Best ET for a steetable 440 auto

[67 B-body]

Ok so what would be the down side of running Victor heads with the MW port. I see out of the box the MW victors flow about the same as a ported set of 440 port heads. In my mind just doing a cleanup, port match you'd be $ & cfm ahead with the MW's?

what ported 440 head??? The Victors really flow...

 

[69 GTX]

The victor comes in a 440 port & a Max Wedge port. I'm wondering why port the 440 port to get stock Max wedge flow?

 

[68 HEMI GTS]

Ok so what would be the down side of running Victor heads with the MW port. I see out of the box the MW victors flow about the same as a ported set of 440 port heads. In my mind just doing a cleanup, port match you'd be $ & cfm ahead with the MW's?

Port window size has an effect on your operating rpm range as well as the cam. Its going to require you to turn more rpm's to get max power out of it and its also going to be lazy down low where a smaller port will not. if you were building 500ci the max wedge port is a no brainer. with the 440 i'd be very careful. i have a set of SR's that are opened up somewhere between a max wedge and standard port. i have a 6900 chip in the msd box and i've hit it a few times and the motor was still in its stride. if i short shift it say 6500 or less the car really slowed down. ideally you want the best flowing smallest port size that'll feed your given CI and RPM expectations. seeing how your goal is to cruise around in Over drive a big port is not ideal for what your going to be happy with. i seen someone mention filling the floor of a MW port. great idea on a race motor. i'm not a fan of epoxy work on a street car, it will come loose after enough heating and cooling cycles.

- - - Updated - - -

 

[Longroof]

Port window size has an effect on your operating rpm range as well as the cam. Its going to require you to turn more rpm's to get max power out of it and its also going to be lazy down low where a smaller port will not. if you were building 500ci the max wedge port is a no brainer. with the 440 i'd be very careful. i have a set of SR's that are opened up somewhere between a max wedge and standard port. i have a 6900 chip in the msd box and i've hit it a few times and the motor was still in its stride. if i short shift it say 6500 or less the car really slowed down. ideally you want the best flowing smallest port size that'll feed your given CI and RPM expectations. seeing how your goal is to cruise around in Over drive a big port is not ideal for what your going to be happy with. i seen someone mention filling the floor of a MW port. great idea on a race motor. i'm not a fan of epoxy work on a street car, it will come loose after enough heating and cooling cycles.

- - - Updated

I could not agree more!!!

That is what I was trying to say before. Too much cylinder head is not going to help unless you have the rest of the combination ... cam, converter, and gear.

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

Port window size has an effect on your operating rpm range as well as the cam. Its going to require you to turn more rpm's to get max power out of it and its also going to be lazy down low where a smaller port will not.

Please explain the Boss vs DZ article I posted, as the results are contrary to what you're stating here.

i have a set of SR's that are opened up somewhere between a max wedge and standard port. i have a 6900 chip in the msd box and i've hit it a few times and the motor was still in its stride. if i short shift it say 6500 or less the car really slowed down.

There is more to spinning RPM than a cylinder head. There are many details that are being neglected.

I'm using LS3 heads as an example, because I'm intimately familiar w/ them. They are larger than a std port victor head as cast from GM, yet a Victor is a 'race head' for a 440. They are approx 3.16 in2 at the opening and 3.39 in2 at the ssr. These go on 364 and 376 in3 engines that don't turn 10k RPM to make power. Hell, they're used in Escalades of all things.... For comparisons sake, a std port Vic is ~2.58 at the opening and 3.1 over the short turn.

I'm fairly confident the Gen3 Hemi ports are similar relative to the displacement they're feeding.

Street driven, mild 454s use Brodix Race Rites that have a min x-section of ~3.1 in2 out of the box w/ cams in the high 230s/low 240s w/ 10:1 and can knock down 550-575 hp.

It has to do w/ cam timing. As I've stated previously, you cannot use off the shelf cams and expect good results.

