My BUDGET 451 build... finally

[super-bee_ski]

My opinion?
Torque!

Flat out "Brutal and honest MOPAR tire shreding torque"
HP is for racing, higher RPM range is your horsepower range.

Driving around town with the kids and family for ice-cream and jumping on the "gas" throwing everyone back into the seats...and passing that 69 Camaro whose engine is built for horse Power...
That is torque!

 

[lewtot184]

My opinion?
Torque!

Flat out "Brutal and honest MOPAR tire shreding torque"
HP is for racing, higher RPM range is your horsepower range.

Driving around town with the kids and family for ice-cream and jumping on the "gas" throwing everyone back into the seats...and passing that 69 Camaro whose engine is built for horse Power...
That is torque!

i tend to lean this way. big cammed, loose torque converter root beer stand cruisers ain't my cup of tea.

- - - Updated - - -

HT413
That is why I'm building my 67 GTS 440 up just for torque.
800 to 4,000 RPM range Crane Cam (roller, because it's got the stealth Heads set up for roller)
OR: 1,200 to 4,800 RPM torque Crane Cam.

PS: Many cams are failing on initial break-in.
In my opinion, I have seen some Cam companies have had the high failure rates.
Initially, around the years 2000 thru 2004
The back lobes were "lathing" down...possibly a failure in the Nitrated process...

But: Data shows that Crane has had the least amount of failure over the past decade...

Data can be confusing...
2 types of Data:
A) System error in testing...
B) Random error in testing...

Is failure due to improper "Break-In" procedures?
Such as:
1. Poor break in oil
2. Not enough RPM initially, or too much on initial start-up
3. ETC...

OR
1. Cam not hardened properly...

pretty sure that summit 6401 cam is a crane 280/290HP profile. i stuck one in my '69 r/t and love it, gobs of torque!

 

[HT413]

My opinion?
Torque!

Flat out "Brutal and honest MOPAR tire shreding torque"
HP is for racing, higher RPM range is your horsepower range.

Driving around town with the kids and family for ice-cream and jumping on the "gas" throwing everyone back into the seats...and passing that 69 Camaro whose engine is built for horse Power...
That is torque!

You make a strong argument, ski!

 

[super-bee_ski]

Well,
You all know..."WE" have all gone the HP route before and will probably still do it again. (in the future)
But, quite honestly, Horse Power engines need "top-end".....at least I think so.

Where as a TORQUE engine will beat a HP engine in many ways:
1. Cost
2. Reliability
3. On the street.

Horse Power is for the track...

Help me see the other side of the equation?

I had a HP engine in one of my old 67 Pontiac GTOs
It needed to RPM to make power...yup it sure did but I missed that good old GTO (GOAT) torque it used to have.

So, for me now, at a soon to be 61 years of age and a nice cruiser...yeah...it's the Torque option for me.

BUT Hey...the 63 Polara is on a rotisserie getting stripped to bare metal and you all know what is going into that car...
(440 designed MAX WEDGE)

But; this is HT413s thread, he is undecided...and Torque is NEAT!
Tire smoking 70ft burnouts....between telephone pole to telephone pole!

 

[HT413]

Well,
You all know..."WE" have all gone the HP route before and will probably still do it again. (in the future)
But, quite honestly, Horse Power engines need "top-end".....at least I think so.

Where as a TORQUE engine will beat a HP engine in many ways:
1. Cost
2. Reliability
3. On the street.

Horse Power is for the track...

Help me see the other side of the equation?

I had a HP engine in one of my old 67 Pontiac GTOs
It needed to RPM to make power...yup it sure did but I missed that good old GTO (GOAT) torque it used to have.

So, for me now, at a soon to be 61 years of age and a nice cruiser...yeah...it's the Torque option for me.

BUT Hey...the 63 Polara is on a rotisserie getting stripped to bare metal and you all know what is going into that car...
(440 designed MAX WEDGE)

But; this is HT413s thread, he is undecided...and Torque is NEAT!
Tire smoking 70ft burnouts....between telephone pole to telephone pole!

Lol no worries, ski! Only thing here is my setup will be somewhere around 10.5:1 so I don't know if a small cam will put me out if pump gas range. When I get into work this morning I'll post a couple of cams and their dynamic compression ratio / psi and see what you guys think.

 

[HT413]

Ok, so I entered a few cams into the Wallace calculator to figure cranking psi at 10.5:1... I just used comp as examples because so much data is available online, I'm not dead set on using a comp at all.

I'm looking to keep the motor in the safe zone. I'm not an accomplished tuner AT ALL.

COMP XE268HL / 175psi / adv intake closing: 60*
COMP XE275HL / 169psi / adv intake closing: 64*
COMP XE285HL / 161psi / adv intake closing: 68*

 

[HT413]

So I figured I'd add my general budget thus far...

Money spent
$1200 balanced rotating assembly, machined block, rings, RPM intake, balancer.
$1000 440source heads
$ 75 ductile iron rockers (mopar performance)
$ 150 440source 7qt oil pan and pickup
$ 50 distributor, Windage tray, oil pump drive
$ 40 440 source double roller timing set

Need to buy
$220 cam and lifters
$200 springs locks retainers
$200 bearings, gaskets freeze plugs
$200 headers

Using from my 413
Carb, fuel pump, rocker shafts, water pump, oil pump, misc.

So I'm at about $3300 plus several hundred in assembly charges and having the springs swapped and heads gone through.

