Article for you torque monster stroker dreamers

[Turboomni]

It’s not the same as adding more duration.

My statement was flawed, as I meant to say the roller cam is able to hold the valve wide open for a far longer time than a FT even though the duration of both cams are the same. I am looking into Hughes roller cams at the moment.
The cost is not a consideration, if worth it fine. It is how well a roller cam of correct specs will help my application of my 69 Fury ,rear gear ratio / weight/ HP manifolds and all. Ideally I want to build it right ,once.

 

[twostick]

No offense, but I think you are reading the wrong source materials. First read this and note Paragraph 6, "Torque is like using....." What is the difference between horsepower and torque?

And you might want to read this as well - Is it better to de-stroke or increase stroke on an engine for more power?

Care to educate yourself further on stroker engines, this is a great video, and I do have it. Performance Engines & Strokers

The difference between horsepower and torque.

Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall.

Torque is how far you take the wall with you.

Kevin

 

[70bigblockdodge]

All the testing and data is really focused on making power with more revs and moving lighter cars. We are left arguing among ourselves about how parts designed for 3000-6000 rpm will work when used at 2000-5000

More revs mean more fuel, more fuel properly mixed in a engine usually means more power(engine is just a air pump). To only way to get more air into a engine with less revolutions is by compressing the air prior to the intake valve. The same things work no matter the weight of the car.
You would almost be better off putting a 5.9 Cummins engine in your car for what you seem to want.
As long as you stick with standard port heads and don't go crazy with the cam you can see the numbers you are looking for.

 

[Stormer]

Tesla dd would be sweet

I thought very seriously about buying a P100D, last summer. My daughter had a marketing class assignment to visit a Tesla dealer & we test drove one. It’s the craziest thing that I’ve ever driven & more fun than any roller coaster. My Challenger, with a 4.10 gear, 4200 stall, 850ish HP, gets to 60 mph in about 2.5 seconds, on its best day, with ideal track conditions, on a 200 shot launch. The P100D gets there in under 2 seconds, on the street.

 

[bajajoaquin]

That would mean an engine swap. It would mean something that revs to 3,000 rpm and would require changing the character of the car.

I want more useable power in about the same rev range as the factory package. I want to keep the 440/727 combo (or at least RB/727). Factory, it has 480 lb ft at 2800 rpm. I think peak power is .... 4400? I’m in India right now on my phone so I won’t go look it up.

I’m just trying to be realistic about how I actually use the car. It’s an Imperial. I’m never going to manually shift it for max performance at the track. I drive it around town and on the freeway sometimes with four or six people and suitcases (everybody loves being licked up from the airport in an Imperial).

I won’t race it, but I would love to surprise the owner of an Audi A8 or non-AMG Benz at a stop light. Or catch a Camaro dawdling in thrbfast lane by surprise. But no loss of relaxed, unhurried feel at 80. That means no sacrifice in off-idle torque, more power everywhere, no deep gears, and power above 5000 will effectively never be used. (Separately, id like it to look stock-ish.) I can spend about $1500 above a stock rebuild to accomplish this.

I think that leads me to a 505 with budget aluminum heads and a modern hydraulic flat tappet can of around 220 degrees duration. You guys are working me towards the idea that 225 or 230 might work.

 

[bajajoaquin]

My statement was flawed, as I meant to say the roller cam is able to hold the valve wide open for a far longer time than a FT even though the duration of both cams are the same. I am looking into Hughes roller cams at the moment.
The cost is not a consideration, if worth it fine. It is how well a roller cam of correct specs will help my application of my 69 Fury ,rear gear ratio / weight/ HP manifolds and all. Ideally I want to build it right ,once.

Sorry if I came off harsh. I’m typing with my thumbs late at night in a weird place.

We are totally In agreement.

If I had $3000 more than a stock rebuild to spend, I’d probably go with a relatively short duration roller cam with about .520” lift (if memory serves). I think that would make for an astonishing brute of a street engine.

I guess what I really wish is that engine masters or hot rod would do a cool comparison test if these things optimized for street driving a c body. I just don’t have the budget to try multiple combos to see emperically which is best. I just have to argue about it on the internet.

