Horsepower - Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > Tech Help> Engine
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 09-01-2008, 12:11 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Iowa
Posts: 135
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Horsepower

I have a 330 .020 over 327 with the following parts...

270 duration 450 lift cam
flat top pistons
461 heads (unported w/ 1.94 intakes)
Old School Torquer Intake
650 Holley double pumper dual inlet
Cast iron crank (out of 307 *pistons weight matched*)
Short tube headers 1 5/8" into 2 1/2" into true duals

What can I expect for Horsepower figures for this combination?
What should the maxinum RPM be?

    Advertisement
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 09-01-2008, 12:19 PM
DoubleVision's Avatar
Not Considered a Senior Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heart Of Dixie
Age: 40
Posts: 10,657
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 15
Thanked 60 Times in 57 Posts
About 300 horsepower. I would get rid of the torker intake, as the 650 double pumper is too much carb for a open plane intaked 327. The cam and valve train will dictate your rev limit, it`ll likely rev to 6000, but it will stop making power at around 5000, this is providing the valve train is in good shape and the springs match the camshaft. The original torker intakes were not real good for low end torque, this is why they were replaced by the torker II. I would use a dual plane intake and bolt the holley back on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 09-01-2008, 09:32 PM
curtis73's Avatar
Hates: Liver. Loves: Diesel
 
Last wiki edit: How to find cheap parts
Last journal entry: Found an LQ9 today
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Carlisle, PA
Age: 41
Posts: 5,319
Wiki Edits: 16

Thanks: 20
Thanked 26 Times in 20 Posts
Mismatch alert, but not by much.

The cam is good for 2000-6000
The heads are good for idle-4800
The intake is good to 7500 but doesn't shine until 2500.

What do you calculate compression to be?

Ditch the torker and do a performer RPM instead. The rest (except for the unknown compression) is like a muscle car motor; moderate cam and wheezy heads.

I give it 275 hp tops with those heads, and you're giving up torque big time with the [ironically named] torker intake... and by big time I mean truckloads. a massive amount. heaps. zoinks. holy cripes. Performer RPM will unlock a few more hp up top and replace insane torque down low.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 09-01-2008, 09:44 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,172
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
If you need a 3rd... I agree with both of the guys.
I give it 275 with a full exhaust.

Given the option I'd go for a 600 vacuum secondary or Edelbrock carb for drivability and snappy throttle response.
I might also go for a plain Performer intake for mid range snap.
Stay away from the Air Gap, it will be a real pain in cold weather.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 09-01-2008, 10:12 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Iowa
Posts: 135
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by curtis73
Mismatch alert, but not by much.

The cam is good for 2000-6000
The heads are good for idle-4800
The intake is good to 7500 but doesn't shine until 2500.

What do you calculate compression to be?

Ditch the torker and do a performer RPM instead. The rest (except for the unknown compression) is like a muscle car motor; moderate cam and wheezy heads.

I give it 275 hp tops with those heads, and you're giving up torque big time with the [ironically named] torker intake... and by big time I mean truckloads. a massive amount. heaps. zoinks. holy cripes. Performer RPM will unlock a few more hp up top and replace insane torque down low.
Compression ratio is 9 to 1

What if instead, of the torquer, cam & headers, I used...

A stock quadrajet intake & 4BBL
2" outlet exhaust manifolds
And this Hydralic flat tappet cam....


Int. Exh.
Gross Valve Lift .390 .410
Line C/L 108 116
Duration @ .050" 194 203

What much Horsepower would I make then?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 09-01-2008, 11:04 PM
curtis73's Avatar
Hates: Liver. Loves: Diesel
 
Last wiki edit: How to find cheap parts
Last journal entry: Found an LQ9 today
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Carlisle, PA
Age: 41
Posts: 5,319
Wiki Edits: 16

Thanks: 20
Thanked 26 Times in 20 Posts
Probably about 215 hp. You currently have a pretty good match with the compression and cam; could use 9.5:1 or 10:1, but for a street car with iron heads, 9:1 is on the low end of acceptable.

The second setup is very similar to what GM did for a long time with the TBI truck engines which were only rated at 180-210hp. The cam you list is a little bigger, and the 461 heads flow a little better, but you only have 330 cubes.

