My 431 stroker Build and Dyno

[Fine69mach1]

My engine shop just completed the build on my 390 strokes to 431.

1968 block bored .30 over. Oil modifications.
4.125 scat crank with 9.8 comp dish pistons.
Custom  grind hyd flat tappet camshaft
Edelbrock 60069 heads with pop shafts and stands. Factory rockers.
Streetmaster port match to edelbrock port sizes.
750 Holley DP mech secondaries.
Windage tray and factory oil pan. High volume oil pump.
Msd distributor.

Started timing at 32 total. 
488 HP and 525tq
Advance timing to 34. Gained more HP and TQ.
Added 1" open spacer under carb and ran timing to 36 total.
For best results at
547 HP @ 5400.  601 TQ @ 4400 rpm.
Real flat torque curve stayed a over 500 tq from 2600rpm.

Defiantly exceeding my expectations. I was planning for 475hp /500tq

This motor will be going into my 69 mach1 with a C6 and 3.91 rear.
Should be a lot of fun.
Thanks to all the guys on their help to answering my questions throughout the summer.
This is my first FE and I can't wait to get behind the wheel.

[thatdarncat]

Nice build and results. I have one comment though...if by stock oil pan you mean the original 5 quart I'd consider changing it to the deeper Milodon or something. At the least run the extra quart of oil Ford did on the CJ's. If you're staying with that pan maybe try to find some of the long finger drip tins for under the rocker shafts. Jay's testing ( results in his book ) showed they were well worth it, returning the oil to the pan better. Good Luck.

[65er]

Really nice results there and sounds like nothing to exotic as far as parts.  Great job I'd say!

[Qikbbstang]

Stroking, the Streetmaster and that Hyd Cam sure combined to produce some awesome power it looks like a stock 390GT/428CJ on a handful of Steroids!
    Use a CJ/SCJ chromed dipstick for an oil mark and with the HV pump think about adding even more oil to make up for what oil is hung up upstairs.

[plovett]

Man, can you please tell us the cam spec's? 

Also, were the heads ported? Valve sizes?

What kind of dyno was it?

Nice build for sure. 

paulie

[Barry_R]

Definitely good numbers.  Might be "too good" at 1.39 lbs of torque per cube form a hydraulic flat tappet 9.8:1 combination.
I would have expected something closer to your original expectations plus or minus a couple percent.
Definitely would be interested in seeing the dyno data
In any case its gonna be a great engine for the car - lots of fun

[jayb]

Hate to say it, but I kind of had the same "too good" thought...

[rockittsled]

Does a typical dyno sheet give the info for the correction factor used in calculating the corrected HP/Torq?  Will the typical dyno operator explain the numbers and differences between them and what everything else means?  How do you tell if an operator turned the altitude/"horsepower" knob?

The reason I ask is that I remember googling to find more info about the Hot Rod 450Hp 390 and finding the discussions on another forum that included comments from DF and I am curious if "our" shop owners like Barry or Brent could look at another shop's sheets and notice things that someone like I wouldn't.  I have never seen an engine dyno, much less had an engine tuned on one, but if I did, I would love to have an expert verify the results that I was given

[Joe-JDC]

Weather, inside temperature, outside air source temperature, water temperature at start of pull, oil temperature at start of pull, oil level in pan, bsf reading, total air flow consumed, temperature of exhaust, all things to look at to see if the numbers look legitimate.  Rate of acceleration, time to climb, and timing all affect the outcome.  Just an educated guess, but gaining that much horsepower and torque from 4* timing change seems unlikely.  Joe-JDC.

[Fine69mach1]

I will try to upload Dyno sheets. My motor and Dyno was done through a very reputable shop who build and run race cars.
As for my build I don't have a print out of every detail of the build yet.
They did do some head work on my edelbrock heads but have the same size valves. Do not know the flow rate.
Cam is a custom grind specific to my motor by their camshaft guy. I don't have specs but it does have a lot of duration and under .600 lift.
I never asked what the actually conpression rate came out at or what my edelbrock heads cc out at either.
Just know the scat stroke kit was a 9.8 dished piston with 72cc head I was told.
My streetmaster intake was port matched to the Edelbrocks and the plenum was cleaned up and polished as well.
I know this motor was blue printed very well and by the responses maybe more was done than I put forth on my right up.

