Hot Rod Forum banner

Big Block for towing

48K views 49 replies 9 participants last post by  gearheadslife 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)
I'm building a '79 4x4 dually with a turbo 400 transmission and I'm putting a '89 454 in it, the truck is just gonna be used for towing a couple vehicles at a time, I'm wanting to get all the horsepower and torque out of this engine that is possible and still drive on the road with no problem, I plan on stroking it but I just don't no what size to go with so my questions are

which is best to stroke it to 496 or 511?
what are the best heads cam and intake I can get to give me the most towing power?
and finally what kind of horsepower and torque do you think the set up will make
 
#2 ·
more cubic inches is always better, pretty much no matter the intent

personally I would build the 489 or 496 since you can buy a 4.250" cast steel crank instead of having to fork out the money for a forged crank.

a decent "claimer" style rotating assy with a cast crank, forged rods and hyper pistons with do fine for what you are trying to accomplish. If what you are trying to do is towing then you want your power to kick in down low so that your tq band and peak is lower in the rpm range. For this you will probably end up needing to go with around 9.0-9.4:1 compression, since you shouldn't be turning a bunch of rpm you wont need a large runner head. I would say a head with a runner volume in the area of 270cc-295cc would do just fine. Then as far as an intake goes, my personal favorite is the performer rpm intake. then I would go with a carb like the Holley 770 vac sec on up to the holley 870 vac sec carb. As for a cam I would look at a hyd roller cam (flat tappets are next to obsolite now a days) with around 225-235° @ .050, a cam with this kind of duration in a 489-496 should start it's power band around 1400-1500rpm, it wont want to be reved up past around 5400rpm and it will make goobs of tq around 2500rpm.

I would estimate a set up like this in a 489-496 to make around 450-500hp but with around 600-625tq
 
#3 ·
I would use the oval port heads from GM.My 454 was a 360 HP LS-5,I put 2.19/1.88 valves,a used performer intake,before I took the car to the track I had a BB quadrajet and headers..For towing,if you want a roller cam,something like
120235-12 CL120235-12 266 274 213 221 .510 .538 112 108 Hyd. Hyd. 1,2
1400-4600 Good idle, Off-Road & Street Performance. 9.0:1 CR advised.
 
#4 ·
your gonna tow, so I'd think torque and service,
I'd build a 489 as it's only a 30 overbore.. the 496 is 60 over and with towing heat , you don't want the cyl walls thinner that you have to..
oval heads , depending on gearing.. dare I say a peanut port top end. with a hyd roller for low to mid range torque.. forget hp.. you'll mostlikely never see north of 3500rpm..
if building with p port heads scares you. I'd use g.m. oval port heads, and shoot for 8.8 to 1.
remember you'll be towing, and building tons of heat..
I'd even think of adding a water/meth injection for every punch over hills..
 
#6 ·
I found a factory engine oil cooler in the bone yard on a Uhaul type moving truck, I will replace the hoses when I install it. but it all looked to be in good shape. $ 20 so I had to have it.
my 454ho instructons said if I used one I needed to change out the spring in the oil pump or filter adapter, can't remember which..
keep that in mind
 
#7 ·
I'm sorry but I just can't bring my self to advise the OP to use factory GM heads that were designed over 40yrs ago. There are so technologically outdated by todays standards it's not funny. Head technology has taken leaps and bounds over the past 20yrs. In my opinion pretty much any of the heads used in the 60's-70's are now obsolite. The only facotry head I would suggest to anyone now is the 906/062 vortecs, and even those should only be used when there is a serious budget issue.

