465 /
LC 108
9.8:1 compression (std bore puts it at 9.7)
1.5:1 rocker arms
performer rpm intake
demon 750 cfm carb

on the dyno it made 408.4 hp @ 5700 & 434.8 ft-lb @ 4300 w/ over 390 ft-lb from 3000 to 5300 rpm

I just wanted to compare this to the desktop dyno results to see how accurate it was, though it's fairly impossible to make it perfect, at least it gives me an idea of what I can expect.
What would this combo do w/ the isky 280?
duration @.050 232
adv. duration 280
lift .485
LC 106
What would this combo do w/ the he3038al? I think this is the cam I'm going to end up going w/. I'm also using the federal mogul 9.8:1 flat top pistons w/ 2 valve reliefs.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-06-2000, 08:30 AM
451Mopar 451Mopar is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Age: 59
Posts: 1,831
Post

The dyno pull was probbly done with open headers, right?
I'm guessing at the cam lobe seperation and assuming the exhaust profile is the same as the intake? So I used the LSA=108, LC=108?
On the simulator, the RPm intake would look more like the "single plane" selection, but probbly with a bit more low end torque.

Anyhow, the simulator gives readings in 500 RPM increments from 2,000 rpm to over 10,000.
Anyhow, I got 409 HP @ 6,000 RPM and 413 Ft/lbs torque @ 4,500 RPM.
At 3,000 RPm torque was 375, but rember this is using the single plane for the simulation, so with the design of the performer, 390 sounds about right.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-07-2000, 05:06 AM
PRO PRO is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Grand Junction,CO.USA
Posts: 1,573
Post

Reality,360 .020 over,hypereutectic pistons,true 10.5:1 comp,Edelbrock heads,273 valvetrain,509 mp cam,tunnelram,holley 800 dp,1 7/8 Hooker headers,windage tray,4 spd,3.23 posi,street tires,93 0ctane,3200 lbs w/me,went 12.28 with NO traction,1.80 60 ft,lets just assume 3.91s,slicks and open headers it should go 11.50 easily thats well over 400 ponies,add porting to the heads,and a 4" crank,that should add another 70 hp easily,so it would go 10.80s,almost 500 ponies no prob on pump gas...desktop dynos are very limited and based on chevy #s...PRO..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-07-2000, 05:56 PM
451Mopar 451Mopar is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Age: 59
Posts: 1,831
Post

Pro, I plugged the engine numbers into Desktop Dyno and here is the results:
RPM HP TQ
2000 108 285
2500 145 305
3000 185 324
3500 236 354
4000 289 379
4500 340 397
5000 381 400 * Peak TQ
5500 411 392
6000 424 371
6500 425 343 ** Peak HP
7000 415 311
7500 395 277
8000 371 243

I think the power curve is a bit peaky with the tunnel ram and large tube headers, but who can argue with 425 HP

Isn't Grand Junction about 4,500 ft altitude?
I think the altitude will kill power by about 15% ?

[This message has been edited by 451Mopar (edited November 07, 2000).]
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Power Programmer / Power Chips ehostler Diesel & Turbo Diesel Chat 12 10-12-2006 11:21 AM
Power or No Power Brakes sfkennedy Performance Talk 13 02-19-2004 02:13 PM
Adding power windows and locks to non power?? zig Dakota Truck Forum 4 02-05-2003 07:49 PM
Power In but No Power Out at Ignition Switch. Leo Phelps Ram Truck Chat 6 12-30-2002 07:05 PM
power window/power lock wiring denros Ram Truck Chat 0 04-26-2001 12:49 AM




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
. . . . .