 

[HT413]

Ski, I think you're right, maybe that 285 cam is too big. 3000+ stall isn't for me. Lunati has a cam that needs a 2800 stall converter and has a similar duration as the XE275HL cam. Maybe I advance it a couple degrees and bring it down a hair.

https://www.lunatipower.com/Product.aspx?id=2338&gid=362

 

[hunt2elk]

I'm having a 451 built up right now. We are using a Comp XS282S. It is a solid and I have a 4-speed, so probably doesn't really pertain to your build. Just thought I would post up the route I am going for comparison. Should have the dyno results shortly...

 

[HT413]

I'm having a 451 built up right now. We are using a Comp XS282S. It is a solid and I have a 4-speed, so probably doesn't really pertain to your build. Just thought I would post up the route I am going for comparison. Should have the dyno results shortly...

Do you have a build thread I missed? If not, consider it, I for one could sure learn something from your build I'm sure. Yeah, you definitely are going a different route than me, but when you figure in lash that cam is right in my ballpark.

 

[hunt2elk]

Do you have a build thread I missed? If not, consider it, I for one could sure learn something from your build I'm sure. Yeah, you definitely are going a different route than me, but when you figure in lash that cam is right in my ballpark.

Yeah, I was thinking about starting a thread on what I am doing to the car. Just been so busy with work that I haven't even had much time to work on the car - much less start a thread. But I will.

 

[IQ52]

Ok, so I entered a few cams into the Wallace calculator to figure cranking psi at 10.5:1... I just used comp as examples because so much data is available online, I'm not dead set on using a comp at all.

I'm looking to keep the motor in the safe zone. I'm not an accomplished tuner AT ALL.

COMP XE268HL / 175psi / adv intake closing: 60*
COMP XE275HL / 169psi / adv intake closing: 64*
COMP XE285HL / 161psi / adv intake closing: 68*

The XE285HL was the major player in this whole series of 440 dyno runs.

http://www.forbbodiesonly.com/moparforum/showthread.php?64775-Pop-s-440-is-near-ready-to-dyno&highlight=pop%27s+440

 

[HT413]

The XE285HL was the major player in this whole series of 440 dyno runs.

http://www.forbbodiesonly.com/moparforum/showthread.php?64775-Pop-s-440-is-near-ready-to-dyno&highlight=pop%27s+440

Oh yeah, IQ, when comp's camquest recommended it, your thread was about the 1st thing I thought of.

 

[HT413]

Soon enough I'll talk to lunati to see what they think.

 

[lewtot184]

ever consider a solid?

 

[HT413]

ever consider a solid?

I go back and forth.

- - - Updated - - -

I was set on a solid. Not worried about occasional adjustments, just not sure I'd use the extra rpm capability.

 

[lewtot184]

I go back and forth.

- - - Updated - - -

I was set on a solid. Not worried about occasional adjustments, just not sure I'd use the extra rpm capability.

solid doesn't mean you have to spin the engine more rpm. does mean better valve train stability and having a more usable power curve, better torque curve. people who are plagued with a lot of adjusting do a poor job of adjusting.

 

[HT413]

Hmmm. To your point, I've been planning on running the upgraded beehive springs for more stability and also because they're rated for any moderate solid I might run in the future.

Not sure how to really compare solids to hydraulics. Have any suggestions? Maybe another question for the lunati guys.

 

[lewtot184]

be sure and check the spring rates on the beehives. i think they can be a little stout for anything you drive a bunch.

comparing solids to hydraulics can be a little foggy. best bet is to compare .050" and .200" lift numbers and lobe lift. most solids have advertised duration numbers at .015-.020" lobe lift, and most hydraulics are between .004-.008" lift. advertised numbers on solids may not reflect actual seat timing. actually seat timing can be varied with a solid, kind of a tuning aid, but your stuck with what ever is at the lobe with a hydraulic. hydraulic tappets are inherently unstable. the instability will vary with aggressiveness of lobe and springs. i think there' s a point when it's time to leave the hydraulic tappet behind. for me when things get past something like a 284-484 mopar it's time to look at other things. big hydraulics are a little more tempermental to tune. notice how many times on these car websites that people have problems trying to get their hot hydraulics to run. i run a smaller solid in my 65 coronet, engle k65 [email protected]/.510 lift. drives very good with a 3.23 rear and torqueflite. i'm sure the engle runs smoother and is easier to tune than an equilivant hydraulic. the mopar 284-.528 is a super street cam.

 

[lewtot184]

i was thinking about hydraulic cams and i know i rag about them but some are good, just not big ones. i came across a cam a few months ago i think would make a nice sensible street cam. it's a hughs-engle 30/38. i measured this thing and it was [email protected]"/.514" lift on the intake, [email protected]"/.534" lift on the exhaust, 110lsa. i know this sounds similar to the comp 275hl but it's a little gentler, has a little more seat timing, which means it should break-in and wear better/easier on parts, and i bet it would make a bunch of mid-range. i thought about using it with stamped rockers,( and no i don't buy into the 1.38:1 ratio crap), because i don't think adjustables are always necessary.

another hydraulic i thought about is a crane h-228/3200-2s-8. this cam would be a nice street cam but it is ground on 108lsa. i think dick landy used to sell this profile ground on a 112lsa. anyhow, it would be a good candidate for increased rocker ratio. real down side is i have no idea how to buy one with all the changes at crane.