The GM oval port heads had large runners but didn't have very good flow charactaristics. these issues acutally hinder making good hp/tq from begining to end of the power band. The whole idea of trying to buy heads is to buy the smallest runner heads that gives the best flow possible. typically if you can find a 290cc head that will flow nearly the same at .600" as a 325cc head then the 290cc head will make for a much broader power curve and make more usable tq since it creates more velocity at a lower lift and rpm.

take a look at these numbers:

all these gm oval port heads- 781,772,702,290, and even the 390's are all similar in there flow numbers. They range around 210-220cfm@ .300" and 255-275cfm@ .600". Now that is without any work being done to them, as they were cast.

yet you take a pair of aftermarket heads in the 270-300cc range and they are producing numbers in this area 220-235cfm@.300 and 325-350cfm@ .600"

they ones I would suggest are the Brodix 294's they flow out of the box 226cfm@ .300" and 337cfm@ .600". ****all of these flow numbers came from an independant site, not from the manufactures****

Then I can't bring my self to advise the OP to go with a cam that would be a "torquey" cam in a 396-427. The more cubic inches you have the more duration you need from the cam in order for it to react the same as a smaller cubic inch motor. A 210-215° @ .050 cam in a 396-427 will have a power band of around 1500-4500 but in a 489-496 it would have a power band of closer to 800-3800. Let me ask you guys this; if you wanted to build a mild "torquey" 383, would you use a 210-215° @ .050 cam that would be perfect for a mild "torquey" 327. No, you would use something with around 10-15° to achive the same kind of result (power band) since you have more cubic inchs. for you to have a power band in the 1500-4500 range, you will need to use a hyd roller cam with around 220-230° @ .050 in a 489-496.

I would estimate that if you used a set of GM oval port heads and a 210-215° cam that you will make around 380-400hp and 500-525tq. whereas if you use what I suggested you will be in the 475-500hp/ and 600-625tq range. simple as that, and it would still be very streetable.
 
#10 ·
I'm sorry but I just can't bring my self to advise the OP to use factory GM heads that were designed over 40yrs ago. There are so technologically outdated by todays standards it's not funny. Head technology has taken leaps and bounds over the past 20yrs. In my opinion pretty much any of the heads used in the 60's-70's are now obsolite. The only facotry head I would suggest to anyone now is the 906/062 vortecs, and even those should only be used when there is a serious budget issue.

The GM oval port heads had large runners but didn't have very good flow charactaristics. these issues acutally hinder making good hp/tq from begining to end of the power band. The whole idea of trying to buy heads is to buy the smallest runner heads that gives the best flow possible. typically if you can find a 290cc head that will flow nearly the same at .600" as a 325cc head then the 290cc head will make for a much broader power curve and make more usable tq since it creates more velocity at a lower lift and rpm.

take a look at these numbers:

all these gm oval port heads- 781,772,702,290, and even the 390's are all similar in there flow numbers. They range around 210-220cfm@ .300" and 255-275cfm@ .600". Now that is without any work being done to them, as they were cast.

yet you take a pair of aftermarket heads in the 270-300cc range and they are producing numbers in this area 220-235cfm@.300 and 325-350cfm@ .600"

they ones I would suggest are the Brodix 294's they flow out of the box 226cfm@ .300" and 337cfm@ .600". ****all of these flow numbers came from an independant site, not from the manufactures****

Then I can't bring my self to advise the OP to go with a cam that would be a "torquey" cam in a 396-427. The more cubic inches you have the more duration you need from the cam in order for it to react the same as a smaller cubic inch motor. A 210-215° @ .050 cam in a 396-427 will have a power band of around 1500-4500 but in a 489-496 it would have a power band of closer to 800-3800. Let me ask you guys this; if you wanted to build a mild "torquey" 383, would you use a 210-215° @ .050 cam that would be perfect for a mild "torquey" 327. No, you would use something with around 10-15° to achive the same kind of result (power band) since you have more cubic inchs. for you to have a power band in the 1500-4500 range, you will need to use a hyd roller cam with around 220-230° @ .050 in a 489-496.