Anyone have any contrary examples we can analyze? I think I've provided a few in defense of my position.

- - - Updated - - -

I could not agree more!!!

That is what I was trying to say before. Too much cylinder head is not going to help unless you have the rest of the combination ... cam, converter, and gear.

I'm pretty sure we all know it's about the 'combination', can you be more specific about just what goes w/ what?

 

[Longroof]

I just think you are over thinking this for a 11.50 combination. .. he'll it ain't too hard and does not require as much cylinder head as you recommend. I hear alot of theory but do you have any 440 combinations that you have built with real world results? You just have to go over to the 11 second combos page on this site. Really no need for this.... If the eventual et goal is much quicker than 11.50's fine the bigger heads will be a benefit in the long run. But otherwise it is a waste of money.

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

I just think you are over thinking this for a 11.50 combination. .. he'll it ain't too hard and does not require as much cylinder head as you recommend. I hear alot of theory but do you have any 440 combinations that you have built with real world results? You just have to go over to the 11 second combos page on this site. Really no need for this.... If the eventual et goal is much quicker than 11.50's fine the bigger heads will be a benefit in the long run. But otherwise it is a waste of money.

Not sure how to respond to this. I'm sure the OP is well aware of the 11 sec thread, yet wanted more input, which is why he started this thread in the first place.

I haven't stated any 'theory' as you call it. Pretty sure I gave a few examples that even include cross sectional areas for comparison...ie facts...maybe you missed it?

 

[68 HEMI GTS]

I just think you are over thinking this for a 11.50 combination. .. he'll it ain't too hard and does not require as much cylinder head as you recommend. I hear alot of theory but do you have any 440 combinations that you have built with real world results? You just have to go over to the 11 second combos page on this site. Really no need for this.... If the eventual et goal is much quicker than 11.50's fine the bigger heads will be a benefit in the long run. But otherwise it is a waste of money.

lol this is getting silly isn't it..

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure how to respond to this. I'm sure the OP is well aware of the 11 sec thread, yet wanted more input, which is why he started this thread in the first place.

I haven't stated any 'theory' as you call it. Pretty sure I gave a few examples that even include cross sectional areas for comparison...ie facts...maybe you missed it?

even though the LS3 has a greater cross sectional area its still a smaller port CC wise over a normally ported MW port. and if you were to just go off cross sectional area i think the mcfarland formula still puts the peak torque up in the high 5's range for RPM on a 440. i have a full bodied 69 B body street car in the garage that does what he want's it to do other than the lopey cam. and with more compression and more attention to detail (a modern cam instead of my $100 dollar 40 year old piece) it could probably run the number without the duration. And i also have built and ran enough 440's and 500 ci motors to have a pretty good idea the affect of the bigger ports. i basically had the same 440 combo thats in my RR in a 67 belvedere 10 years ago that ran 11's with ported 915 iron heads. i can tell you the rpm range was lower even though it had a healthier cam than what i have in my RR now. even had the same six pack on it. there's a point where if you don't have the port velocity the motor gets lazy. then you either need RPM, cubic inches, or forced induction to combat that. my examples are real. im giving him advice that will pan out when he's cruising around a 2000 rpm in overdrive. trust me i like MW ports, im just being realistic on what he want to do.... you'd think we were trying to run 7's with all this controversy. im done keyboard bench racing for the moment...

 

[69 GTX]

Thanks guys I like the input. I think I have a pretty good idea of my combo now. I'll repost after she hits the road to let you know how she does. Probably next spring.

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

lol this is getting silly isn't it..

I don't understand how discussing engine dynamics is silly.

even though the LS3 has a greater cross sectional area its still a smaller port CC wise over a normally ported MW port.

