STEALTH Head Update.... A "lowly" 440 Street Engine

[Challenger340]

  [/quote]

I don't see how the D shaped dish would change anything as long as the you keep a 0.040" piston to head compression distance for quench/squish.  There was just a discussion about this on another forum.  Interestingly, the majority of the racers believed that it was better to split the volume between the head and piston dish verses a flat top and larger head volume.
I believe everyone should do whatever they feel is best, obviously based upon their own experiences first & foremost, and only deviate when the predominance of evidence suggests otherwise. My only question would be.... do the majority of the "Racers" you mentioned on the other forum, Machine, Build & Dyno their own Racing "Dish" Piston Engines on Pump Gas ?? 

I did not realize you dyno tuned every engine.  Even with that, I have yet to see an engine dyno tune also be the best in-car tune.  Usually shops don't spend a bunch of time messing with timing curve, just set total, do pulls from 3500 to 6000, make a coupe of jet changes, done.  The engine see a lot of conditions in the car that are different than sitting in a dyno cell.   And, at the end of the day, most guys will twist the knobs once it is in the car anyways....even if it was perfect.
Every Street Engine we Dyno gets simulated "Highway Cruise" and low load up & down mid-range runs as Standard Practise. Like I said earlier, the Owners are present for the whole Dyno Day.... they SEE everything.... if they wish to deviate later, and are THAT stupid, it is afterall their Engine to do as they wish, but honestly, after a few hundred Engines in the last 8-10 years, I just haven't had, or heard of many problems ?  

The statement about the dynos comes from my experience that they never compare very well from one to another.  As you state, you probably have a good correlation between your dyno results and what cars with your motors in them actually run.  But that does not help for the rest of us.  So when people talk dyno numbers, it means very little to me, and I don't mean that to offend anyone.  I've just see this all the time.  Car mph, weight and atmospheric conditions is the data that I use and put in my database so the shop to shop variability is taken out.  Heck, change the dyno inertia setting, new hp numbers.  People seem to forget what a dyno is.
I think between a Superflow 902 to a Superflow 902 the numbers are fairly comparable ? And when they aren't.... one can certainly access the accompanying Data to look for whatever discrepancies may be present for the reason ?  All I know, is we can usually use even an old Moroso slide rule calculator and give pretty accurate mph estimates in the 1/4 mile based upon our Superflow 902 numbers, with da factor of course, because the majority of our guys run elevation tracks from 4600-5000 ft right down to sea level.
Change an "Inertia Setting" on a Superflow 902 WHAT inertia setting on the Superflow  

FWIW, 535 hp motor, as measured on the dyno that I use for my engines, will take a 3850 lb b-body to 118 mph on a 2000 ft DA day.  If that is the same as you get, I think that is very good performance from fairly mild hydraulic 440 motor. As you said, depends upon the D/A that day at the track, the majority we get feedback on is Edmonton, Ab, Canada.... where an Engine like this typically clocks anywhere(depending on the day)between 113-116 mph in a b-body, with E.T. dependant on the 60ft etc., but anywhere high 11's to mid 12's.
The best setup guys with a 10" Convertor, 4.10's and a 28-29" Tire that can get a 1.65-1.70 60 ft time can see 11.6-11.70's on a good day.


[/quote]

[Challenger340]

Still though Bob, even with the lesser Stealth heads, its gotta be better flowing than a set of 'Cleaned up' iron heads right?

Oh yeah for sure they Flow more than cleaned up Irons.... certainly more than any of OUR cleaned up Irons anyways ! so Happy

[tan top]

X2

X3   

thanks for sharing this stuff 

[BSB67]

do the majority of the "Racers" you mentioned on the other forum, Machine, Build & Dyno their own Racing "Dish" Piston Engines on Pump Gas ??
Yes.  It was a mixed bag of techies, racers and builders, and really only opinions were given.


