Hot Rod Forum banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Below is my current "paper build" there could be some changes as it proceeds since I don't have all the parts yet...

.030 SBC 400 zero deck block, ARP main stud kit
4340 Eagle 3.750 internally balanced crank
4340 Eagle 6.000 rods
SRP -16cc dish forged pistons, moly rings
ATI damper, SFI flex plate
Milodon claimer oil pan, Melling HV oil pump
4.155 x .035 Cometic head gaskets
AFR 195 (previous version) heads, chambers milled to 64cc
Comp 12-771-8, 242/248 @ .050 solid street roller
Comp Pro Magnum 1.6/1.52 rockers
Performer RPM Air Gap intake
Pro-Systems 850 DP carb
MSD Pro Billet HEI
1.75 primary tube headers

Compression is 10.49 if built as above. I've attached the advertised flow numbers for the previous version of the AFR 195 street head, I will post the independent shop's before and after flow numbers when the new port work is done.

Comments, suggestions, criticism?
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
506 Posts
Sounds like it will be a mean 406.What car/truck are you putting it in?And what are you mating it too?Are you going to be running av gas
Honestly I like the combo.The only thing I would be worried about is the compression is a little high.But It's a weekend warrior so that should'nt matter a lot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Drinking 93 octane pump gas in the 71 C10 thats in my photo album.
It is equipped with the following:
TH400, PAE switch-pitch converter Hi-Stall 4000 rpm, Low-Stall 1400 rpm
Gear Vendors overdrive
Denny's drive-shaft
12 Bolt 4.11 Detroit Truetrac 275/60/15 drag radials (28 inch) for the track.
B&M truck mega shifter

I'm changing back to a conventional high stall converter because the switch-pitch unit no longer switches to high stall. Most likely converter will be the low stall 900 XHD 9'' STREET/STRIP CONVERTER from here:
http://www.transmission-specialties.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=24

SuperFlow 901 engine dyno at Jerry Janke's shop in San Antonio is scheduled for duty when the build is complete.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
320 Posts
Interesting thread sounds exactly like the engine im building! Love to ask you a few ?'s one what car is it going in? and how you going to use yours I planning on running a little bit bigger cam than yours to take advantage of the good head flow in the way of a Comp. roller hydr. my car is a pro street 48 chevy with a 350 trans and 390 gears i may be going steeper in gear eacuse im running a 33.19.50 mickey but plan on driving it on street aswell, right now im in the process of trying to figure out to buy an air gap witch are amazing or a sigle plane, for more air volume but leaning towards the air gap and a 850 Demon later GP
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
Discussion Starter #5 (Edited)
This will be a weekend driver and occasional strip machine, that I want to be able drive to the Super Chevy show in San Antonio next October.

Depending on what the power curve looks like on the dyno, I may try some different spacers and/or a Victor Jr. But from the "magazine" dyno tests I've seen, it doesn't seem that a single plane will be of much benefit on a dual purpose "two tons of fun" street machine. Unless maybe its used to kill off some low end torque so it hooks better.
 

·
http://teamrfc.gospelcom.net
Joined
·
1,742 Posts
should be a awsome motor. I just had one built that is very similar exept with the AFR race ready 210's, the cam one step up from the one you are using (248 245 @.050 solid roller but also with 1.6/1.52 pro magnums), and a victor Jr. I think the performer RPM intake is best for yours though.

Adam
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
320 Posts
firestone said:
should be a awsome motor. I just had one built that is very similar exept with the AFR race ready 210's, the cam one step up from the one you are using (248 245 @.050 solid roller but also with 1.6/1.52 pro magnums), and a victor Jr. I think the performer RPM intake is best for yours though.

Adam
i was thinking of those heads aswell whats your motor in?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
firestone said:
should be a awsome motor. I just had one built that is very similar exept with the AFR race ready 210's, the cam one step up from the one you are using (248 245 @.050 solid roller but also with 1.6/1.52 pro magnums), and a victor Jr. I think the performer RPM intake is best for yours though.

Adam
Are you going to dyno it? It would be interesting to compare results.
I'm going fairly mild with my engine combo due to the weight of the beast its going into. We'll see if I made the right choices or not when it hits the dyno, but the real test will be when it hits the streets. :cool:
 

·
http://teamrfc.gospelcom.net
Joined
·
1,742 Posts
It is going into a 1989 firebird. My dad bought this car a while back and it had a 383 with the AFR 210's. But the cam was too small to really match the heads well (236 242 @.050 .520 lift, hyd roller). A lifter broke on that motor so we tore it down. It ended up having stock rods and a stock crank so we just decided to make a 406 out of it with another block we had. At that time, the car also had 1 5/8th inch shorty headers into one pipe and two mufflers. It ran a 7.85 in the 1/8th mile which is around a 12.3 in the 1/4; too bad considering that the car probably weighed around 3600 lbs with me in it. Now, along with the solid roller cam, we put 1 3/4" hooker super comp long tubes on it, still into a y pipe, but it has a 4" outlet into a cutout. Tranny is a turbo 400 with a 3300 stall, rear gear is a 3.89. It is in the process of being put back together now. When it gets done, I will get a track time, and make a few dyno runs. I will post the numbers at that time.