I prefer not to focus on cc's, as it assumes the length of the port is equal, which many times is not the case. X-sxn keeps everything comparable. As far as dims, the LS3 has larger x-sxns than std port Vic, not MW, at least at the port opening. Over the ssr though, as cast, it's a tossup. A 440 is much larger than 364 ci, so why shouldn't the ports also be larger?

and if you were to just go off cross sectional area i think the mcfarland formula still puts the peak torque up in the high 5's range for RPM on a 440.

Ah, the MF...7k lb escalades would not be able to move if this formula was the final say.

there's a point where if you don't have the port velocity the motor gets lazy. then you either need RPM, cubic inches, or forced induction to combat that.

There's more to port velocity than just the size of the ports. Delta P. What dictates differential pressure? Valve events.

my examples are real. im giving him advice that will pan out when he's cruising around a 2000 rpm in overdrive.

I'd like to think the same, but I'm not sure why anyone would focus on power at 2k rpm, especially w/ an automatic that can downshift instantly...

Here's a vid of the guy that did the vj on the last set of heads I ported...4000 lbs, 3200 stall...pretty mild combo but the key is good parts.
http://youtu.be/jx5pHlnJzNE

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

i'm not a fan of epoxy work on a street car, it will come loose after enough heating and cooling cycles.

Ever worked w/ splashzone?

 

[HT413]

Here's a vid of the guy that did the vj on the last set of heads I ported...4000 lbs, 3200 stall...pretty mild combo but the key is good parts.
http://youtu.be/jx5pHlnJzNE

Great interview. "It's everything everyone said wouldn't work." About says it all right there.

 

[Longroof]

Yup car hauls *** but the combination is far from optimal. 10.70's at 130... If it had the proper gear and converter that car word run into the 9's....

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

Yup car hauls *** but the combination is far from optimal. 10.70's at 130... If it had the proper gear and converter that car word run into the 9's....

Well, car has gone .50s since that vid...

This is a STREET car that drives like it's practically stock...all w/ heads that are supposedly 'too big'. Street car on the race track, not the other way around.

364 ci, heads a tad smaller than max wedges, 3200 converter, 4000lb.

'Specifically' how would you change it? What would the 'proper' parts be? Let's get away from generalities.

 

[Longroof]

There would be more information needed to just throw things out there.... I would be calling a good converter company and having a long discussion... and based on that making a gear change.. which would probably then require some rear suspension work to get the car to 60 better which is where alot of et is being left on the table.

I admit I don't know much about the new cars. My reference point and experience is NHRA super stock cars... doing more with less...... I can tell you that stock port heads with stock port volume cc's can haul *** and outrun stuff with much bigger heads....

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

There would be more information needed to just throw things out there.... I would be calling a good converter company and having a long discussion... and based on that making a gear change.. which would probably then require some rear suspension work to get the car to 60 better which is where alot of et is being left on the table.

I admit I don't know much about the new cars. My reference point and experience is NHRA super stock cars... doing more with less...... I can tell you that stock port heads with stock port volume cc's can haul *** and outrun stuff with much bigger heads....

He runs a custom Coan converter. Remember, this is a street car...no reason to build a 4 door w/ air conditioning as a race car.

Super Stock has rules. It's not quite correct to say they do more w/ less, because the components required to make those cars fast are high dollar, and the time invested in the chassis is equivalent to a full time job - the fast ones have years of trial and error under their belts. I know one SS guy that tested 10 cams before settling on one that worked to his satisfaction. Us poor folk don't have that kinda budget for testing to make big horsepower in a cylinder head limited scenario. A SS car is also not something you would want to try to make work on the street.

It all goes back to getting the air/fuel into and out of the engine...you can do it either way...via big head/small cam, or big cam, small head. I'm simply saying that big head/small cam has advantages in driveability...which is important for the street. Not only that, but to go faster, all you have to do is swap to a more radical cam and you can gain big power. Otherwise, if you're cylinder head limited and start w/ a big cam, the only upgrade option is another set of heads, which are much more expensive than a cam swap.