I think between a Superflow 902 to a Superflow 902 the numbers are fairly comparable ? And when they aren't.... one can certainly access the accompanying Data to look for whatever discrepancies may be present for the reason ?  All I know, is we can usually use even an old Moroso slide rule calculator and give pretty accurate mph estimates in the 1/4 mile based upon our Superflow 902 numbers, with da factor of course, because the majority of our guys run elevation tracks from 4600-5000 ft right down to sea level.
Change an "Inertia Setting" on a Superflow 902 HuhHuhHuhHuhHuh WHAT inertia setting on the Superflow Huh  None on a Superflow.  Just an illustration of things in an operator's control on some dynos, and there are many variables.  Certainly, as you stated, control all of the variables the same, and certainly 902 to 902 will repeat nicely.   But anyone that has been around this stuff will tell of one shop's dyno being high, or someone's else's being conservative (nobody ever says low).  And, it is not dyno make specific.  FWIW, I believe that Westech dyno was reading 9% higher than Impastato's during Engine Masters and they were both 902's.  Again, my point is that the only performance numbers that really matter are acquired at the track.  My Moroso Power Speed Calculator is sitting at arms length from my computer and that's I how I equalize the hp from track data (with correction for DA).   This was not intended to be distraction from your excellent  post/thread turned into a discussion about dynos.    

....Edmonton, Ab, Canada.... where an Engine like this typically clocks anywhere(depending on the day)between 113-116 mph in a b-body,.... Now that means way more to me than the dyno numbers.  Those are very good numbers.  I suspect that your DA is typically in the 2000 to 4500 range.  I know full well what it takes to get a true street car to run 115 mph.  There are a lot of guys that think they have 500 hp and cannot run those numbers.  I suspect that there are some that think they want 600 hp, but would be happy with the performance of a car running 115 mph.


I really appreciate you sharing this post.  I agree that in this day of $600 stroker cranks and the 500 cu in standard, most enthusiasts don't realize they can get what they need from a standard stroke 440.  

[firefighter3931]

Good discussion 

On the topic of track mph vs dyno numbers ; the old 446 typically ran high 11.80's @115 with a 4100 raceweight. Best ever was a 11.68@ 116.5 on a mineshaft (-800 da)  late fall track day. Certainly not "typical" race conditions...but i'll take it    That combo made 535hp/540 tq on Dwayne's dyno. Shifted at 6k and went through the traps at 5700. It really needed a set of 4.56's & another 500 rpm of stall for best ET but it is just a street car, afterall 

Bob, those are great results your customers are achieving with those limitations and raceweight. I would say your numbers are spot on and you're getting it done with nothing too exotic. Just solid machinework, intelligent parts selection and attention to detail. 



Ron

[Budnicks]

Good discussion 

On the topic of track mph vs dyno numbers ; the old 446 typically ran high 11.80's @115 with a 4100 raceweight. Best ever was a 11.68@ 116.5 on a mineshaft (-800 da)  late fall track day. Certainly not "typical" race conditions...but i'll take it    That combo made 535hp/540 tq on Dwayne's dyno. Shifted at 6k and went through the traps at 5700. It really needed a set of 4.56's & another 500 rpm of stall for best ET but it is just a street car, afterall 

Bob, those are great results your customers are achieving with those limitations and raceweight. I would say your numbers are spot on and you're getting it done with nothing too exotic. Just solid machinework, intelligent parts selection and attention to detail. 



Ron

yep X2

[justcruisin]

For what it's worth, these are similar to my 440 in my 71. 448ci zero deck short block with K1 rods and SRP pistons - 6cc reliefs, 84cc eddy heads and a Xe275hl. 180 psi cranking. I run it on 93 with no detonation at sea level, regular plug inspection, tuned on a in car wide band. I have run it on 91 with good results albeit not in 90 degree plus weather.

[Challenger340]

OK, so the first of the first of the two "lowly 440" Engines was Dyno'd yesterday.
For a quick recap here....
we had TWO virtually identical 440 Shortblocks going together, both using the 440 Source "Stealth" Aluminum Heads and Performer RPM dual-plane Intake Manifolds with 850cfm Holley Carbs.