I would estimate that if you used a set of GM oval port heads and a 210-215° cam that you will make around 380-400hp and 500-525tq. whereas if you use what I suggested you will be in the 475-500hp/ and 600-625tq range. simple as that, and it would still be very streetable.
did you miss the part about TOWING AND DUALLY..
he'll gain nothing at the rpm he'll use his engine at.. other than a thinner wallet and LESS low end torque
 
#11 ·
"did you miss the part about TOWING AND DUALLY..
he'll gain nothing at the rpm he'll use his engine at.. other than a thinner wallet and LESS low end torque
"


I've built a fair share of engine and I have a pretty decent understanding about the math involed in acutally building and engine and not just assembling one!

Are you seriously going to try and tell me that a pair of larger oval port heads that are flowing 210cfm@ .300" and 265cfm@ .600" are going to out perform a set of aftermarket heads that have the same to smaller runner volume but yet are flowing 230cfm@ .300" and 340cfm@ .600". All the while the aftermarket heads will produce much better velocity across all lift ranges, there for creating better charge going into the cylinder on every intake stroke. :nono: A set of decent aftermarket heads and 220-230° cam will produce more tq in a 489-496 from 1500-5000rpm all day long than one assembled with a set of 40+yr old gm castings with almost any cam that you put in there. An engine is an air pump, the more air you can cram in there the more power it will make. If a set of heads can produce far better flow and velocity at all lifts than another set of heads than the better flowing heads will produce more power at every rpm level, not just higher rpm. last time i checked, those valves open a full lift (from .000-.600" or what ever your max lift is) each and every time that cam makes a full rotation, it doesn't matter whether you are turning 600rpm or 6000rpm.

let me ask you as far as small blocks go, if you were trying to make as much tq as possible in the 2500-3500rpm range, do you think it would be better to use a set of 40+yr old double humps (that flow like crap, much like the factory oval ports compaired to todays standards) or a set of DART, EQ, RHS, Brodix, Canfield...180cc heasds which are going to produce better flow and better velocity from .100-.500"

I'm not telling this guy to go out and buy a set of 325-365cc intake runner heads here, I'm telling him to go with a modest 270-300cc intake runner head that has been designed in the past 10-15years.

Come on now, its basic math comprehension here.:rolleyes:
 
#13 ·
"did you miss the part about TOWING AND DUALLY..
he'll gain nothing at the rpm he'll use his engine at.. other than a thinner wallet and LESS low end torque "


I've built a fair share of engine and I have a pretty decent understanding about the math involed in acutally building and engine and not just assembling one!

Are you seriously going to try and tell me that a pair of larger oval port heads that are flowing 210cfm@ .300" and 265cfm@ .600" are going to out perform a set of aftermarket heads that have the same to smaller runner volume but yet are flowing 230cfm@ .300" and 340cfm@ .600". All the while the aftermarket heads will produce much better velocity across all lift ranges, there for creating better charge going into the cylinder on every intake stroke. :nono: A set of decent aftermarket heads and 220-230° cam will produce more tq in a 489-496 from 1500-5000rpm all day long than one assembled with a set of 40+yr old gm castings with almost any cam that you put in there. An engine is an air pump, the more air you can cram in there the more power it will make. If a set of heads can produce far better flow and velocity at all lifts than another set of heads than the better flowing heads will produce more power at every rpm level, not just higher rpm. last time i checked, those valves open a full lift (from .000-.600" or what ever your max lift is) each and every time that cam makes a full rotation, it doesn't matter whether you are turning 600rpm or 6000rpm.

let me ask you as far as small blocks go, if you were trying to make as much tq as possible in the 2500-3500rpm range, do you think it would be better to use a set of 40+yr old double humps (that flow like crap, much like the factory oval ports compaired to todays standards) or a set of DART, EQ, RHS, Brodix, Canfield...180cc heasds which are going to produce better flow and better velocity from .100-.500"

I'm not telling this guy to go out and buy a set of 325-365cc intake runner heads here, I'm telling him to go with a modest 270-300cc intake runner head that has been designed in the past 10-15years.

Come on now, its basic math comprehension here.:rolleyes:

yup it's basic math.. the smaller ports heads will make more power where he'll be use'n the engine..
your head choice will loose power from idle to 3000 rpm..
you know the rpm he'll be in 95% of the time..
 
