Best ET for a steetable 440 auto

[Budnicks]

thanks for the article, not sure what the point of running a hyd cam is if you have the lifters bottomed out. but thats just me..

It might have been part of the contest rules, not sure really, don't remember the specifics...
But they did some different style rules, with mandatory parts used & budget penalties etc.,
in some of them dyno/engine build contests...

IQ52/Jim & Cody would probably know, he/they entered a few of them with his'/their killer Mopar combos...

 

[Meep-Meep]

It sure sounds like the OP is looking for my 440 (found in the 12 second combo thread). It's not 500 HP, nor is it 11.50's in the quarter, but runs well for what it is and how simple and cheap the build is. If 11.50's with a barely noticeable idle is the undisputable goal then I suggest building a 500" stroker with a 114 LSA cam and torque your way down the track. Either that or put on a turbo and reap the rewards of glass smooth idle, double digit mileage (if you keep your foot out of it) and the probability of crapping your drawers when you mash the pedal.

 

[Longroof]

Nope, Herr your right on the money! Thanks for the explantion on the intake. My version of streetable means like you said, barely noticable cam at 850 idle, 12+ vac @ idle, Max 2500-2800 stall converter, 850 vac sec carb, no power boosters, double digit mpg's, and low maintance. There are tons of status quo combos out there. I see lots of guys thinking they need a 500 cu in stroker to get 500 hp. My thoughts are a efficent 440 should be able to do that for less $. Maybe I'm wrong. But we'll find out next year when I hit the streets/track. Gotta do a lot of homework before you start.

- - - Updated - - -

To me streetable means not having to put up with......

You want 500 hp with barely a noticeable idle.... you are asking alot. Then you want a low stall converter and probably not alot of gear... right... you have to compromise some where. Either it's cam converter and gear or boost or nitrous or displacement. There is a reason all cars don't run 11.50s. .. The builder had to make compromises.

I hear people talking about heads with alot of flow... where do you think you get that flow.. When the valves open up. You NEED more camshaft to take advantage of the increased head flow. Putting a big head on a small cam will not make up for the other things.

I hear a lot of talk bashing the old Mopar performance recipe's... The fact is they still work quite well. Newer heads and cam profiles will let you fudge a little but the recent new technology for these old engines does not change the game all that much for an 11.50 car.

 

[IQ52]

It might have been part of the contest rules, not sure really, don't remember the specifics...
But they did some different style rules, with mandatory parts used & budget penalties etc.,
in some of them dyno/engine build contests...

IQ52/Jim & Cody would probably know, he/they entered a few of them with his'/their killer Mopar combos...

Sorry Budnicks about answering so slow, we've been real busy.

The rules that year in the contest required hydraulic lifters. There are only so many ways you can make a hydraulic lifter act like a solid lifter in the rules/rpm ranges of the Engine Masters contest. One of the ways is to bottom out the hydraulics so there is no hydraulic travel.

and

The engine specifics you asked about are in 'proven engine combinations' DC.com

 

[Budnicks]

Sorry Budnicks about answering so slow, we've been real busy.

The rules that year in the contest required hydraulic lifters. There are only so many ways you can make a hydraulic lifter act like a solid lifter in the rules/rpm ranges of the Engine Masters contest. One of the ways is to bottom out the hydraulics so there is no hydraulic travel.

and

The engine specifics you asked about are in 'proven engine combinations' DC.com

Thanks IQ52, thought I'd seen it before

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

You want 500 hp with barely a noticeable idle.... you are asking alot. Then you want a low stall converter and probably not alot of gear... right... you have to compromise some where. Either it's cam converter and gear or boost or nitrous or displacement. There is a reason all cars don't run 11.50s. .. The builder had to make compromises.

The compromise in this case is the automatic trans. A TKO would make this goal much easier to attain - deeper 1st, higher final, and no converter slippage...not as consistent, but it's a street car. A lot of builders also have to make compromises due to customers not willing to spend a bit more on the 'good stuff.'