 

[twostick]

That would mean an engine swap. It would mean something that revs to 3,000 rpm and would require changing the character of the car.

I want more useable power in about the same rev range as the factory package. I want to keep the 440/727 combo (or at least RB/727). Factory, it has 480 lb ft at 2800 rpm. I think peak power is .... 4400? I’m in India right now on my phone so I won’t go look it up.

I’m just trying to be realistic about how I actually use the car. It’s an Imperial. I’m never going to manually shift it for max performance at the track. I drive it around town and on the freeway sometimes with four or six people and suitcases (everybody loves being licked up from the airport in an Imperial).

I won’t race it, but I would love to surprise the owner of an Audi A8 or non-AMG Benz at a stop light. Or catch a Camaro dawdling in thrbfast lane by surprise. But no loss of relaxed, unhurried feel at 80. That means no sacrifice in off-idle torque, more power everywhere, no deep gears, and power above 5000 will effectively never be used. (Separately, id like it to look stock-ish.) I can spend about $1500 above a stock rebuild to accomplish this.

I think that leads me to a 505 with budget aluminum heads and a modern hydraulic flat tappet can of around 220 degrees duration. You guys are working me towards the idea that 225 or 230 might work.

The new Trickflow 240 is all the rage now for maximum out of the box performance from a standard port cylinder head. I think max flow is 300ish but where they really shine is mid lift flow which for a street engine really helps. Like any aftermarket part, have them disassembled and checked for tight guides if the valve job needs to be fixed. Assume that the valve job is junk and have a proper multi angle job done.

A 9:1ish aluminum headed 505 will do north of 600 ft/lbs at 4000 or less with a cam that wouldn't upset your grandmother and likely be happy on 87 regular.

600+ ft/lbs is just what you need to get a 5000lb Imperial under way in a sporting manner.

Kevin

 

[twostick]

Sorry if I came off harsh. I’m typing with my thumbs late at night in a weird place.

We are totally In agreement.

If I had $3000 more than a stock rebuild to spend, I’d probably go with a relatively short duration roller cam with about .520” lift (if memory serves). I think that would make for an astonishing brute of a street engine.

I guess what I really wish is that engine masters or hot rod would do a cool comparison test if these things optimized for street driving a c body. I just don’t have the budget to try multiple combos to see emperically which is best. I just have to argue about it on the internet.

Call Dwayne Porter and tell him what your application is and he will spec you a custom hydraulic flat tappet cam that will idle like a stocker and pull like a freight train.

He is an excellent cylinder head guy too.

He is a Comp Cam dealer and Indy dealer too.

802 951 1955

Kevin

 

[Turboomni]

A 9:1ish aluminum headed 505 will do north of 600 ft/lbs at 4000 or less with a cam that wouldn't upset your grandmother and likely be happy on 87 regular.

That is another concern of mine. What compression ratio? The way things are going gas is going to get worse and worse. Electrics will kick in more and more [even though the pollution is being expelled elsewhere in manufacture,thats another whole can of worms] Wonder if Edelbrock,Comp cams etc are planning ahead for the demise of Internal Combustion Engines? Sure I could go nuts at 10.5 ,,or be safe for now at 10. Maybe low nines is the way to go for the future?
Also the Hemmings article blew me away with the torque specs, @ 2000 rpm's 611 torque that stayed over 600 to 5000 rpms. But I dont remember compression ratio stated and remember the cam was more radical than I would want but if I remember correctly it was a FT cam.

 

[Cazman]

Yes, call Dwayne. He did my cam for my boat. He is very familiar with our (C Body) situation.

Here is my build:
'68 300 440 Build

I might try and bring my compression down closer to 10:1

 

[70bigblockdodge]

That is another concern of mine. What compression ratio

I would stay with something that mid- grade will run in .9:1 with iron heads 10:1 with aluminum (they just cool better weather from improved passages, or material, or combustion chamber shape)
I would follow Kevin's advice. The cam in the article is a little too lumpy for a Imperial, a stock Magnum cam is probably a little small for 500" so somewhere in between.
A roller cam is not going to fix the cork in the exhaust any more than extra duration flat tappet. You just need time to get rid of the exhaust gases. More lift/flow at the valve is not going to help when it backs up at exhaust manifold. @bajajoaquin you should just shoot for the 600 ftlb mark. You have your heart set on 500", so do it but don't castrate it that much. Your car with thatany foot pounds will be a animal and gentle. You also need to get that 480 number out of your head I seriously doubt your car is within 90% of that because of age and tolerances that most of these engines are saddled with. If you go to Nick's garage on you tube he dynos a lot of stock to near stock stuff, with cast iron intakes and exhaust manifold.