For comparison

32 timing with no carb spacer.
507 HP @ 5400
566 TQ @ 4400

34 timing
526 HP @ 5300
578 TQ @ 4400

36 timing with 1" 4 hole spacer
538 HP @ 5400
583 Tq @ 4400

36 timing with 1" open spacer
547 HP @ 5400
601 TQ @ 4400


Sorry my first post saying my first pull was 488hp was at 32 timing without carb tuning.  After tuning and at 32 deg it started at 507ho and 566 TQ so only 40 HP and torque increase with timing and carb spacer.

[thatdarncat]

I personally have no idea on if your results are accurate, with the info you have provided, so I'm not making any comment on that. It's still a healthy FE. Knowing the cam specs would go a long way in knowing if it's in the ballpark. Even a custom cam would have come from the grinder with a cam card and your builder should have supplied that to you. You paid for the cam after all. And in a shameless plug again for Jays book, he has a whole chapter on how the dyno works, calibration and what can give incorrect results. Yes it is possible to see bogus correction info right on the dyno sheet, but it is also possible to skew the results other ways, including by going into the programming and inputting factors that are not accurate. And again not knowing your dyno shop I'm not making any comments there, but I have seen otherwise reputable race shops come up with some questionable results that local racers have not been able to repeat when they take their engine somewhere else to back up the results. Everyone likes to see a "big" number and sometimes shops just want to get someone off their backs. That is the reason the pro race teams have their own dyno and operator.

[jayb]

Does a typical dyno sheet give the info for the correction factor used in calculating the corrected HP/Torq?  Will the typical dyno operator explain the numbers and differences between them and what everything else means?  How do you tell if an operator turned the altitude/"horsepower" knob?

The reason I ask is that I remember googling to find more info about the Hot Rod 450Hp 390 and finding the discussions on another forum that included comments from DF and I am curious if "our" shop owners like Barry or Brent could look at another shop's sheets and notice things that someone like I wouldn't.  I have never seen an engine dyno, much less had an engine tuned on one, but if I did, I would love to have an expert verify the results that I was given

A good dyno sheet will have the correction factor and weather information available.  The weather is one factor that can easily change the corrected torque and power numbers.  This happened to a local friend of mine who runs a stock eliminator Mustang; his engine dynoed at a shop run by a well respected national racer, and he got excellent results, but the car wouldn't run that fast on the track.  He brought his dyno sheets over to show me, and the barometric pressure indicated that the shop was nearly as high as Denver, not at 1000 feet like the area around here.  The dyno's barometer was way off, either due to miscalibration, or it was intentionally set wrong.  The result was an overly large correction factor, and 50 extra horsepower that wasn't really there.

Also as Kevin mentioned there are ways to cheat the results if you are unscrupulous enough to do that.  The dyno is controlled by software, and it is not too difficult to get into the software and adjust the "gain" on the torque link, to give a higher torque reading.  This is why, if you really want to be confident of your results, you should have the dyno operator calibrate the dyno for you before testing.  If you don't see it yourself, how can you know if the dyno is reading accurately? 

Without naming names, I'll guarantee you that some of the most well respected engine builders out there, including FE engine builders, have "happy" dynos, that give very optimistic results.  Its all about satisfying the customer    I will also say that Barry R's results and Blair P's results are always very consistent with similar engines that I have dynoed, and I know my dyno gives accurate results because I calibrate it regularly. 

Back to the original topic though, and regardless of the accuracy of the dyno results it sure does sound like a strong engine.  Should be a lot of fun in the car...

[Barry_R]

My dyno numbers have been accused of being "too high" for some applications, and "too low" for others.  Its really a matter of reality not matching desires or expectations. 

Similar engines built with reasonably similar machining and components by competent people should provide similar results within a rational range.  Once you get beyond a few percentage points in either direction its time to carefully evaluate any outliers to see "why" they gave those results.  You need to isolate whether you have a test equipment issue, a testing conditions issue - or whether you "found something" in that particular combination that is worth replicating.

Its possible to crutch the correction by pushing the sensor data with changes in location or airflow.  If the temperature sensor is located in an unusually warm position in the cell - like above the headers and away from the room's airflow path - it will read unrealistically high and add correction.  If the sensor is in the room proper, but airflow into the engine is ducted from the outside it's possible to use far colder inlet air into the engine than the sensor indicates.  A high speed fan in that intake duct will add a little positive pressure and push numbers up a little as well.