PRO 48 fleetline, I dont know if you know about the new AFR heads or not, but they outflow the old ones substantially. As far as which heads to go with, that depends on the size of your motor, and what RPM range you are looking for. I think 71C10's setup is just about perfect for the 195cc heads. Mine will not be as snappy, or have the low end power his does, but it will probably make a few more hp on the top end. As far as AFR heads go in general, I would highly recommend them. Below are the flow numbers for the new heads.

AFR 195's
http://www.airflowresearch.com/195sbc_sh.php

AFR 210's
http://www.airflowresearch.com/210sbc_rh.php

Here is an article on the eliminator heads in general
http://airflowresearch.com/articles/article113/A-P1.htm

Adam
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
71C10 said:
Below is my current "paper build" there could be some changes as it proceeds since I don't have all the parts yet...

.030 SBC 400 zero deck block, ARP main stud kit
4340 Eagle 3.750 internally balanced crank
4340 Eagle 6.000 rods
SRP -16cc dish forged pistons, moly rings
ATI damper, SFI flex plate
Milodon claimer oil pan, Melling HV oil pump
4.155 x .035 Cometic head gaskets
AFR 195 (previous version) heads, chambers milled to 64cc
Comp 12-771-8, 242/248 @ .050 solid street roller
Comp Pro Magnum 1.6/1.52 rockers
Performer RPM Air Gap intake
Pro-Systems 850 DP carb
MSD Pro Billet HEI
1.75 primary tube headers

Compression is 10.49 if built as above. I've attached the advertised flow numbers for the previous version of the AFR 195 street head, I will post the independent shop's before and after flow numbers when the new port work is done.

Comments, suggestions, criticism?
So much for the paper build...
I Sold my old AFR 195 heads today and my 400 block needs to go .040 over.
The new AFR 195 competition package is not available yet, so I may use the new AFR 195 street head (see the old and new advertised flow numbers).
I'm also told that that I don't "need" a steel crank in an occasionally strip driven, naturally aspirated mid-6000 rpm 400 SBC ...
Decisions, decisions...
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
If I were re-using my old 5.7 rods I would check piston availability before changing to a new rod length. Since this is a new build, I fall into the (use the longest rod you can fit in the engine crowd) for reduced cylinder wall loading. As far as the crankshaft difference goes, it is my understanding that the 6 inch rod crankshaft bob-weights are heavier because of the longer (and heavier) rods. This makes the crankshaft balance job easier... and even if the piston skirt is a little smaller (and lighter) with the longer rod, the weight difference may not be enough to offset the extra expense of Mallory metal that may be required to balance a crank built for 5.7 rods, but used with 6.00 rods, even if it clears the the piston skirts. :confused:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
211 Posts
71C10 said:
If I were re-using my old 5.7 rods I would check piston availability before changing to a new rod length. Since this is a new build, I fall into the (use the longest rod you can fit in the engine crowd) for reduced cylinder wall loading. As far as the crankshaft difference goes, it is my understanding that the 6 inch rod crankshaft bob-weights are heavier because of the longer (and heavier) rods. This makes the crankshaft balance job easier... and even if the piston skirt is a little smaller (and lighter) with the longer rod, the weight difference may not be enough to offset the extra expense of Mallory metal that may be required to balance a crank built for 5.7 rods, but used with 6.00 rods, even if it clears the the piston skirts. :confused:
Yes sounds good. The reason I asked though is because in a separate thread a member who has nearly 1,300 posts said that "Rod ratios, not a concern. If a Chevy small block came stock with a 9.5 deck height then you'd need a longer rod. The rod connects the piston to the crank, that's all it does."

Well I looked this up in the knowledge base and it said something totally different than what the person in question mentioned. In http://www.chevymania.com/tech/rod.htm, they say "The reasoning behind this longer rod is more power comes from a couple of aspects". I am just trying to find the truth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
994 Posts
QuenchPiston said:
Well I looked this up in the knowledge base and it said something totally different than what the person in question mentioned. In http://www.chevymania.com/tech/rod.htm, they say "The reasoning behind this longer rod is more power comes from a couple of aspects". I am just trying to find the truth.
That article is very wrong in many ways.

