Pop's 440 is near ready to dyno.

[IQ52]

Turns out she's going to be 8.9:1 compression, .030 over 440 with the new 346 heads substituted for the 452 heads Pop ported and used. With his 452 heads, 2.14/1.81 valves and a 260H cam, the 440 made 404 HP @ 4,800 rpm and 483 LB-FT Torque @ 3,400 rpm.

Now we're using a Comp XE285HL and ported 346 heads with stock size 2.08/1.74 valves that are flowing:

Lift..............INT/EXH

.100............88/59
.200..........164/114
.300..........210/158
.400..........236/194
.500..........259/211
.600..........270/224
.700..........280/234

Pops heads were real close in flow on the intakes to what we are going to use. His were:

.107..............85 cfm
.214.............166
.321.............218
.428.............240
.535.............265
.645.............280

 

[super-bee_ski]

Sweet Pops...
I did not video mine on the Dyno but I took pics when I could....

You got the pics so we can drool?

Wow, "she's" got TORQUE!!!!!

Really nice torque down low...!

 

[MT_Mopar]

Subbed... :happy1:

 

[tallhair]

Looking forward to this thanks for sharing Pops and IQ52.

 

[IQ52]

Turns out she's going to be 8.9:1 compression, .030 over 440 with the new 346 heads substituted for the 452 heads Pop ported and used. With his 452 heads, 2.14/1.81 valves and a 260H cam, the 440 made 404 HP @ 4,800 rpm and 483 LB-FT Torque @ 3,400 rpm.

Now we're using a Comp XE285HL and ported 346 heads with stock size 2.08/1.74 valves that are flowing:

Lift..............INT/EXH

.100............88/59
.200..........164/114
.300..........210/158
.400..........236/194
.500..........259/211
.600..........270/224
.700..........280/234

Pops heads were real close in flow on the intakes to what we are going to use. His were:

.107..............85 cfm
.214.............166
.321.............218
.428.............240
.535.............265
.645.............280

Forgot to mention that Pop's dyno run was in 1997 and he died the same year.

After a very long rest (since 1997) the engine, in it's new configuration, is bolted to the dyno for cam break in this morning. We'll see how happy this new year starts.

- - - Updated - - -

Sweet Pops...
I did not video mine on the Dyno but I took pics when I could....

You got the pics so we can drool?

Wow, "she's" got TORQUE!!!!!

Really nice torque down low...!

Muroc? Muroc? Used to spend weekends with the SCTA out at El Mirage and a couple of years at Bonneville. Pop's 1959 Plymouth ran 146.10 MPH on El Mirage in 1959 and 150.246 at Bonneville. (Big write-up on Pop's '59 Plymouth, November, 1959 Hot Rod Magazine, "Hot Prospects, Plymouth's new 361. The engine they said wouldn't run.")

I hate posting pictures. For me it's such a pain. Gonna take some though so we'll see.

 

[nothingbutdarts]

Muroc? Muroc? Used to spend weekends with the SCTA out at El Mirage and a couple of years at Bonneville. Pop's 1959 Plymouth ran 146.10 MPH on El Mirage in 1959 and 150.246 at Bonneville. (Big write-up on Pop's '59 Plymouth, November, 1959 Hot Rod Magazine, "Hot Prospects, Plymouth's new 361. The engine they said wouldn't run.")

Wow, this is awesome to read!!!

 

[IQ52]

Well it just had to happen sometime folks. While kneeling behind the dyno console to fix the cooling fan in the dyno power supply, I got a cramp in my left buttock. That is one sore muscle muscle as I sit here this morning.

At least, after dealing with the fan and getting a new mouse to replace the one that quit working on the computer, we were able to break in the cam and install the inner valve springs.

 

[cryplydog]

IQ52, I always enjoy the hard stats on the parts used and your time involved to substantiate and post the results for all to see. thanks and please keep lighting the way.:headbang:

 

[IQ52]

I'm hungry and gotta go get something to eat, so I'll fill in the blanks later. For now 498 LB-FT of torque @ 3,700 RPM and 490 HP @ 5,300 RPM. Back up run 494 LB-FT @ 3,600 RPM and 490 HP @ 5,300 RPM.

 

[Garys1969RR]

It never ceases to amaze me how you get that much torque and horsepower out of a relatively low compression engine. I know, heads heads and heads. That's great! Can you reveal the squish/quench distance on this motor? Does that play a big role in the power out put of the engine? Thanks

 

[MT_Mopar]

I'm hungry and gotta go get something to eat, so I'll fill in the blanks later. For now 498 LB-FT of torque @ 3,700 RPM and 490 HP @ 5,300 RPM. Back up run 494 LB-FT @ 3,600 RPM and 490 HP @ 5,300 RPM.

