440FE = 1hp per cube?

[My427stang]

Nick, what RPM range do you run during the event?  I think the most important thing is to not look at the HP goal alone but be sure the engine matches the track and truck not the dyno...

There are a lot of moving parts on this post that need to be addressed, but I think where you want it to make power is the most important

I agree, I have had numerous conversations about a dyno test v/s real world testing on the diesel forum that I frequent. That a 10 second dyno run in a controlled environment, is not the same as towing up a 6% grade for 5 miles in 100 degree heat, foot to the floor, and towing 26k GCW.

I run 3k to wot, about 5800 rpm max, that's all it will pull. I have no problem launching the sled, so low end power is not an issue.

I am running the oem, non-adjustable rockers. I think because the rpm cam is old school with slow ramps, valve train control is not a big of issue as the quick ones. Power wise I am sure there are some way better, but the way it runs and revs, I am liking it :)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg8CWzqq2kw

Nick

2 follow on questions

1 - Are we trying to fix something or just BSing? 
2 - What is tire size and gear ratio?
3 - What gear are you in and which tranny in the truck?

[NIsaacs]

I am actually really happy with the way it runs and pulls. If I can stay in the top 3 I will be satisfied. Like I posted before in another thread, I am done working on this engine, other than fine tuning. I was just curious if it was making the 1 hp per cube thing.

I am running the c-6 with the low gear kit, 2.72:1, 2:1 NP203 t-case, 4.88 gears and 31" tires. I never shift out of 1st unless it is a real small sled. With a big sled like in the video, it is 1st all the way.

Nick

[jayb]

Bare with me for a minute with all the info I am learning. But, if the rpm hydraulic cam is 236 @50 and .572 lift, is that not about the same as a solid 242-248 @ 50 and .560-.590 lift, when you factor in the valve lash? My English teacher always told me not to start a sentence with "but" but some times ya gotta

Nick

I usually don't post pictures from my book online, but I will make an exception here to point out that the hydraulic lifters and the Edelbrock spring setup will give up on your engine around 5300 RPM.  That cam should pull a lot higher, and quite a while back I swapped a set of solid lifters onto the RPM hydraulic cam to see what the difference was.  Here is the graph from page 228 of my book:



Bottom line is that you are leaving a good 30 HP on the table at the top end, running that hydraulic cam.  I don't like hydraulic cams (flat tappet or roller), and this graph is a perfect example why.  There are steps you can take to extend the RPM range, like running more seat pressure and a little higher open pressure,and probably get the cam/lifter/spring setup to work to 6000 RPM, but as that setup is delivered from Edelbrock, this is what you will get. 

[jayb]

I have been accumulating Holley Street Dominator intake manifolds, and Edelbrock Streetmaster intakes to try to prove a theory about increased airflow and the correlation to hp increases.  I have 3 of each, and I plan to port them so that there is a 30cfm difference between each of them, and then port a set of either Edelbrock RPM heads, and BBM heads so that they have a 30cfm difference and then do extensive dyno tests of the different combinations along with a RPM intake, and Victor, BT8V, TW, etc..  I had hoped to have a couple of shortblocks available for this, also, one +.030 CJ, and a 4.390" x 4.250 stroke BBM block.  I already have all the parts here, it is just coming up with the time to get everything ported, machined, and assembled.  Should be an interesting test, with some of the heads flowing over 350cfm.  I have a set of Survival heads that can be thrown in the mix, also.  Just need a dyno that is available for that much testing, and is from a reputable shop.  I have a couple available locally, but unless there is a known test comparison, it will always be suspect.  One has had a EMC engine to compare with, so I trust it.  We shall see.  Would travel to any shop on the forum if this was a possibility for them to verify.  Joe-JDC.

Geez Joe, all you had to do was ask LOL!  I'd be happy to have you at my place if you don't mind the travel, and can work with my schedule (which, admittedly, is a little tight these days...) - Jay

[bluef100fe]

Nick

To answer your question... I don't think you have enough cam and or compression to make the one horsepower per cube... It's probably close but I'm guessing your in the 400-420 hp range... My 10.5 compression 390 with ported iron heads that flow just a little better than stock edelbrock heads and a cam that is 10-15 degrees longer duration and exhales through a 2 inch primary 3.5  collector headers made 1.16 hp per cube but i wouldn't exactly call it easy... The engine isn't anything spectacular or special but it was put together at home and I tried to pay attention to the details... Tight quench/ degree the cam... File fit rings... Low tension oil rings... Good valve job on the heads, blending the intake runners and a customized 800dp holley carb... Again I believe the devil is in the details... I searched a long time to get the power where it is with this engine... Other people have probably done better with the same parts I've used but I wouldn't call my build average either... Keep trying things on your combo until your either winning or satisfied with the results... Happy thanksgiving!