#14 ·
"yup it's basic math.. the smaller ports heads will make more power where he'll be use'n the engine..
your head choice will loose power from idle to 3000 rpm..
you know the rpm he'll be in 95% of the time.."




REALLY!!!

Considering that factory GM Oval port heads have runner volumes from 265cc-up, most are around 270cc-290cc I find your point invalid. Like I said before, it's not like I'm telling this guy to get a set of 325-365cc intake runner heads here. I'm suggesting that he look into a set of heads with runner volumes from 270-300cc. Which just so happens to be the exact same size range that you will find GM oval port heads. The big difference is the fact that the aftermarket heads have far flow characteristics, they create better velocity at all lift ranges and all RPM ranges.:rolleyes:

putting a set of crappy flowing, small 265cc oval port heads on a 489-496 is about the same as putting a set of 434 non HO 305 heads on a 383. Sure will it run, yes, will it make tq, yes, would they be out performed by a pair of aftermarket 180-200cc intake runner heads at absolutely every RPM level, YES!!!:spank:

The set up that I have suggested here; Brodix 294's with a dual plane intake, moderate 750-850 vac sec carb, 220° cam, will run just fine with a factory stall, the power band will be about 1500-5000. I would estimate it's max tq would be made right at 3500rpm. I would hope that he is running atleast a 4.10 rear gear for a tow vehicle, with around 30" tires put him running 3000-3200rpm at highway speeds.

The GM casting heads with the cam someone suggested (213°) will make around 380hp/525tq MAX!, (that is likely generous) it will make its max tq around 3000rpm, so there for it will be making about 525ftlb of tq at 3000. Where as the set up I have given him would make around 485hp/625tq, as i already said it would make its max tq around 3500rpm so there for at 3500rpm it would be making 625tq, I would say that it will be safe to say that from 2000-3000rpm my set up will make more tq than the set up you are recomending. You know, the RPM he'll be in 95% of the time!


Please if you can't give good advice, dont give any advice


A cam similar to this would work well:

Howards Cams Retrofit Hydraulic Roller Camshafts 123515-10 - SummitRacing.com

You have to keep in mind that the manufactures rpm range estimation is made for a 427-454BBC, if you are going to stroke it to 489-496 that is a fair bit more cid, therefor you will need a bit more duration to achive the same rpm band.
 
#15 ·
seriously ? you would tell a guy with a tow truck to order aluminum square port heads?@ 2 grand

tow trucks idle for hours in the winter or during rescue (perhaps high idle while on a hand throttle or operating hydraulics/pto) If you said buy severe duty valves for reliability,that makes sense,,,
 
#16 · (Edited)
" I'm wanting to get all the horsepower and torque out of this engine that is possible and still drive on the road with no problem"

"what are the best heads cam and intake I can get to give me the most towing power?
and finally what kind of horsepower and torque do you think the set up will make"



These are exact quotes taken from the the OP original post. He asked "what are the best heads, cam and intake I can get to give me the most towing power?" I think most would take this question as what is the best heads, cam and intake that will give me the MOST down low tq. I believe what I have suggested is exactly that.

Then he asked "I'm wanting to get all the horsepower and torque out of this engine that is possbile and still drive on the road with no problem" I believe that the combiniation I have suggested will work with nearly factory everything, and will still produce pretty of vaccum. thus I actually suggested what the OP requested, where as those who keep posting about crappy factory heads ignored the OP's request!

I dont see anywhere on the OP's post where he mentions this being a "tow truck", I believe his exact words where "I'm building a '79 4x4 dually with a turbo 400 transmission and I'm putting a '89 454 in it, the truck is just gonna be used for towing a couple vehicles at a time" This does not sound like a tow truck to me, it doesn't sound as if this truck will be used in any rescues, or need to idle for hours at a time during the winter... This sounds like a guy who has a 79' 4x4 dually who wants as much horsepower and torque as possible so he can use it to tow a 1-2 car trailer, while still maintaining street manors. Notice how the underlined sentence goes perfectly along with what the OP stated!