We've seen the impact of different testing methodology and application of varied correction factors in the Engine Masters Challenge each year.  Along with rules changes each year, they also will sometimes tweak the testing parameters.  its like tuning for a given race track - some guys pick up on the opportunities each change provides and use them to develop a strategy that provides for a competitive advantage.

[blykins]

One of these days, I will build a mule and send it around to various shops to dyno.  There are some pretty big differences (up to 5-6%) between some of the dynos around here, and I think it's because of some of the reasons that Barry outlined.  I really don't think there are that many "malicious" dyno operators out there, but I think there are some inherent design characteristics of each brand that may help or hurt the numbers. 

Barry knows that dyno results are a general pet peeve of mine.  Most of the time I see numbers from other builders that pretty much jive with what I see from my own stuff, plus or minus a few ponies.  However, you have to raise your eyebrows when every engine that comes out of a particular shop could be a legitimate EMC competitor. 

[Rory428]

I also have to question some power numbers that I have seen, especially in the big California car magazines. One magazine article I recall was they took a 100,000 miles, bone stock junkyard 5.0 Mustang,engine ,and untouched from the wrecking yard, it made more power than my Stock Eliminator 5.0 Mustangs engine did! (My Mustang ran 12.3s in legal NHRA trim,, at 3100lbs). As for the origional posters 431, great numbers if they are legit, his hyd cammed, 9.8 compression blows away the .030 over 428, .650" lift solid cam, 11.5 compression dud that ran 10.0s at 132 MPH in my 3100 lb Fairmont, or my 427/428 cranked slug that ran 9.9ETs, yet barely made 500 ft/lbs of torque on the dyno.Funny thing is my turds have ran toe to toe with a couple of similar weight cars with (supposedly 650-700 HP engines.( Different dynos of course.)

[blykins]

Here's a couple of my engine results for comparison purposes...

*434 ci FE, 422 hp @ 5500, 467 lb-ft @ 4000.  4.165 x 3.980, factory CJ crankshaft, Scat H-beam rods, Diamond pistons, 9.8:1.  Comp Cams hydraulic roller, 227/233 @ .050", .576" lift, 112 LSA.  Factory CJ heads, Ferrea valves, valve job only.  Factory CJ intake manifold.  Holley 750 mechanical secondary carburetor. 

I think the heads flowed around 250 @ lift on that one.

*428 ci FE, 533 hp @ 6400, 472 lb-ft @ 5400.  4.130 x 3.980, Scat cast crankshaft, Scat H-beam rods, Probe pistons, 11:1.  Comp Cams solid roller, 248/254 @ .050", 110 LSA, 110 ICL, .676"/.680" lift, Keith Craft Stage 1 Edelbrock heads, Dove Tunnel Wedge, Road Demon 625 carburetors.

Solid roller, pulling to 6500 with 270-280-ish heads and still didn't hit the 550 mark.

*427 ci FE, 510 hp @ 6100, 511 lb-ft @ 4200.  4.250 x 3.780, factory 391 crankshaft, BBC rod journals, Oliver rods, Race-Tec pistons, 11.5:1.  Bullet solid flat tappet, 252/260 @ .050", 106 LSA, 104 ICL, Lawes Mayfield ported factory C3 LR heads, Lawes Mayfield ported factory LR 2x4 intake.  Holley 600 carburetors.

*427 ci FE, 476 hp @ 5700, 489 lb-ft @ 4400.  4.236 x 3.780, factory 427 $ crank, Scat H-beam rods, Diamond pistons, 10.7:1.  Bullet solid flat tappet, 240/246 @ .050", 108 LSA, 103.5 ICL, .620"/.614" lift.  Edelbrock heads (out of box with good valve job), Blue Thunder 1x4 intake.  Holley 750 carburetor.  Stuska dyno. 

And here's what it takes to hit 600 lb-ft of torque on the dyno I use:

*487 ci FE, 536 hp @ 6000, 583 lb-ft.  4.270 x 4.250, Scat cast crankshaft, Scat H-beam rods, Diamond pistons, 10.5:1.  Comp Cams hydraulic roller, 245/248 @ .050", .634"/.634" lift, 110 LSA.  Edelbrock RPM heads with valve job, Edelbrock Performer RPM intake, Quick Fuel BD-850 carburetor.

