545" High Riser Build

[jayb]

Hey Jay---

I just read back through this thread, and had a thought. If you just bend the pushrods over a little bit, you'll eliminate the interference with the holes and not need to go for all these hardware changes!!

KS

Fabulous idea, Ken.  If I send you the pushrods, will you bend them for me? 

[jayb]

Sounds like a good plan to me.

I gotta ask though, how do your Hi-riser heads and intake compare to Blair's Pro Ports and intake?  I'm not sure I'd make an ironclad statement that since a certain size cam peaked at a certain rpm in a smaller engine,  the same size cam must peak at a lower rpm in a bigger engine.  I think if your induction system has more capacity it may rpm the same or even higher than the smaller engine, with the same cam.  I'm sure you've taken all this into account.  Just curious about it.

paulie

I actually think that's a pretty sound statement, given engines that are fairly close in horsepower.  My intake testing didn't show any significant difference in peak horsepower RPM with fairly wide variations in the manifolds themselves.  For example, if you look at the engines tested on my 390 stroker mule in the book, peak horsepower varied from about 420 to 525, but peak HP RPM only varied from 5500-5900 across most of the tested manifolds, such as the Blue Thunder dual plane, Performer RPM, Streetmaster, Victor, and Dove tunnel ram.  The only intake that really fell outside the box was the Edelbrock SP2P.  Generally, the intake just didn't have a real big influence on what RPM the engine made the most power at.

The cam, on the other hand, can easily shift the power peak up or down 1000 RPM depending on duration.  And the power peak with a given cam will always shift down if the cubic inches go up, keeping all other variables constant.

Blair mentioned that he tried two different tunnel wedge intakes on his engine, one for a medium riser and one for a high riser, and he said the high riser peaked in power about 300 RPM higher than the medium riser version did.  That's more than I would have expected, but certainly within the ballpark.  In any case I feel pretty comfortable that given the power targets, RPM targets, and size of this engine, I need to be running quite a bit more duration than the cam in Blair's engine.

[Joe-jdc]

Jay, how could Blair run a MR and a HR tunnel wedge on the same engine?  Unless he swapped heads, they are so different where the valve covers meet.  I have a new Dove TW for HR here that I just finished for a fellow up in Wisconsin, and it is huge.  It flows more than my SF-600 can measure, and I did not open up the port to the gasket size. (could only manage 20" of flow at 600 cfm)  Anyway, it sounds like you are on a quest for a particular HP number, and I hope you find it.  Joe-JDC.

[plovett]

Sounds like a good plan to me.

I gotta ask though, how do your Hi-riser heads and intake compare to Blair's Pro Ports and intake?  I'm not sure I'd make an ironclad statement that since a certain size cam peaked at a certain rpm in a smaller engine,  the same size cam must peak at a lower rpm in a bigger engine.  I think if your induction system has more capacity it may rpm the same or even higher than the smaller engine, with the same cam.  I'm sure you've taken all this into account.  Just curious about it.

paulie

I actually think that's a pretty sound statement, given engines that are fairly close in horsepower.  My intake testing didn't show any significant difference in peak horsepower RPM with fairly wide variations in the manifolds themselves.  For example, if you look at the engines tested on my 390 stroker mule in the book, peak horsepower varied from about 420 to 525, but peak HP RPM only varied from 5500-5900 across most of the tested manifolds, such as the Blue Thunder dual plane, Performer RPM, Streetmaster, Victor, and Dove tunnel ram.  The only intake that really fell outside the box was the Edelbrock SP2P.  Generally, the intake just didn't have a real big influence on what RPM the engine made the most power at.

The cam, on the other hand, can easily shift the power peak up or down 1000 RPM depending on duration.  And the power peak with a given cam will always shift down if the cubic inches go up, keeping all other variables constant.

Blair mentioned that he tried two different tunnel wedge intakes on his engine, one for a medium riser and one for a high riser, and he said the high riser peaked in power about 300 RPM higher than the medium riser version did.  That's more than I would have expected, but certainly within the ballpark.  In any case I feel pretty comfortable that given the power targets, RPM targets, and size of this engine, I need to be running quite a bit more duration than the cam in Blair's engine.

I didn't consider just changing the intake manifold.  That would be a very different story.  I was talking about changing heads and intake.  The heads being the more important part.  I don't think the combos in your book are a comparable situation.  Are Blair's Pro Port heads comparable to your Hi-Risers?   You're Hi-Riser heads are over the top in awesomeness in the wedge head world.  I'm not convinced different heads and induction have no or little influence on rpm range.