Where did this guy ever mention operating hydrualics/pto, cause I never saw that!

If this truck is truely a "tow truck" then I would never recomend using a gasoline engine period! you need the longevity of a diesel.


Then as far as alm heads go, I use them on my race car, and I have them on my truck (from the factory) I never have any issues with heat in either vehicle what so ever. That truck has pulled a 9,500lb camper up the mountains and the temp never buged. I have had my race car, in stop and go traffic for over and hour and she never got above 190°.
 
#17 ·
I think the OP should clarify what he wants to use the engine for exactly. If he wants to use Al. heads thats fine,I still would sugguest oval port heads. I think that using fuel injection over a carb would be a very good choice.The cams we agree on using a mild one,though that might change too? A six speed auto may offer enough benefits to warrant a swap
 
#18 ·
I think the OP should clarify what he wants to use the engine for exactly. If he wants to use Al. heads thats fine,I still would sugguest oval port heads. I think that using fuel injection over a carb would be a very good choice.The cams we agree on using a mild one,though that might change too? A six speed auto may offer enough benefits to warrant a swap
I can agree with what you have stated here. The FI would be a good choice, but can be a very costly one. I dont have any problems with the aftermarket oval port heads, but I dont think it is ever a good idea to use the original 40yr old gm castings unless you are on a very tight budget.

If iron oval port heads are a must then I would suggest the WP Merlin 269cc Oval port heads. These heads average around 10% better flow + velocity at all lift ranges and around 15% more at .550-.600" than the old factory Oval port heads. Yes a pair is going to cost you around 1500.00, but when you stop to think that you will probably spend around 400-500 (easily) for a set of used GM casting oval ports heads that still need to be cleaned up and rebuilt which will end up costing you another 500-600 for a total of around 1000+ for what is still a 40yr old GM head design with no modification or advances in technology. That 1500.00 is money well spent, and flat out will always out perform the old GM castings.
 
#20 ·
again guy, this guy asked for the most horsepower and the most down low tq posible while maintaining street manors. Did I give him advice based exactly on what he asked for? YES! Did you? NO, because the set up I suggested would out pull and out perform the set up you suggested from 1500rpm all the way to 5000rpm. So please tell me agian how you gave him such better advice than I did when I tailored my advice to exactly what the OP asked for, where as you gave him advice based on what you thought he should do.

when you ask about getting the most horsepower and the most down low tq possible while maintaining street manors, without ever mentioning a budget or the need to use stock heads then true quality aftermarket products are exactly what you are going to get.

Please Gearheadslife, come at me with some more of your vast knowlege. I can do this all day long!


Truely if the guy has the know how and the time, then if he want to go with FI then I would say his best bet would be to find a junkyard latter model 3500HD with an 8.1L and the Allison 1000, this should only cost around $2500 total but would require some fabrication, and wiring. I'm not sure how easy these are to find either but it would be a viable option worth considering.
 
#25 ·
454

wow i understand where the dude is coming from when he talks about buying new heads and what ever else. yea thats cool if u have the money but if not ya run with u got and make it work. its eather going to go or blow. if it does then u go from there to decide what to do next. its called budget racin.
 
#29 ·
why would 230 cfm intake flow,not support 600 pounds torque?The 454 would make peak power(under 500 horse power)under 5,000 rpm.
could someone work the horse power numbers backwards ? use 4800 rpm and 500 horse power and see what torque number comes up for the equation?
 
#32 ·
Factory 156 peanut port heads with 195cc intake runners have a max flow of 226cfm at .600 and then 227cfm at .700" and their efficiency rating is 70.8%. The 236 peanut port heads with 208cc intake runners have a max flow if 235cfm at .600 and .700", their efficacy rating is 70.6%.