Looking good Jim! ccasion14:

 

[IQ52]

It never ceases to amaze me how you get that much torque and horsepower out of a relatively low compression engine. I know, heads heads and heads. That's great! Can you reveal the squish/quench distance on this motor? Does that play a big role in the power out put of the engine? Thanks

I have never in my life ever worried about quench, so I didn't measure it before we installed the heads. I would estimate it to be about .120". We'll know later today because the heads are coming off the engine and I'll measure the combustion chamber depth. I can tell you the pistons are .012" down from the deck and the combustion chambers are 94.4cc.

I'm told the quench distance plays a role in the power output but I've never personally tested it. It would be too much work with our facilities for me to get heads that flow the same, the combustion chamber the same cc's, with only the quench distance changed. If somebody tells you the quench really makes a difference, they have to change something else in addition to the quench when changing the quench. So how do they really know it was just the quench? I think I just made myself dizzy.

 

[IQ52]

While the engine is cooling down here is the last of two pulls this morning. 446 ci/440, our ported 346 heads with stock 2.08/1.74 valves, 850 Mighty Demon, Edelbrock Performer RPM intake, 1.6 Crane Gold Race rocker arms, Comp XE285HL cam, 8.9:1 compression. 496 LB-FT @ 3,800 RPM and 495 HP @ 5,400 RPM.


RPM.................TQ/HP

2500..............363/173
2700..............380/195
2900..............400/221
3100..............437/258
3300..............468/294
3500..............493/329
3700..............494/348
3800..............496/359
3900..............490/364
4100..............472/369
4300..............478/391
4500..............482/413
4700..............479/429
4900..............465/434
5100..............473/459
5300..............476/480
5400..............481/495
5500..............462/484
5700..............425/461

Time to tear down the top end and do some cylinder head work.

 

[Garys1969RR]

Ok I think I understand, to reduce the quench distance with out changing the C/R you would also have to enlarge the combustion chamber, or use a dished piston. Sounds like a lot of time and energy that could be better used to improve head airflow.

- - - Updated - - -

Only thing I know is that ALL of the motors I've ever built ran much better with a quench distance of .035 to .040". But I was increasing the C/R at the same time I reduced the quench distance. How much was due to reduced quench distance, and how much of the power increase was due to a higher C/R? No easy way to tell.

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

Thanks Jim...you guys taking video? What're the next changes?

Also, do you guys ever flow heads at depressions greater than 28"? Wetflow?

 

[IQ52]

Looking good Jim! ccasion14:

Why thank you John, and we're just getting started.

Ok I think I understand, to reduce the quench distance with out changing the C/R you would also have to enlarge the combustion chamber, or use a dished piston. Sounds like a lot of time and energy that could be better used to improve head airflow.

- - - Updated - - -

Only thing I know is that ALL of the motors I've ever built ran much better with a quench distance of .035 to .040". But I was increasing the C/R at the same time I reduced the quench distance. How much was due to reduced quench distance, and how much of the power increase was due to a higher C/R? No easy way to tell.

Yep you're getting it.

The "quench" in this engine is .132" + or -

.

Thanks Jim...you guys taking video? What're the next changes?

Also, do you guys ever flow heads at depressions greater than 28"? Wetflow?

Got some pictures but haven't taken any video yet. We'll wait until it's making some more power.

No to +28" and wetflow.

Made some minor changes to the heads yesterday and the flow bench said it was a wash. Four pulls this morning confirmed it was so. We got 1 HP closer to 500.

Pulled 'em back off and tried again. We're still with the 2.08/1.74 combination and the flows are above 290 cfm @ .700" but we're not lifting that high with this cam. The flow bench says there is a difference down where we're at, but will it yield more power? I wanna go to the bigger valves. We've got 2.14, 2.19 & 2.20 intakes to go with 1.81 & 1.84 exhausts. Decisions, decisions!

 

[67Satty]

Decisions, decisions!

How about putting in a comparable solid cam to see the difference between hydraulic and solid lifters?

 

[IQ52]

How about putting in a comparable solid cam to see the difference between hydraulic and solid lifters?

Good idea. This afternoon Cody and I were talking about putting solid lifters on this cam. I went to the shelf scrounging for some solid lifters. Couldn't find any or weedahdunit.

 

[Redhorse719]

 

[70bigblockdodge]

That is just a awesome street motor, simple, easy to live with and 400+ ft lbs from 2900 up