In an engine a longer rod can make more rotational TQ from the same piston force because it's a longer lever!
If you understand basic trigonometry you can see the mistakes in this assumption.

Two; Due to the angles involved a longer rod is less angular than a shorter one and side wall loading is less. What this means is that the piston is pushed more up and down the bore than to the side of the block thus reducing friction and increasing HP.
You can't push on the wall without pushing on something else, and the piston is only connected at two places. Newton's laws live inside a cylinder, too.

Three; The pistons speeds change with rod length. The piston has more dwell at TDC and BDC. The slower it gets at TDC the more pressure builds up at the ignition point. The piston also accelerates away from TDC and BDC quicker making the intake compression and exhaust strokes more turbulent thus making more power.
The piston leaves TDC at exactly the same rate that it approaches TDC, you can't approach slowly and leave quickly....

For a more in-depth analysis of rod length effects, look at Rick Draganowski's study:
http://www.rustpuppy.org/rodstudy.htm

Or Gere Stahl's offering:

http://www.stahlheaders.com/Lit_Rod Length.htm
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
211 Posts
onovakind67 said:
That article is very wrong in many ways.


Two; Due to the angles involved a longer rod is less angular than a shorter one and side wall loading is less. What this means is that the piston is pushed more up and down the bore than to the side of the block thus reducing friction and increasing HP.
You can't push on the wall without pushing on something else, and the piston is only connected at two places. Newton's laws live inside a cylinder, too.
Concerning #2 I am not really sure this would not be true. Don't engine bores wear more on their thrust sides and don't some aftermarket blocks cast more material on the thrust sides of the bores?

Don't pistons rock some as they move up and down in the bores as an engine runs?

Isn't there some thrust loading as the piston shoves down on the rod and turn the crank?

BTW, I am not fixing to read those url's.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
211 Posts
Wow, a whopping 3% increase in cylinder wall thrust load. Very interesting. A no factor for the street but maybe a tad for the track. I would like to know how he figured some of that stuff out though, I know a lot of times without the formula present the data is worthless.
 

·
King of my Man-cave.
Joined
·
2,896 Posts
QuenchPiston said:
Concerning #2 I am not really sure this would not be true. Don't engine bores wear more on their thrust sides and don't some aftermarket blocks cast more material on the thrust sides of the bores?

Don't pistons rock some as they move up and down in the bores as an engine runs?

Isn't there some thrust loading as the piston shoves down on the rod and turn the crank?

BTW, I am not fixing to read those url's.
You ask questions, yet you won't take time to read some good info that somebody has taken the time to provide for you. If you would like for the members here to continue to provide you with answers and for the moderators to allow you to expound your facts, I would suggest that you be a little less arrogant and a little more considerate.
:nono:

tom
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
994 Posts
QuenchPiston said:
Concerning #2 I am not really sure this would not be true. Don't engine bores wear more on their thrust sides and don't some aftermarket blocks cast more material on the thrust sides of the bores?

Don't pistons rock some as they move up and down in the bores as an engine runs?

Isn't there some thrust loading as the piston shoves down on the rod and turn the crank?

BTW, I am not fixing to read those url's.
I would think that it would be beneficial for engine blocks have more material on the thrust side. It would result in less distortion of the wall when the thrust is prevalent.
Pistons do rock in the bore, you can hear this on a cold engine with forged pistons and ample clearance.
There is thrust loading against the wall. Unless your connecting rod is infinitely long it's going to be there. For every unit of load placed against the wall by the pin end of the rod, theres a corresponding load placed on the crank by the crank end. Pushing on the crank is how torque is developed.
You could demonstrate this by becomong a human connecting rod and using two scales. Stand on one and hold the other one above your head against a wall. See if you can push on the wall with any significant force without pushing down on the floor scale.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
Discussion Starter #20 (Edited)
Found a set of competition ported AFR 220's that I'm going to replace the AFR 195's with, so here are the current changes:

.040 SBC 400, 9.?? deck height block, ARP main stud kit
Scat cast steel 3.750 internally balanced crank
Scat 4340 6.000 rods
KB -4.8cc forged pistons, moly rings
Professional products damper and flex plate
Milodon claimer oil pan, Melling HV oil pump
4.165 x .0?? Cometic head gaskets
AFR 220 heads, 76cc chambers, milled to ??cc
Comp 12-771-8, 242/248 @ .050 solid street roller
Comp Pro Magnum 1.6/1.52 rockers
Performer RPM Air Gap intake
Pro-Systems 850 DP carb
MSD Pro Billet HEI
1.75 primary tube headers

I will adjust the ??'s as needed to get my desired 10.4 to 10.7 compression, once the heads and crank kit arrive.
Comments, suggestions, criticism?
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top