JMO,

paulie

edit:  This is a double post.  Sorry.  I didn't see my first reply and thought I didn't hit "Post",  so I typed essentially the same response again.

paulie

[cdmbill2]

Jay, I know we are dealing with some differences in archecture but to make close to 900 HP on the old 582 I was using RX series lobes, 4311 & 4315 and for the 588 to make a bit over 1000 we wnet to REV intake and XCX exhaust 1844 and 1964 lobes respectively on a 113. Just as FYI.

Lash stability and RPM has been great though the power peak is now 7500. With the RX's and a 109 it was a 6900 power peak.

[jayb]

Jay, how could Blair run a MR and a HR tunnel wedge on the same engine?  Unless he swapped heads, they are so different where the valve covers meet.  I have a new Dove TW for HR here that I just finished for a fellow up in Wisconsin, and it is huge.  It flows more than my SF-600 can measure, and I did not open up the port to the gasket size. (could only manage 20" of flow at 600 cfm)  Anyway, it sounds like you are on a quest for a particular HP number, and I hope you find it.  Joe-JDC.

Good question Joe, obviously these were not true medium riser and high riser intakes.  I think what Blair may have been talking about are the Dove high riser intakes, standard vs. the cast to fit a Cobra version.  Have you seen those?  Apparently the Cobra version is cast with the high riser base mold and the medium riser top mold, to get an intake that is low enough to fit under the hood of a Cobra replica.  I've got a picture of the two side by side around here somewhere...

I'm guessing that this is the "medium riser" vs. "high riser" that Blair was talking about, but I will ask him about it next time I talk to him so I can clarify this.

[jayb]

Jay, I know we are dealing with some differences in archecture but to make close to 900 HP on the old 582 I was using RX series lobes, 4311 & 4315 and for the 588 to make a bit over 1000 we wnet to REV intake and XCX exhaust 1844 and 1964 lobes respectively on a 113. Just as FYI.

Lash stability and RPM has been great though the power peak is now 7500. With the RX's and a 109 it was a 6900 power peak.

Thanks Bill, I appreciate the data points.  Those duration at .050" numbers are much lower than what I was thinking about.  Hmmmm...  FYI, my 585" SOHC peaked at 6600 with 293@ .050" cams, but of course with the lower rocker ratio of the SOHC you need to subtract around 10 degrees from the @.050" number to make it equivalent to a wedge FE, or any other motor with a rocker ratio in the 1.75:1 range.  So, 585", 283 @ .050" with the correction factor,  and peak power at 6600 fits into my equations pretty well.  Your RX lobes don't LOL!

[machoneman]

In reading back over your 4821 intake lobe (and Cdmbill2's RX 4311 lobe) I believe both are noted by Comp as being designed for high lift rocker ratios. Are you intending to make your own higher ratio 1.80-1.85 FE rockers in the future? Don't know if folks like T&D make them already for the FE so....just wondering.

 


 

[cammerfe]

Just to keep this going, I'll be happy to do the bending. I'll have to build a jig to make sure they're all the same. And there's always the possibility of having to bend them BOTH ways so as to make them universally usable! (Just let me know!)

KS

[XR7]

In reading back over your 4821 intake lobe (and Cdmbill2's RX 4311 lobe) I believe both are noted by Comp as being designed for high lift rocker ratios. Are you intending to make your own higher ratio 1.80-1.85 FE rockers in the future? Don't know if folks like T&D make them already for the FE so....just wondering.

 T&D has ratios from 1.70 up to 2.00 available in every .05 for the FE.

On one of the builds I am working on, the cam being used is a custom Comp with FB lobes, 1816R/1960R with the 1.8/1.75 rockers come out to .846/.792 lift without lash. The duration is 281/286 @ .050  This is a 511 cubic inch, 4.375 bore Genesis iron block with a 4.250 4340 crank. The heads are BT gen 2 MR with CNC chambers, hand ported, that flow 386@850, it will have a two piece sheet metal 2x4 tunnel ram.

Jay, how could Blair run a MR and a HR tunnel wedge on the same engine?  Unless he swapped heads, they are so different where the valve covers meet.  I have a new Dove TW for HR here that I just finished for a fellow up in Wisconsin, and it is huge.  It flows more than my SF-600 can measure, and I did not open up the port to the gasket size. (could only manage 20" of flow at 600 cfm)  Anyway, it sounds like you are on a quest for a particular HP number, and I hope you find it.  Joe-JDC.

