Dyno numbers are in!

[evilmopar]

Your peak torque is right where my 512 runs best. Similar build but with a M1 intake and 4500.

To the original question if it was mine I'd run a 4500 carb. My set up really woke up after switching from the 950, 4150 Holley to a 4500. Also with the heads you have I'm confident that you will pull strong to at least 6300. I'm running basically stock Edelbrock Performer heads( way inferior to the TF) on my 512. I shift at 5500(most of my racing is 1/8th mile but in 1/4 I'm still pulling strong at 5900 when I cross the stripe).

But if you need to shift your rpm up some I have found the with max wedge ports you can move the power band up about 500 rpm.

In the extension i think i have to get my heads ported to Max wedge or bigger if it´s possible and if there is any gains in doing that. I already had the carb and my first plan was to get one more 950 and smack on my tunnelram, but it became a money issue so i just got the Trickflow intake. I do have a cheater nitrous plate under (150 shot), but that will on be a "if needed" option lol

 

[evilmopar]

You're really not going to see much of a gain in ET and mph IMHO.
You're limited to what you have in ci , heads and cam and compression.

I just don´t wanna hurt the motor by running the full 1/4 and turning it to slight above 6K.. Running 4.11 gears and at the moment 26" slicks, if there is room in the wheelwell i´ll aim for 29:ers in a near future

 

[440rb]

Not knowing the car and the weight I would refrain from running the 1/4 as well with 4.11/26" tyre as with your hp and guessing at 3500lbs@the line? you'll be turning 7k rpm with slip, the 29's will give you just over 6k+slip auto, if your lighter it'll be worse, I'm sure your aware of this.
We run a 4.10/29" combo on our 3800lb street/strip RR and turn 6200ish trap@678 calculated fwhp (max power@5900) with a 950HP holley on a mild 589ci motor...runs sweet.

 

[PRHeads]

Close to 20 years ago I ported a set of B1-BS heads that my friend put on his 528.
Heads were std port size(still used the tin valley pan gasket), and the intake was the MP TR with 2 x 750’s on it.
Heads flowed similar to ootb TF240(320-ish).
It used a long duration roller cam, but with the small port window it peaked at a rather low 6k.
In the car, it was shifted right at 6k........ but with the 29.5” tires and 4.10’s....... along with the 138+mph trap speed........ the motor would turn close to 7k thru the lights.

 

[PRHeads]

the engine didn´t make power above 5300 there was no point in increasing rpm (i still wanted to pull it 6K) It was a 1 7/8 dyno headers, i run 2" fenderwells in the car.

My feeling is...... if that car(yours) goes to the track, and the set up is anywhere near correct, the motor will need to turn 6000+........ probably more like 6500.
So, I like to make sure there are no issues when the motor is operated in that range.
Frankly, I’m not that concerned with the “power” at the top end as much as making sure the motor is mechanically sound up there.

Generally, I’m going to run it up until I find a valvetrain issue....... or, as high as I’m comfortable taking it....... whichever is lower.

Most builds with aftermarket rotating assy’s....... that’s going to be 6500+......... If the valvetrain will go that high.
Unless it’s a low rpm tq build that will absolutely never go that high in the vehicle.

Those 1-7/8” headers very likely cost you some power.
Maybe not much at all at 5500....... but they wouldn’t be my choice for top end power(6000+).

 

[BanginGears]

There is no way I would turn that motor over 6000 rpms.
Get a taller tire or less gear.

 

[PRHeads]

493” with a stock 440 block.
Eagle crank and rods, Ross flat tops.
Std port SR heads with bowl port(flow 300-ish), M1 single plane, 1050/4500 carb, .660 roller cam, Crane Gold 1.5 rockers, Milodon low profile pan, 3/8” pick-up.
2-2 1/8 x 4 headers.

 

[Fizz66Coronet]

Similar build except max wedge port.

 

[PRHeads]

Here’s another 440/493......
Eagle crank and rods, JE dome pistons, std port SR’s, ported to flow around 325-330, Weiand TG4500 intake, old 9375/1050, .660 roller cam, Crane Gold 1.5’s, 2-2 1/8 x 4 headers.....



The spring loads were a little light, and the valvetrain started to get a little unsettled after 6900.

 

[66Satellite47]

To OP, I'm not familiar with the TF heads, but with sort of cam you valve springs are way small. I'd say you need at least 150# on the seat & 450 ish over the nose to run up to or past 6500 RPM. IMHO

 

[evilmopar]

There is no way I would turn that motor over 6000 rpms.
Get a taller tire or less gear.

The engine is balanced within 0.5gr, Studded, girdle. i´m confident of turning it to 7K if it made power that high up. I shifted my old stock bottom end with heavy TRW "sixpack" pistons 440 at 7K no issiues at all.

 

[evilmopar]

My feeling is...... if that car(yours) goes to the track, and the set up is anywhere near correct, the motor will need to turn 6000+........ probably more like 6500.
So, I like to make sure there are no issues when the motor is operated in that range.
Frankly, I’m not that concerned with the “power” at the top end as much as making sure the motor is mechanically sound up there.