 

[commando1]

Lots of cubes, low end torque cam, plenty of unrestricted breathing. Bam!!!!
Beat any Mustang & Camaro off the line and still have it idle as smooth as a Lexus.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

[70bigblockdodge]

Wonder if that guy Darrell ever got that New Yorker together. The guy that put 315 drag radials in the rear.

 

[Turboomni]

Lots of cubes, low end torque cam, plenty of unrestricted breathing. Bam!!!!
Beat any Mustang & Camaro off the line and still have it idle as smooth as a Lexus.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Unrestricted breathing, that is what I am concerned about with the HP exhaust manifolds and I don't want headers.
Maybe getting the exhaust manifolds worked on to help flow. Don't know if that is done. I think FuryGT mentioned that.
Commando's quote above is what I want to do and I don't want my big Fury idling like a wanna be Cuda.

 

[Turboomni]

Going from headers to HP manifolds on his "mule" 440 he lost 18hp and 23 torque. Next with the Edelbrock RPM replaced with the stock cast iron intake torque was virtually the same [-2] and lost 15 hp . These are mopar cast iron heads with the template port job.

 

[commando1]

Commando's quote above is what I want to do and I don't want my big Fury idling like a wanna be Cuda.

Hog out heads so that a subway train can run through them but don't polish them. Rough walls are need to create the swirl needed for the torque ground cam.

 

[Turboomni]

I find it very interesting how little power the HP exhaust manifolds took away compared to headers, -18 hp -23 torque.
Also interesting that the stock cast iron intake replacing the Edelbrock RPM only lost 15 hp and the torque was the same.

 

[70bigblockdodge]

Going from headers to HP manifolds on his "mule" 440 he lost 18hp and 23 torque. Next with the Edelbrock RPM replaced with the stock cast iron intake torque was virtually the same [-2] and lost 15 hp . These are mopar cast iron heads with the template port job.

That's power you can feel in seat of your pants. Then add 15.9% more cubic inches, the drop off gets steeper. This is not to say don't do it (manifolds) but there is definitely a penalty.
The best and simplest explaination of how/why headers work I saw on a episode of Wheeler Dealers. The new guy (not Edd) took a exhaust manifold, placed a napkin over a exhaust port at one end and using a blow gun with compressed air blew in the port at other end (furthest away) and it blew the napkin off the port. On the header same setup the napkin did not move, all the air went down the tube and out the collector/toward exhaust, no reversion back up the other tube to push the napkin off. Headers are good, manifolds are okay, but you will never get back to as good as crappy headers. Even the factories have succumbed and most of the manifolds on hp engines look like stubby headers.
The only reason for manifolds are required for FAST racing or pure stock drags etc.. For a 1000 point resto absolutely and they don't look bad, it's just not worth the efficiency and power loss, IMO. If your car did not have HP manifolds or even the correct engine in it why the hell would you torture yourself.

 

[bajajoaquin]

I don’t think my car has anywhere near 480 now, no. It’s got 176k on the original engine.

But there’s no way I’m going to rebuild it with a target less than the factory baseline. If I can’t beat 480 at 2800, I’m not going to do anything other than a stock build.

 

[bajajoaquin]

I find it very interesting how little power the HP exhaust manifolds took away compared to headers, -18 hp -23 torque.
Also interesting that the stock cast iron intake replacing the Edelbrock RPM only lost 15 hp and the torque was the same.

Or, said another way, an RPM picks up 15hp with no loss of torque. If I had room under the hood, I’d have bought one of those rather than a CH4B. But my air cleaner makes an imprint on my hood pad with the factory iron. I don’t have a lot of room for any more manifold height.