Both these engines are using Hemi Orange painted Heads & Intakes to maintain the "stockish" appearance to a casual glance once installed, the only special note..... should be to hood clearance with the Performer rpm Intakes to Hood clearance ? Although re-op resto Air Cleaners are now readily available to complete the installation with no grief.

The main differences between the 2 Engines being;
* one Engine is using aXE274H CompCams Flat Tappet Hydraulic Cam, and just a Seat Prep/Bowl Port/Gasket match being applied to the Stealth Heads
and,
* the 2nd Engine is using a XE284H CompCams Flat Tappet Hydraulic Cam, with a full "street" Port Job on the Stealths, and an Intake Manifold Port Match applied to the Edelbrock Intake.

2 HP "versions" of basically the same 440 Non-Stroker parts combo

This is the First lower HP Engine with the XE274
It should be considered a good "driver" type combo for people who want to leave it in "D", let the auto upshift by itself around 5,000 rpm, good vacuum for powerbrakes 13" @ 900rpm, with really what amounts to is a "just off" a smooth Idle, a real musclecar type good idle quality.
I really feel even a plentiful and cheap "Cast Crank" Core could be applied for this combo easily.

440 Block .060" over
Stock "ly" Rods with ARP Bolts(we beamed ours, but not required at these rpm's)
Forged Steel Crank(Cast Crank would be fine also)
Forged FT Pistons
5/16" Moly Rings
Windage Tray
6 qt Hemi Pan
Original Stealth Heads(10* retainer/Lock upgrade), Bowl Port & Gasket Match, 4 Angle seats & 75* Throat Cut, Milled to 80 cc for 10.4 C.R.
440 Source Rockers Arms/Pushrods
Cloyes T/Chain & gears
HV Melling Pump
HP Mechanical F/Pump
850 cfm Holley Carb
Stock Mopar Electronic Distributor
Mopar Orange Box Ignition
Costco Premium Fuel

A complete Block Machining Package was performed, including Crank Re-Grind, Rod Resizing, Bore & Hone W/Torque Plate, Pin-Fitting, Block Square Milling, and Main Align Honing, Cam Brg & Frost Plugs, yada, yada, a "good Practise" type rebuild.

486HP @ 5,000 rpm, but with 554 Ft/Lbs Torque @ 3,500 rpm, although bound to be HIGHER even lower.
The small Cam runs into a WALL right around 5K rpm.....
but
This thing could use an inexpensive 22-2600 rpm Convertor with the smooth idle and literally pull stumps !
Again,
this is the XE274 version, I get the other one up next week.

[heyoldguy]

That is a very nice engine, well done.

[Troy]

Really cool build! I like stuff that looks stock with maybe a few parts store add ons but performs way better.

It cracks me up to read "Costco Premium fuel". Isn't that a contradiction? Not knocking the fuel - it's just the idea of buying "premium" anything at a "discount" store. A guy I work with buys literally everything (including his new Mustang) through Costco.

Troy

[Budnicks]

That is a very nice engine, well done.

X2 thanks for posting that Challenger340, very interesting

[firefighter3931]

Bob,

The Tq numbers are fantastic for such a mild build.  I'm sure your customer is going to be quite pleased with the power and street manners of this combo. Very nice numbers 



Ron

[BSB67]

Very nice.  Those are good power numbers.

So, do you think that it is appropriate that the cam is giving up that much that early (rpm wise) or do you think something else could be at play?  Did you run it past 5300?  Although they seem to be everyone's favorite, there are a couple builders that I know that are very leery of the CC HL cam profiles, due to the large drop in power in the mid 5000 rpm range.  They tried more spring pressure and it got worse.  The conclusion was that oil pressure, oil viscosity, and lifter tolerances can result in giving it up early.  One guy, for fun, put in some solid lifters and it added several hundred usable rpm, and pulled over 6000.  I'm pretty sure he was testing the 275 HL.