Generally, I’m going to run it up until I find a valvetrain issue....... or, as high as I’m comfortable taking it....... whichever is lower.

Most builds with aftermarket rotating assy’s....... that’s going to be 6500+......... If the valvetrain will go that high.
Unless it’s a low rpm tq build that will absolutely never go that high in the vehicle.

Those 1-7/8” headers very likely cost you some power.
Maybe not much at all at 5500....... but they wouldn’t be my choice for top end power(6000+).

I changed springs last weekend to a set of comp 148lbs seat and 473lbs spring rate. Got the engine in the car during past week and just fired it up and took it for a short spin.. Oh my that thing is strong, just cruised it due to low oil level only had 7qt in it and it don´t show on the dip stick so didn´t wanna risk anything. But it pulls way harder than my old 400 with stock heads, 8,8:1 slugs and a "whiplash" hyd cam and a GT45 turbo setup. Will do some more tuning and testing as soon as the weather clears.... showing rain for next week or two.

 

[evilmopar]

Not knowing the car and the weight I would refrain from running the 1/4 as well with 4.11/26" tyre as with your hp and guessing at 3500lbs@the line? you'll be turning 7k rpm with slip, the 29's will give you just over 6k+slip auto, if your lighter it'll be worse, I'm sure your aware of this.
We run a 4.10/29" combo on our 3800lb street/strip RR and turn 6200ish trap@678 calculated fwhp (max power@5900) with a 950HP holley on a mild 589ci motor...runs sweet.

The car is heavy, haven´t put it on the scales yet but my guess 3900-4000lbs. Stock steel body, full interior ´64 Sport Fury with a Dana 60.

 

[Dan64]

The car is heavy, haven´t put it on the scales yet but my guess 3900-4000lbs. Stock steel body, full interior ´64 Sport Fury with a Dana 60.

I would think that car weighs about 3450-3500ish bone stock but i could be wrong.

 

[Mike67]

Just compared it to the TF top end kit that made 576TQ/620HP, you have more 1 point more compression and a bigger cam, yet they peaked HP around 6200.
Duration at 050 inch Lift:
243 int./247 exh.
Advertised Duration:
296 int./300 exh.
Valve Lift with Factory Rocker Arm Ratio:
0.600 int./0.600

 

[evilmopar]

Just compared it to the TF top end kit that made 576TQ/620HP, you have more 1 point more compression and a bigger cam, yet they peaked HP around 6200.
Duration at 050 inch Lift:
243 int./247 exh.
Advertised Duration:
296 int./300 exh.
Valve Lift with Factory Rocker Arm Ratio:
0.600 int./0.600

View attachment 1111332

Yes but i also have more cui than that test engine, and bigger needs more. So even if the heads have pretty good flow maybe they don´t have the area enough to flow that amount of air that my cui needs.

 

[Mike67]

Yes but i also have more cui than that test engine, and bigger needs more. So even if the heads have pretty good flow maybe they don´t have the area enough to flow that amount of air that my cui needs.

I guess that was what I was eluding to , but also thought it would have been made up with the larger duration and lift. Could it possibly be the maximum flow is reached?
Also found it interesting that Hp//Tq were almost exactly inverse and that the rpm was down so much compared to their 446.
Just trying to learn here. I've been contemplating building a 505 due to my engine failure, my heads are the RPMs so I'm trying to figure out if it would be any benefit without upgrading to the 270s.
Thanks

 

[PRHeads]

I would have thought that the dyno sheets I posted, of nearly 500 cube motors, with std port heads(that flow less than TF240’s), topped with std port manifolds....... making peak hp at well above 5500 would have put the notion to rest that you can’t make power above 5500rpm with that combo.

 

[Mike67]

I would have thought that the dyno sheets I posted, of nearly 500 cube motors, with std port heads(that flow less than TF240’s), topped with std port manifolds....... making peak hp at well above 5500 would have put the notion to rest that you can’t make power above 5500rpm with that combo.

I'm must have skipped over that first post. Now you have my attention!
So the RPMs were "OTB" so to speak?
Are these numbers a result of the 1000cfm provided by the 6 pack?
I would roll over like a tickled dog if I could get those numbers! Especially that much TQ so low. Would love to hear more about the build.

 

[PRHeads]

I was actually more referring to the two SR headed builds making even more power than the 505...... at even high rpm.

Yes, SR heads are std port....... unless you make them not std port.
Those two builds were still std port, being run with unported std port intake manifolds(that weren’t as good as the new TF manifold).

The main point being....... there are ways around the low peak rpm the OP was seeing with his build....... that don’t require having the heads brought out to MW size.

As for the 505......I have no doubts that if one built that exact same combo, but with TF240’s on it instead of the RPM’s(they didn’t exist when the RPM’s for that motor were done), that the numbers would be better acrosss the board.