I personally would keep the good stuff you have, but for now ditch the Torker. Later (if you have the money) upgrade heads. Otherwise, things look good. That cam with a touch more compression and the right heads could be a 350 hp streetable engine without giving up much (if any) low end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 09-01-2008, 11:48 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Iowa
Posts: 135
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by curtis73
Probably about 215 hp. You currently have a pretty good match with the compression and cam; could use 9.5:1 or 10:1, but for a street car with iron heads, 9:1 is on the low end of acceptable.

The second setup is very similar to what GM did for a long time with the TBI truck engines which were only rated at 180-210hp. The cam you list is a little bigger, and the 461 heads flow a little better, but you only have 330 cubes.

I personally would keep the good stuff you have, but for now ditch the Torker. Later (if you have the money) upgrade heads. Otherwise, things look good. That cam with a touch more compression and the right heads could be a 350 hp streetable engine without giving up much (if any) low end.
Is that Gross or Net horsepower?

The TBI engine uses net figures. Which is actually quite impressive if you factor in that most net figures give away approx. 100hp. (280-310hp @ the crankshaft)

Are you rating the 330 buildup with the 2nd setup as Net figures as well?
GM rated this engine @ 300HP.

I agree, the old torker deserves a new home.
Maybe I'll just port blend one of my stock aluminum EGR Quadrajet intakes.

I have a torker 2 & an older style performer. Are either of these worth keeping/using?

Last edited by jbvcw71; 09-02-2008 at 12:43 AM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 09-02-2008, 10:17 AM
onebadmerc's Avatar
I need a bucket of arc sparks
 
Last wiki edit: How to identify SB Ford heads without pulling them
Last journal entry: trunk floor
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Florence Colorado
Age: 43
Posts: 901
Wiki Edits: 1

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I think you are flushing your money down the toliet on this combo, maybe you should build a Mopar.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 09-02-2008, 12:00 PM
curtis73's Avatar
Hates: Liver. Loves: Diesel
 
Last wiki edit: How to find cheap parts
Last journal entry: Found an LQ9 today
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Carlisle, PA
Age: 41
Posts: 5,319
Wiki Edits: 16

Thanks: 20
Thanked 26 Times in 20 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbvcw71
Is that Gross or Net horsepower?

The TBI engine uses net figures. Which is actually quite impressive if you factor in that most net figures give away approx. 100hp. (280-310hp @ the crankshaft)

Are you rating the 330 buildup with the 2nd setup as Net figures as well?
GM rated this engine @ 300HP.

I agree, the old torker deserves a new home.
Maybe I'll just port blend one of my stock aluminum EGR Quadrajet intakes.

I have a torker 2 & an older style performer. Are either of these worth keeping/using?
You are confusing gross/net with flywheel/rear wheel. That is not the case. Gross and Net HP are both measured at the crankshaft.

I always use SAE Net HP. That has been the North American industry standard since 1970 and its what we all use. Don't confuse gross/net with flywheel/rear wheel. Totally different comparisons. All manufacturer engine ratings are done at the flywheel, so the 180 hp is at the crank for TBI engines.

Gross HP was widely unreliable since it had little or no universal measuring technique. Muscle car motors were put on a dyno with headers, no mufflers, a large cold air stack, no accessories, and tuned up. Then once they got their gross numbers, they discussed in committee what they should advertise to sell the most cars. For instance the LS6 454 that was advertised at 450 hp that actually made more like 510. Insurance companies wouldn't touch it unless they lied on the power. Or the AMC inline 6 advertised at 150 hp that actually made 112 hp. No one would buy a 112 hp car, so they fudged.

In most circles, power outputs are almost always discussed at the flywheel like I was. TBI 350 engines were rated anywhere from 180 hp to 215 hp over the years 87-95. The majority of those years were either 180 or 190 hp. Those numbers are all rated at the crank. Those are manufacturer SAE net figures that have been verified by ASTM standards and are at the flywheel. Manufacturers NEVER rate engine output at the wheels.