To put those flow numbers into perspective a pair of 906/062 vortecs with 170cc runners flow about 227cfm at .500" from the factory. These nor the BBC peanut port heads in factory form can support 500hp. A general rule of thumb is that what ever your max flow cfm is, multiply that by 2 and that will give you the absolute max hp those heads can support, and that is with an engine with pretty much 100% VE. Most decent street engine only have about 85% VE. So take the 236 208cc peanut port heads which flow 235cfm at .600, under 100% VE they could make 470hp max but considering most decent street engine on have about 85% VE that number is more realistically 415-425hp.
 
#36 · (Edited)
Actually 227x2.2=499.4


And I'm pretty sure that we are talking about "most builders of mild street engines" here since 99.9% of gearheads don't have multi-million dollar facilities nor the vast expert knowledge it took to afford those multi-million dollar facilities. Even most of your average in home drag engine builders who are producing engines with 1.4-1.7hp/ci are still only managing 85-90%VE
 
#35 · (Edited)
I'd love to see you post his dyno info, and I love to see it done on non professionally ported peanut port heads. You can find all kinds of inflated numbers when port work has been done. My numbers came straight from Stain Weiss's cylinder flow page. The numbers are as cast. People like Lingenfelter, Vizard, Case... Have so much knowledge, experience and the proper tools and machinery to do some outstanding things like this. And much of their knowledge has come from the trial and error of porting thousands of heads. Most people do not have the know how nor the tools in their garage to do anything at the scale some of these people where capable of doing. These people had flow benches on site where they could check at the drop of a hat if what they were doing was going to benifit power or hinder it. Your average gearhead can't even begin to compete with what these guys had the resources to do and that they were capable of.

Like I said, the 156 and 236 peanut port numbers I posted where taken as cast, flow tested on a SF600 in 28" of water. It doesn't mention what bore plate was being used, I would assume 4.250" but I'm not sure. And about my math numbers about head cfm, max HP, and VE, that came from David Vizard, you know one of the most respected engine builders in the US.
 
#37 ·
I'd love to see you post his dyno info, and I love to see it done on non professionally ported peanut port heads. You can find all kinds of inflated numbers when port work has been done. My numbers came straight from Stain Weiss's cylinder flow page. The numbers are as cast. People like Lingenfelter, Vizard, Case... Have so much knowledge, experience and the proper tools and machinery to do some outstanding things like this. And much of their knowledge has come from the trial and error of porting thousands of heads. Most people do not have the know how nor the tools in their garage to do anything at the scale some of these people where capable of doing. These people had flow benches on site where they could check at the drop of a hat if what they were doing was going to benifit power or hinder it. Your average gearhead can't even begin to compete with what these guys had the resources to do and that they were capable of.

Like I said, the 156 and 236 peanut port numbers I posted where taken as cast, flow tested on a SF600 in 28" of water. It doesn't mention what bore plate was being used, I would assume 4.250" but I'm not sure. And about my math numbers about head cfm, max HP, and VE, that came from David Vizard, you know one of the most respected engine builders in the US.
509 ft at the wheels on the dyno challange .. through a th400 and a full floater rear.. in a dually thats over 600ft at the crank..
a vid of the pull is on the net.. I'll have to try to find it..
I have i
 
#39 ·
just over. 499.??? is close enough to 500 at 100% I also stated that over 100% is possible.
go through my posts and I am usually conservative with results

I have dyno results for my engine if you want to try your math


heads flow 327 cfm
solid roller 256/264x .420X 1.5&1.6--108/108 at 107.5
single 950
vic Jr
headers are 1 7/8 stepped 2 inch,,,3 inch collector.10.75:cr
 
#42 · (Edited)
Wow, you guys just want to argue for the sake of arguing. Most everything I have posted has come from the work of true Experts, not my self. I have used what I have learned from them to build the engines that I have built. The math I used came straight from David Vizard, the cylinder flow data came straight from Stan Weiss. Neither you have posted where you go any of you information from, and have continued to argue simply based on opinions. I have used the math, formulated by the experts, not formulated by my self!