*501 ci FE, 580 hp @ 6000, 615 lb-ft @ 4000.  4.270 x 4.375, RPM forged crankshaft, Scat H-beam rods, Race-Tec pistons, 10.3:1.  Crane hydraulic roller cam, 254/260 @ .050", .655"/.655", 112 LSA, 107 ICL.  Joe Craine ported Edelbrock cylinder heads, Joe Craine ported Performer RPM intake.  Quick Fuel Q-950 carburetor.

[Rory428]

Brent, those engines you listed sound much closer to the numbers I have seen with my own stuff on my buddys SuperFlow 901 dyno. I have not got over 500 ft/lbs of torque with either my 428 or 454 FEs,let alone 600, but sometimes it seems like everybody with a 9.5 compression 390 is able to" leap tall building in a single jump". And don`t even get me started with people who believe the numbers many of those computer programs often spew out. Hell, even the 485HP 331 SB Ford in my Mustang is a weak player compared to the HP numbers of some other 347-408 cube small blocks at my local track, but it seems to be able to put up favorable ET and MPH numbers on the 1/4 mile scoreboards.Personally I`ll take a good ET slip over a bloated dyno sheet or magic flow bench numbers any day of the week.

[blykins]

Every dyno shop will tell you that their dyno is conservative...LOL  But I've used several and the one I frequent the most seems to be pretty tight-lipped.  I always wondered why I was around 25-30 hp  below everybody else with pretty much the same parts.  Seems like we all build 482's with 240-ish duration hydraulic rollers, heads that flow around 320 at lift, same intakes, same compression, etc., but I was always at 550-575 with them while everyone else was at 575-600.   I've found some hydraulic roller lobes that lost horsepower because they were too rowdy, even for lower rpm engines, but for the most part, we all use pretty much the same junk. 

I may be a dumb ole hillbilly engine builder, or maybe it's the dyno....one of these days I'll do the dyno mule thing and I'll find out. 

[jayb]

Brent, I like your "dyno test" idea, a lot.  The only thing is that you'd have to keep what you were doing on the QT, so that you didn't get various dyno operators "recalibrating" just before you got there LOL!  You also might want to run at least one pull on the dyno with the headers open, to eliminate the variabilities of the dyno's exhaust system from installation to installation.  By the way, your results look pretty reasonable to me also...

[blykins]

Good point about the exhaust.  I've seen some shops evacuate right into the dyno room.   

If I can get a plan together, I can hit a Stuska here at home, then maybe I could hit Barry's place for a DTS test, then run over to your spot for a Super Flow test.  I'd like to buy you all a Mt. Dew anyway.     That would give me a good sense of how different brands and different setups react, then I could hit a few more shops for a real comparison.

[mike_burch]

I also have to question some power numbers that I have seen, especially in the big California car magazines. One magazine article I recall was they took a 100,000 miles, bone stock junkyard 5.0 Mustang,engine ,and untouched from the wrecking yard, it made more power than my Stock Eliminator 5.0 Mustangs engine did! (My Mustang ran 12.3s in legal NHRA trim,, at 3100lbs).

It seems like all the big magazines use WesTech for their dyno articles, and always get FANTASTIC results! 
There is a guy on another forum that took his 363 SBF to Westech, they told him he had 575hp, and all he could do was a 10.99 @ 121.5 in a 2900lb Falcon...  when he should have been around a 10.30.  Go Figure!  Maybe there is a reason the mags flock to certain dynos!  LOL

[Rory428]

I also have to question some power numbers that I have seen, especially in the big California car magazines. One magazine article I recall was they took a 100,000 miles, bone stock junkyard 5.0 Mustang,engine ,and untouched from the wrecking yard, it made more power than my Stock Eliminator 5.0 Mustangs engine did! (My Mustang ran 12.3s in legal NHRA trim,, at 3100lbs).