So... summary:
*Up to 1970 ish - gross hp. An idealistic setup of engine testing that didn't use real-world parameters combined with lots of lies to sell cars.
*1970ish to now - SAE net HP. A standardized method of testing in which all accessories and a full exhaust are used.
*starting soon - a new SAE net standard will be used that has to include the actual exhaust, intake, and inlet air temperature as it would be installed in the car.
*There is also a DIN standard which they use in Europe. The numbers are derived from metric measurements, but ironically the actual numbers come out almost identical. I don't know the exact conversion, but I do remember calculating that my 170hp BMW had 168 DIN hp. Consider it a wash.

All of the above methods are crankshaft HP measured on a dyno. The dyno collects torque figures and mathematically calculates HP based on the output. As you can see, the exact same engine could be rated anywhere from 200 to 400 hp with these ratings. It also means that the 330hp muscle car motor people brag about might actually only have 260 hp by today's standards.

But, none of that applies to measuring drive wheel HP on a chassis dyno. That measures HP on an inertial drum and mathematically draws a torque curve. A chassis dyno measures output after all the drivetrain losses, and we can then guess on flywheel HP based on a guess of 20% loss in the drivetrain.

Last edited by curtis73; 09-02-2008 at 12:15 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 09-02-2008, 12:23 PM
curtis73's Avatar
Hates: Liver. Loves: Diesel
 
Last wiki edit: How to find cheap parts
Last journal entry: Found an LQ9 today
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Carlisle, PA
Age: 41
Posts: 5,319
Wiki Edits: 16

Thanks: 20
Thanked 26 Times in 20 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbvcw71
Are you rating the 330 buildup with the 2nd setup as Net figures as well?
GM rated this engine @ 300HP.
I disagree. GM rated it with headers, not manifolds, and they are using vortec heads which are light years ahead of 461s. Also, when you say "stock Qjet intake," that makes me think of an old smogger iron intake. the "stock Qjet intake" they put on the crate engines is a mid-rise intake designed with Weiand that takes advantage of 30 years of intake technology over those old iron anchors.

Power is in the heads. If you insist on using ancient heads, expect ancient power output.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 09-02-2008, 02:57 PM
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: chillicothe oh
Age: 47
Posts: 1,445
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
The ancient power output with his cam choice and heads with manifolds, Q-jet iron intake, no accessories hooked up was 300 hp.Also if you can't get 400 hp from 461 castings back away from the tool box and call for help, you need it. The factory pulled 350 hp from these heads with a fairly mild hyd. cam . More when installed on the LT1. 375 hp was acheived on the fuely models albeit with higher comp. Advertised as 11 to 1 but actually alot closer to 10 to 1.Just because something is old does not mean it will not work.Are the vortecs better ? Yes they will make more power at the expense of thinwall castings being crack prone, needing machine work to use a decent cam(No .480 lift is not a decent cam it is a wuss)then throw in the extra bucks for a vortec only intake which by the time you are done you should keep your average dual plane such as performer rpm and add good heads such as iron eagles ,AFR etc. The vortecs simply will not outrun the 461 castings by far enough to justify the expense.Example I give all the time 3400 lb camaro 3000stall 4.56 gear, 292h cam ran 13.12 in the 1/4.Added some compression went from 8.o to 1 to 12.5 now the car runs 11.90. To many people live and breathe hot rod, carcraft etc. the old iron will run just as well now as ever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 09-02-2008, 03:00 PM
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: chillicothe oh
Age: 47
Posts: 1,445
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
To answer the original post with the cam listed ,I to would dump the torker and get a performer rpm.Expect around 350 to 375 hp.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Recent Engine posts with photos

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may 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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Horsepower & Performance Formulas/Calculators edge General Rodding Tech 7 08-13-2005 07:01 AM
???the 411 on HP now & then ??? Rob Keller General Rodding Tech 20 07-13-2005 07:00 AM
Horsepower.... and horsepower loss PonchoTA79400 Engine 3 03-13-2004 10:25 AM
Horsepower then and now SteveW Engine 4 09-01-2003 08:10 PM
302 VS 347 Really a horsepower difference?????? lakecityg Engine 12 07-13-2003 09:20 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.