Here look up the 156 and 236 peanut port heads:

Stan Weiss' - Cylinder Head Flow Data at 28 Inches of Water -- DFW / FLW Flow Files for use with Engine Simulation Software


WHAT PART OF AS CAST DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND!!!! I NEVER MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE OR WERE NOT CAPABLE OF WITH MACHINE WORK. ONLY AS CAST!!!

actually the correct formula is just over 2.2 X CFM so 227 cfm could make over 500 hp at 100% volumetric efficiency.It is also possible to make more than 100% V.E.
85% V.E. is realistic for most builders of mild street engines.
Yesterday 11:16 PM


I understood what you were trying to say but you all have been so intent on attacking me, I found a minor error in your statment and threw it back in your face. You guys are so intent on trying to attack me that you can't see the forest for the trees. You guys keep talking about what a heads is capable of with machine work done to it and I am only talking about what those are are capable of without machine work done to them, in complete factory form.

Super stock guys work wonders with their heads, pretty much none of them are using their heads as they were cast. This is simply the point that I have been trying to make over the last umptine posts, but you guys just keep reading it the way you want and continue to argue. Go back and reread what I have posted, never to I mention what they heads are capable of with some work being done the them, and I know that I have said "as cast" multiple times in my previous post.

"I have dyno results for my engine if you want to try your math


heads flow 327 cfm
solid roller 256/264x .420X 1.5&1.6--108/108 at 107.5
single 950
vic Jr
headers are 1 7/8 stepped 2 inch,,,3 inch collector.10.75:cr
"


You never put a CID on here but I would assume that its a small block and in the area of 383-406 but I could be wrong. This set up is very similar to what I have. I have a little more compression, nearly identical cam (255/261 .620/.620", 1.6 rockers on int/exh)my head flow about 10 less CFM at .700", where I acutally had them flow tested on a 4.040" bore plate, done right in front of me, that isn't coming off the manufacutres inflated numbers where they used 4.200" bore plates. I used a modified 850 DP, with a vic jr, All in a 385cid that is capable of running off pump gas (93 octane), mine was dyno'd at 573hp @ 6400rpm and 538tq @ 4600rpm (I shift at 6800rpm). The engine was dyno'd by Maryland Performance Center in Frederick, MD. I would guess based on 383-406ci, that your engine is making roughly 550-600hp.
 
#46 ·
what part of the Oval port heads and the heads that I was recomending have nearly identical size runner volumes dont you understand....



And no I would not recomend using 195 or 208cc peanut port heads on a larger cid motor such as a 489-496 with out doing some extensive machine work first. Even then I personally believe the money spend on the peanut ports would have been wasted since you could have bought a brand new set of heads for how much the machine work would cost you.

People like Lingenfelter did some amazing things, was it becaue they had to no, it was because they could. Did Lingenfelter build a 500+hp BBC with peanut port heads becuase he had to no, he was trying to prove a point that it could be done. But like commericals you see on TV, "THE RESULTS ARE NOT TYPICAL"
 
#44 ·
my engine is 434 cube/
I often use stan weis as a guide for getting flow numbers on castings.
one of the local guys here I associate with is Harvey Resnick,who was good friends with John Lingenfelter, I never met John.
I get my engine parts from Jeff Lukovich.My best friend John Graham deals with Scott Shaffiroff. I use Richard Johnson for machine work.I ve used John Haida,Dave Hall,Buck Kinney.
So does name dropping help?
no, personally Ive bracket raced at mission/S I R/Bremerton. Ive road raced at westwood,Ive ralleye raced from BBY to harrison hot springs

Im not looking to argue with you again.sometimes you make very good posts and I dont even follow up because you were correct and concise.
 
#45 ·
I wan't trying to name drop at all, I dont personally know any of these people, I have learned from what they have written. I simply stated that they math that you so easily criticized was not my own but the math came from them.

Oh, since you are running a 434 I would "guestimate" the hp numbers to be in the 600-630 range. Please, let me know how correct I am, I'm willing to bet that I'm pretty close.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top