It seems like all the big magazines use WesTech for their dyno articles, and always get FANTASTIC results! 
There is a guy on another forum that took his 363 SBF to Westech, they told him he had 575hp, and all he could do was a 10.99 @ 124 in a lightweight Falcon...  when he should have been around a 10.30.  Go Figure!  Maybe there is a reason the mags flock to certain dynos!  LOL

Yeah, that would be the one. Any idea what the Falcon weighed? My 331 made a paltry 485HP, but that has been enough to go a 10.28@128MPH on 9" slicks, weighing 3100lbs, complete with full stock interior, flat steel hood, and the battery still under the hood.I wonder what my engines would make at Westtech ?

[blykins]

1200 hp.

[jayb]

Yeah, that would be the one. Any idea what the Falcon weighed? My 331 made a paltry 485HP, but that has been enough to go a 10.28@128MPH on 9" slicks, weighing 3100lbs, complete with full stock interior, flat steel hood, and the battery still under the hood.I wonder what my engines would make at Westtech ?

I have to say, I wonder what some of my cars would run at Mission, with that below sea level air you guys have LOL!

[jayb]

Good point about the exhaust.  I've seen some shops evacuate right into the dyno room.   

If I can get a plan together, I can hit a Stuska here at home, then maybe I could hit Barry's place for a DTS test, then run over to your spot for a Super Flow test.  I'd like to buy you all a Mt. Dew anyway.     That would give me a good sense of how different brands and different setups react, then I could hit a few more shops for a real comparison.

Sounds good to me, no charge to run that engine on my dyno...

[Qikbbstang]

Re: Open Headers in the Dyno Room gawd the decibel's must shatter glass, even the exhaust fan set-up would not dull that roar. Horsepower by Hedrick here in Jax was forced to use mega serious industrial silencer$ to achieve the required noise figures our local Gov't demands.

Couldn't an accurate "certified" scale be rigged to a dyno to measure the actual foot pounds?.......................

[Rory428]

Yeah, that would be the one. Any idea what the Falcon weighed? My 331 made a paltry 485HP, but that has been enough to go a 10.28@128MPH on 9" slicks, weighing 3100lbs, complete with full stock interior, flat steel hood, and the battery still under the hood.I wonder what my engines would make at Westtech ?

I have to say, I wonder what some of my cars would run at Mission, with that below sea level air you guys have LOL!

Well, Mission is my home track, but I have ran virtually the same 1/4 mile times at Bremerton and Seattle Washington, Woodburn Oregon, and Sonoma California. In fact, my Fairmont with the 428, ran its best numbers at Bremerton WA. (10.03 ET). Its too bad that you never attended the FE Shootout races we hade at Mission Raceways Mega Ford weekend for 5 years. Mission was probably closer than you getting to Dragweek. Its too bad that North Americo is so damn large. I`d love to go to Beaver Springs PA for the FE Reunion, but at 3500 miles 1 way, not likely to happen. By the way, although Mission can occasionally read a bit before sea level early or late in the year, that is not the norm.Its not unusual to hit 90-95 degrees F in the summer.

[Barry_R]

That dyno test is "free" here as well.  I have made that offer to Mr. Lykins in the past - only the travel distance has kept him away.  We share the same interest in some of the stuff we see posted around the internet.   I flog the livin' snot out of my 433 inch EMC combinations to get some decent numbers and then see somebody on ebay kick my @#$ with a flat tappet hydraulic and 9.5:1 hypers in a basic 390...   You KNOW@ it can't be true, but calling anybody out on stuff like that just gets labeled as a sour grapes attitude.

For what it's worth I dyno'd Adney Brown's BB Chevy at my place, right after he ran it at Jim Styke's place, and right before it ran at the 2013 EMC.  So we have data from one engine on three DTS dynos within two weeks.  And its one I had zero build input on - other than pulling the levers.

[babybolt]

Well now that EMC and dyno have been brought up in a thread, can I hijack this and ask why a serious SOHC FE engine hasn't been at EMC since Barry R dallied with one some years ago?

[Barry_R]

Checkbook....

[Lenz]

Checkbook indeed . 

I've enjoyed this thread, especially the expected dyno results versus actual results achieved and the factors that can affect them. 

As with most things, in the end its the human inputs that result in the best representation of the truth or a slightly modified and more marketable version thereof.