I hear people talking about heads with alot of flow... where do you think you get that flow.. When the valves open up. You NEED more camshaft to take advantage of the increased head flow. Putting a big head on a small cam will not make up for the other things.

I'm assuming this is directed at me. It is incorrect to state you need more cam for increased head flow for a given combination. For any fixed mass flow (hp), a higher flowing head's valve will not need to be open as long as a lesser flowing head. Also, the more efficient the head, the less overlap is req'd - the intake ports simply don't need as much help from the outgoing exhaust to fill the cylinder. Heck, many modern V8's have negative overlap figures...which provide a silky smooth idle and better emissions...all while making way more power than any of the 'old' stuff. This is also one of the reasons why a cam swap in a modern Hemi or LS is worth significantly more power than say a 1st gen SBC or SBM - they are cam limited, not cylinder head limited.

Take a few minutes to look at what the OEMs are doing...then what people are doing w/ those same engines to see the results they are getting...

 

[69 GTX]

As Herr said my comprimise is a OD transmision, which I don't see as a comprimise because it lets me run lower gears for the 1/4 and cruise at a lower rpm to achive a higher MPG.

 

[Meep-Meep]

The compromise in this case is the automatic trans. A TKO would make this goal much easier to attain - deeper 1st, higher final, and no converter slippage...not as consistent, but it's a street car. A lot of builders also have to make compromises due to customers not willing to spend a bit more on the 'good stuff.'



I'm assuming this is directed at me. It is incorrect to state you need more cam for increased head flow for a given combination. For any fixed mass flow (hp), a higher flowing head's valve will not need to be open as long as a lesser flowing head. Also, the more efficient the head, the less overlap is req'd - the intake ports simply don't need as much help from the outgoing exhaust to fill the cylinder. Heck, many modern V8's have negative overlap figures...which provide a silky smooth idle and better emissions...all while making way more power than any of the 'old' stuff. This is also one of the reasons why a cam swap in a modern Hemi or LS is worth significantly more power than say a 1st gen SBC or SBM - they are cam limited, not cylinder head limited.

Take a few minutes to look at what the OEMs are doing...then what people are doing w/ those same engines to see the results they are getting...

This is exactly what I see happening and I thought I was the only one posting this info (in the past I have said it nearly word for word).

When I had the pleasure of building my 72 Porsche 911T engine I learned quite a bit just by observation and paying attention. So you have a 2.4L flat 6 that makes 140 HP, idles smooth, runs to 6000 RPM freely, has amazing drivability even at low RPM and gets pretty good gas mileage considering it's a performance car. All this with 7.5:1 CR and 150 PSI cranking pressure, a tiny cam and hemi heads with 1.88" / 1.60" valves on a 3.4" bore. None of this sounds like it would work but it does. Taking advantage of an efficient port doesn't mean stuffing in the biggest cam you can find just because the lift spec says it will flow a gazillion CFM at .700" lift.

 

[69 GTX]

So my thoughts are to run a bit smaller cam, with 1.6 rockers, (which should put me in the area of .580 lift with a [email protected] duration) solid roller cam, and very good heads, intake, & exhaust.

- - - Updated - - -

By the way good job on the input guys, keep it coming!:hello2:

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

Yessir.

I was first introduced to this idea around 2000 by a guy who spec'd custom cams. The more I looked around, the more truth I saw in it, yet few talked about it. Also, as time passes, I see it becoming more mainstream.

I like showing people this article.

http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/...gine_shootout/ford_boss_302_chevy_dz_302.html

W/ 30 deg less duration at .050" the Ford makes more torque at a lower rpm (granted not quite as much peak) and makes more hp at a higher rpm than the Chevy.

When applying this type of thinking to a BBM, no off the shelf cam will come close to maximizing the combination. They are designed w/ 'conventional' combos in mind.

The question also arises of what constitutes a 'larger' head for a 440.