Knowing Blair, he has probably tried both HR and MR tunnel wedges on both MR heads... and maybe even both MR and HR intakes on HR heads!!! The Edelbrock pro-port is a MR head with a small "peanut port" and un-machined chambers. These are for CNC only as they need a ton of work, but you can place a newer style oval raised port with a straighter shot at the valve. You can basically put a HR port in these heads, without welding and/or epoxy. There would be some work to make the valve cover work out, but a spacer or angle shim, and/or machining to make it come together is certainly possible.  I have MR and HR heads here now, as well as 3 tunnel wedges and a HR tunnel wedge, they will all bolt up, same bolt pattern and water port location, only the port location itself, and the valve cover rail height and angle are different. Mix and match, a little machining and epoxy or weld maybe, your in business...

not sure why the quotes merged in with my comments... but you can figure it out???

(Edit - You must have deleted one of the quotes strings by accident.  I fixed it - Jay)
 

[machoneman]

Thanks XR, good thing Jay won't have to make any more custom parts .

Is the engine your doing for your own ride? What will it go in?

[XR7]

I wish it was for my ride! I'm building this for a good friend, it will go in his Thunderbolt clone.

Also I don't mean to "steal the thread" or anything like that....as I was just trying to add info to (possibly) help Jay's build. I think your new plan is a good one Jay! That HR does need a bigger cam! Looking forward to what Blair specs out for you.

Less stroke won't hurt it at all.... I know of one HR (BT CNC ported by BarryR) with a 4.375 bore and 4.125 crank, less than 500 inches and made over 900 HP.

On your rod length deal, I see that Oliver has billet rods for BBC that are available in several lengths... including 6.635 which would work perfect for you. They have them available in 2.200 and 2.100 pin sizes and are a very strong, high end rod (a little spendy but most likely similar in price with a Crower).  Here is a link to an EBAY auction with listings for the 2.200 which is what the 4.500 crank that would go into the SOHC is correct? Do one of your cranks have the 2.100 rod pin?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Oliver-BBC-Billet-Rods-Standard-LG-Journal-/220655833355?hash=item33601cd10b&item=220655833355&pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&vxp=mtr

[jayb]

Those Oliver rods do look good, but I'm pretty much already committed to the Crowers.  Also, since they aren't Crower's billet rods, they are only about $800 for the set.  They are still good for 1000 HP, according to Blair.  And, my .027" Cometic head gaskets are on the way.

Also on the way by now are the .080" offset T&D rockers; should have those next week.  When I get them, I'll try them out on my new port plate, which I just finished up this week.  Here's some pictures:









I used Mario's idea of the O-rings around the port, and will make a bolt on "upper" intake for these plates.  I'll run the water jacket opening out of the front of the plate on each side, and machine the china walls and the valley cover so that the whole works bolts together.  Lots of CNC work, but that's half the fun  

I also got the scoop from Blair on the intake manifolds.  I had it a little mixed up.  He ran two motors on the dyno recently, both making over 800 HP (see the separate post in the tech section).  Both used Edelbrock Pro-Port heads with Blair's intake port, which requires welding on these heads to raise the ports as far as he wants them to go.  One of these engines used a medium riser tunnel wedge intake, and the other used a high riser intake, with a plate bolted to the head to get the correct spacing with the raised port.  The high riser intake got a lot of work on the valve cover rails to make them line up properly, and Blair said he also used a valve cover spacer, to get the valve cover up higher after the machine work.  

On the cam, after some in depth discussions I decided to go with an older Super Stock cam profile that Blair used to run, with .445 lobe lift, 282@.050 on the intake, and 288@.050 on the exhaust.  Hopefully that will get the power band where I want it, but if it doesn't Blair said he could duplicate that cam in a variety of duration@.050 numbers, so there are some options to tune the duration to get into the power band I want.  I'm also going to go up to 13.25:1 compression ratio on this engine.  This gets me outside of my normal comfort zone for DCR; I usually limit that to 8.5:1 so I can easily run pump gas.  DCR with this cam and CR will be around 9.2:1, which is stretching it a bit, I think.  Nothing ventured, nothing gained, though; I used to think that a 4500 stall converter was about all you could get away with on the street, and that turned out to be not even close to true.  Hopefully I can live with the compression with this engine.

[machoneman]

Nice workmanship on that plate Jay! And being able to swap intake on an FE without pulling the rocker shafts, p-rods, ditzy and still getting 'wet feet', etc.......Sweet! Better looking than the old PSE unit for sure. Can't wait to see all those modern Cleveland intakes tested as well...

[WConley]

Jay -

Lovely work on the port plate.  I see all of the setups, not to mention the many toolpaths generated without the benefit of CAM software.  You da man!!

I am inspired