[Joe-JDC]

Thanks, Jay, I will get back to you for a chat.  I am visiting my son in FL, and it will be a while before I get everything finished.  It would be an interesting write for a book if things go as I suspect.  Joe

[fe66comet]

It is funny how advertisers throw out numbers like 25 HP gains out of the box. How do they know what you are bolting it on, so if I bolt their part on my weed trimmer I get 25 more HP out or it LOL.

[NIsaacs]

It is funny how advertisers throw out numbers like 25 HP gains out of the box. How do they know what you are bolting it on, so if I bolt their part on my weed trimmer I get 25 more HP out or it LOL.

Exactly! I think I am a perfect example of believing what I read from those guys, the dyno graph Edelbrock shows with a stock 390 and their complete rpm top end kit is at 418hp/440tq, the graph stops at 6k and shows the 418hp at the top or 1.07hp per cube so......life goes on Lol!

Nick

[ScotiaFE]

Exactly! I think I am a perfect example of believing what I read from those guys, the dyno graph Edelbrock shows with a stock 390 and their complete rpm top end kit is at 418hp/440tq, the graph stops at 6k and shows the 418hp at the top or 1.07hp per cube so......life goes on Lol!

Nick

But it does make that kind of power. Or pretty close.
Barry R did one up a while back and the old 390 made very similar hoof marks as Edelbrock.
I'd say my 396 ci makes similar power also.

[NIsaacs]

Exactly! I think I am a perfect example of believing what I read from those guys, the dyno graph Edelbrock shows with a stock 390 and their complete rpm top end kit is at 418hp/440tq, the graph stops at 6k and shows the 418hp at the top or 1.07hp per cube so......life goes on Lol!

Nick

But it does make that kind of power. Or pretty close.
Barry R did one up a while back and the old 390 made very similar hoof marks as Edelbrock.
I'd say my 396 ci makes similar power also.

I guess that's why I asked the original question. If Edelbrock can make that kind of power with their top end kit, why can't I? Their graft shows the rpm cam making power to 6000 rpm (418hp). Yet some say it is junk after 5300. I know for a fact it pulls to 5800 without a whimper, watch and listen to the video. Is it past it's peak power? Maybe, but it sure as heck is not making the valve train go crazy, or if it is, you can't hear or feel it. If I pull the small sled, the rpm's go scary high and again without any feel or noise that I can hear.

Nick 

[bluef100fe]

You might have one advantage with the valvetrain stability that Jay brown didn't well maybe two... Your using stock non adjustable rockers which I believe are a bunch lighter than the rockers Jay had on his dyno mule... Other thing is maybe your lifters are of a tighter tolerance or quality than the set Jay used... I think I remember Jay saying he never felt the engine nose over in the car like the dyno graph would lead you to believe it would feel like it is.... Anyway hopefully you can find some more ground speed and power somewhere... I wish I could put nicer parts on the Fe pulling truck but rules keep me from getting more carried away... Also its usually harder to make the same hp per cube with a bigger cubic inch engine than a smaller one using the same top end parts... Happy pulling!

[4twennyAint]

Chassis dynos are never good for vehicles with automatics.  The torque convertor goofs up the rate of acceleration and also never really locks-up. 

[cjshaker]

You might have one advantage with the valvetrain stability that Jay brown didn't well maybe two... Your using stock non adjustable rockers which I believe are a bunch lighter than the rockers Jay had on his dyno mule... Other thing is maybe your lifters are of a tighter tolerance or quality than the set Jay used... I think I remember Jay saying he never felt the engine nose over in the car like the dyno graph would lead you to believe it would feel like it is....

Both good points, Cody. Blair has discussed his theories about the lighter rocker arms also. I'd also add that a chassis and/or engine dynos put full loads on an engine like you would have in 4th gear. When you're running through the gears, it spends a much shorter time in 1st, 2nd and 3rd. The longer duration in 4th gives the lifters time to change to pressure fluctuations. I've seen this several times and even in valve float from spring pressure situations. There's more time spent going through the harmonic stages.

[NIsaacs]

... Happy pulling!

Thanks Cody, I am a happy camper puller! Win or loose, the rush is great, each run! A picture of your puller or video would be great....hint hint

Nick

[fe66comet]

The whole rocker thing is what made me decide on the T&D race rockers, they seem like one of the lighter and more durable options out there. I had seen others at the time that were Cromo steel or cast steel and thought that would just increase float on my already heavy hydraulic roller valve train. I did go to a good spring to help some but I think 6800 is going to be about it for what I have cam wise.