[abyars]

Looks like you'll be having a ball with that engine.  Nice build

[Fine69mach1]

I have the cam card now from the builder and the specs are nothing like any of the combinations I've seen before from comp crane or luniti.
The guy who provides these custom camshafts for my engine builder likes to keep the info on his camshafts quit.  Doesn't like to share the specs.
After seeing these specs and how they are quite different than your traditional cam specs I believe he has found a unique combination with my build that has resulted in results that aren't common for the traditional stroker build.
What I will say is it is a large split duration( large split between int/exh) and has more intake lift than exh.
Also the static compression came out at 10.3 higher than the anticipated 9.8
I also think that it is possible that the Dyno could be a " happy Dyno" and my results might be a few percent stronger.
He does have a weather station in the ducting and it was set at 60F and at sea level. Standard correction.
The Dyno is a land and sea Dyno-max "pro"
I tried posting Dyno results but it says my image is too large from my smartphone.
Hopefully next season I can get some time slips that hopefully back up my Dyno sheets.

[ScotiaFE]

Good one. A secret cam.
That's always good for an extra 75 or so on the BS meter.

[bn69stang]

Yes Howie , this is national security we re talking about , and are the b s meters calibrated at ...? lol

[jayb]

I have the cam card now from the builder and the specs are nothing like any of the combinations I've seen before from comp crane or luniti.
The guy who provides these custom camshafts for my engine builder likes to keep the info on his camshafts quit.  Doesn't like to share the specs.
After seeing these specs and how they are quite different than your traditional cam specs I believe he has found a unique combination with my build that has resulted in results that aren't common for the traditional stroker build.
What I will say is it is a large split duration( large split between int/exh) and has more intake lift than exh.
Also the static compression came out at 10.3 higher than the anticipated 9.8
I also think that it is possible that the Dyno could be a " happy Dyno" and my results might be a few percent stronger.
He does have a weather station in the ducting and it was set at 60F and at sea level. Standard correction.
The Dyno is a land and sea Dyno-max "pro"
I tried posting Dyno results but it says my image is too large from my smartphone.
Hopefully next season I can get some time slips that hopefully back up my Dyno sheets.

If you want to email me the dyno sheets I can post them for you.  jayb@fepower.net

Good luck at the track, I hope the ETs back up your horsepower numbers!

[plovett]

The numbers aren't right.  Simple as that.  I tried to be polite in my first post and just ask for more info, but that isn't forthcoming apparently. 

It may still be an awesome engine.  It doesn't make the power numbers you stated though.  I'll stand by that.

I have a similar size FE at 432.7 cubic inches.  With a bigger bore, well ported Ebok heads, 10.5:1 compression, 2" headers, an aggressive 240/246, .580/.593" net lift, solid flat tappet cam, it made 517hp at 6200 rpm and 522 ft/lb .  The rpm is important.   How do you make more hp at a lower rpm with less compression with the same displacement?  A magic cam that you won't share the spec's of?  Nope.   

Now I have a bigger solid cam with 252/260 degrees and some other changes and I think I am making around the hp you mention, but nowhere near the torque.  And my peak hp is closer to 6600-6700. 

Like I said, I bet it's a great motor, but doesn't make the numbers you posted.

JMO,

paulie

edit:  moved 6200 rpm in front of 517 hp.

[jayb]

Fine69Mach1 was kind enough to email me the dyno data, so I have posted it below:







I'm going to take the liberty of pointing out some discrepancies in this data, but regardless of what the horsepower and torque numbers say this is a pretty strong FE.

Using cfm numbers you can get a pretty good idea of what the horsepower output of an engine is; you can go to my post here to get more information on this:

http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=928.15

We'll just look at the last dyno sheet, which has the biggest numbers.  At the torque peak of 4400 RPM, the horsepower is 503.8, and the engine airflow is 564 cfm.  This data is corrected to sea level, and at sea level air weighs 0.075 pounds per cubic foot.  Also, one pound of air at sea level can generate almost exactly 10 horsepower, assuming gasoline for fuel and a perfect air/fuel mixture.  So, 564 X 0.075 X 10 is 423 horsepower.  The dyno data of 503.8 is pretty optimistic, I think.  410-420 horsepower is probably reasonable given this airflow, and the associated torque at this horsepower level and 4400 RPM is (420 X 5252)/4400, or 501 lb-ft. 

Up at the horsepower peak of 547 shown on the dyno data, cfm is 661.2.  Using the same calculation, horsepower is 495.9 based on cfm.  This is closer to the dyno data, but still off by a ways.  The engine is going to be less efficient once it is past the torque peak, so I think a horsepower level of around 475 would be a reasonable guess on this one.