Back to the subject at hand...does the GV allow you to shift into say, 1st-od and 2nd-od at WOT, essentially allowing for 5 gears during a 1/4 mile pass?

 

[Longroof]

So my thoughts are to run a bit smaller cam, with 1.6 rockers, (which should put me in the area of .580 lift with a [email protected] duration) solid roller cam, and very good heads, intake, & exhaust.

- - - Updated - - -

By the way good job on the input guys, keep it coming!:hello2:

Maybe I am confused but your cam selection sounds much bigger than than what is being suggested.... for a "silky smooth idle"... well good luck with your build. Hope you meet your intended goal. With big flowing heads and that cam it should not be a problem. It ought to run better than 11.50s.

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

So my thoughts are to run a bit smaller cam, with 1.6 rockers, (which should put me in the area of .580 lift with a [email protected] duration)

Let the cam grinder determine this. If you run a solid, it will end up having larger duration #s than hydraulic due to lash. As far as lift, this will be determined by which heads you choose, if there is any work done to them, and what lobes are available to the cam manufacturer....

 

[69 GTX]

Yes the GV will allow use during the run, they say that it works best for 2nd & 3rd in that application.

- - - Updated - - -

So after reading that article do you think the Max Wedge port heads are the better option? If the factory ratings of 42hp for the MW and 390hp for the 6 bbl 440 are any indication I would think so given the smaller 426 displacement.

- - - Updated - - -

I see some places say they can get 380CFm from ported Victor max wedge heads. Is that to radical for street use?

 

[Meep-Meep]

My thoughts about cam selection for a street car, or I will say a car that is often driven on the street, is less is more. Why exercise the valvetrain that hard? Why punish the rockers and shafts, valve stem tips, guides etc.. Keep the valve events on a smoother profile and deal with some less power. Not like you are going to put 700 HP to the ground anyway. If the car is raced at some super street class event, then sure, but for a fun cruiser? Why? This is why stroker motors excel. Go with the cubes and take stress out of the equation. I plan to build an old school 440 hot rod but it's for 1/4 mile use, plus I have all the parts in stock so should be a pretty easy and cheap build.

 

[69 GTX]

I intend to race this car at least once a month at the local track. The class I want to race in has a 7.50 (1/8th) break so I'd like to be as close to that as possible. Drive it 75 miles to the track, race it, drive it home. Hopefully on 1 tank of gas.

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

So after reading that article do you think the Max Wedge port heads are the better option? If the factory ratings of 42hp for the MW and 390hp for the 6 bbl 440 are any indication I would think so given the smaller 426 displacement.

I see some places say they can get 380CFm from ported Victor max wedge heads. Is that to radical for street use?

I like the MW ports w/ the filled floor if one could get em done..good port shape and no potential dead zone running up to the short side radius. To answer your question though, I'm not convinced that a MW Vic would be too much for a street car w/ a custom cam. The min x-section is a tad under 3.1 in2 at the ssr, which isn't out of the ordinary for other makes of similar displacement.

 

[Tex013]

hey 69GTX,
look at what I sent you .
Yesterday I ran 7.14-7.05 1/8th ( I race 1/4 but did not have a full pass). I drive to the track , about 40 miles , 4 passes and home on around 1/2 a tank .
4.1 gears with a 29" tall street tyre on the rear

Tex

 

[67coronetman]

Well this is a very interesting post seem everyone has a idea and i know a few on here really know there stuff/combos so with that said there is no need for me to share my outdated 40 older motor combo that i know first hand works great plus i would get tons of replies asking why would you use that & that & so on....

 

[69 GTX]

If you wouldn't mind PM me your combo.

- - - Updated - - -

BTW 68 HEMI GTS your in box is full

 

[69 GTX]

Ok so what would be the down side of running Victor heads with the MW port. I see out of the box the MW victors flow about the same as a ported set of 440 port heads. In my mind just doing a cleanup, port match you'd be $ & cfm ahead with the MW's?