One other calculation we can do is with the first dyno sheet, that shows the volumetric efficiency.  VE is 93.24% at 4400 RPM (torque peak), and the engine is 431 cubic inches.  The airflow should be half the cubic inches (one revolution of the engine will fill half the cylinders in a four stroke engine) multiplied by the engine speed and the VE, all divided by 1728 (1728 cubic inches per cubic foot).  So, (215.5 X 4400 X 0.9324)/1728 is 511.6 cfm.  The dyno sheet says 554.3.  So, there is a discrepancy here also. 

I don't know how Land and Sea dynos work, but my dyno calculates the VE by taking the cubic inches of the engine at any given RPM to calculate cfm and comparing it to the measured cfm.  At the beginning of the dyno session you have to input the cubic inches of the engine.  What may have happened here is that the cubic inches of the engine was not input correctly.  Using the dyno sheet values of 93.24% VE and 554.3 cfm, my dyno would need an input cubic inch value of 467 cubic inches. 

Bottom line is that its difficult to tell exactly what is going on here; the only thing we can say for sure is that these numbers don't add up...

[blykins]

I don't know of any "race shops" that use Land & Sea dynos.  They are generally not reputable as a good "dyno standard". 

Keep in mind that we are not trying to rag on you, but the results are just not typical and are pretty inflated...even with the secret cam specs. 

[ScotiaFE]

Yes that FE is sucking in a pretty good volume of air for a mild 431.
All the more reason you should be proud of your cam selection.

In a light weight Stang it is a tire shredder.  Have Fun.

[bn69stang]

Yep with 3.91 s you will have fun , its still a healthy f e ..Bud

[Fine69mach1]

I appreciate the educational info Jay. As I have previously mentioned. This is my first FE build and was and still is a learning process. Either way this motor has exceeded my expectations and am looking forward until next spring to get it on the road as I live in Canada and we will be getting snow any day now.
I am building a C6 with a 3000 stall converter. Do you guys feel a 3000 stall is adequate judging by my results?

Thanks

[thatdarncat]

Glad you forwarded your dyno info to Jay, this has been a good discussion. To decide on a torque converter we'll need some more info to give a good answer - first being how is it going to be used? Is this going to be mostly a race car or a crusier? This is also a case were accurate dyno results and actual cam specs would help. Those are the questions a good converter company will ask. If the stall speed is too low and the cam is "racy" the combination will not be happy, the car will be hard to keep idling while stopped, etc. The stall speed is not an absolute either, the same converter would vary if switched from one vehicle to another with different combos. The stall speeds you see advertised are just approximations, good converter companies will ask a lot of questions. I'll also add you tend to get what you pay for with converters, more expensive ones tend to have stronger parts inside, torrington bearings, etc., another reason we will need to know what you intend to do with the car. If it's drag race, go with a good race converter.

[jayb]

Here's a picture of the engine on the dyno:

[Joe-JDC]

How does anyone think they can control the parameters with that air box tubing fitted like that?  That within itself is a give away to the quality of the data.  JMO, but no dice.  Joe-JDC

[Lenz]

Man, this has taken some turns.  School is in session and that is why this forum exists.  Fine69, that build is solid and I think you are about to have a hell of a lot of fun.  For my part, I'd have loved to strap my 445 to a dyno to test and tune before the drop in but alas, I'm just another commoner who went a tad over budget.  Once I get the cooling while idling and rear gear issues worked out I'm hitting a local chassis dyno.  Not sure what'll happen but I've just gotta know.....................

[Barry_R]

How does anyone think they can control the parameters with that air box tubing fitted like that?  That within itself is a give away to the quality of the data.  JMO, but no dice.  Joe-JDC

The hood does not really bother me that much.  A DTS system does not even measure airflow (although it makes a nice truth serum).  But the airflow consumption and hence VE that is shown on the sheet cannot possible be accurate with that inlet.  A SuperFlow uses a velocity stack with an air turbine to measure input into the engine.  If the software counts on airflow data in its data stream calculations that inlet might be scuzzing up the output....

[KMcCullah]

That FE looks drunker than a hundred Indians with a lamp shade on it's head. Ten foot tall and bullet proof dyno numbers.