I also noticed on Yellowbullet some of the cam guys are now recommending that fast rate hydraulic cam lifters be adjusted to depress the plungers almost to the bottom of full cup travel, leaving 0.010" of travel or less and then adding enough spring as to not worry about float/pump-up.  

What are your thoughts?

Again, thanks for posting.

[heyoldguy]

We are testing the XE285HL with solid lifters tomorrow morning.

[Challenger340]

Very nice.  Those are good power numbers.

So, do you think that it is appropriate that the cam is giving up that much that early (rpm wise) or do you think something else could be at play?  Did you run it past 5300?  Although they seem to be everyone's favorite, there are a couple builders that I know that are very leery of the CC HL cam profiles, due to the large drop in power in the mid 5000 rpm range.  They tried more spring pressure and it got worse.  The conclusion was that oil pressure, oil viscosity, and lifter tolerances can result in giving it up early.  One guy, for fun, put in some solid lifters and it added several hundred usable rpm, and pulled over 6000.  I'm pretty sure he was testing the 275 HL.

I also noticed on Yellowbullet some of the cam guys are now recommending that fast rate hydraulic cam lifters be adjusted to depress the plungers almost to the bottom of full cup travel, leaving 0.010" of travel or less and then adding enough spring as to not worry about float/pump-up.  

What are your thoughts?

Again, thanks for posting.

No, it is the Cam, we've seen it before. The 274 drops off quickly past 52-300rpm on this type of build, but again, it is a setup the kick-down linkage and leave it in "D" type Engine. It doesn't matter if it lugs a bit, we loaded it lower... still fine, as it will just pull the 11" Convertor and go. No detonation whatsoever.
I think all Hydraulics drop off early, not just CC stuff, as we've also seen far bigger Lunati's that weren't good to 6K either ?

Solid Lifters always seem to add a few hundred rpm to Hydraulics ?
I have no experience really.... as far as bottoming a Hydraulic Lifter, or close to it ? What's the point ? Might as well just put Solids on the Hyd shaft at that point ?

[Challenger340]

We are testing the XE285HL with solid lifters tomorrow morning.

That will be interesting Jim... be sure and keep us posted

Are you going to take it right down to about .006" Hot Lash ?

[BSB67]

No, it is the Cam, we've seen it before. The 274 drops off quickly past 52-300rpm on this type of build, but again, it is a setup the kick-down linkage and leave it in "D" type Engine. It doesn't matter if it lugs a bit, we loaded it lower... still fine, as it will just pull the 11" Convertor and go. No detonation whatsoever.
I think all Hydraulics drop off early, not just CC stuff, as we've also seen far bigger Lunati's that weren't good to 6K either ?

Solid Lifters always seem to add a few hundred rpm to Hydraulics ?
I have no experience really.... as far as bottoming a Hydraulic Lifter, or close to it ? What's the point ? Might as well just put Solids on the Hyd shaft at that point ?

Right.  But worth it for those that want the performance.  And of course, if it does bottom out, just think how much one might be giving up if it is adjusted at the top.

[Challenger340]

No, it is the Cam, we've seen it before. The 274 drops off quickly past 52-300rpm on this type of build, but again, it is a setup the kick-down linkage and leave it in "D" type Engine. It doesn't matter if it lugs a bit, we loaded it lower... still fine, as it will just pull the 11" Convertor and go. No detonation whatsoever.
I think all Hydraulics drop off early, not just CC stuff, as we've also seen far bigger Lunati's that weren't good to 6K either ?

Solid Lifters always seem to add a few hundred rpm to Hydraulics ?
I have no experience really.... as far as bottoming a Hydraulic Lifter, or close to it ? What's the point ? Might as well just put Solids on the Hyd shaft at that point ?

Right.  But worth it for those that want the performance.  And of course, if it does bottom out, just think how much one might be giving up if it is adjusted at the top.

A little off topic here....
but related to your earlier post, and why guys then go with Hydraulic Rollers in BB Mopars ? thinking they are the be-all end-all ?
Same problems as far as I am concerned, trying to maintain the Lifter Plunger with Oil Pressure against increased Valve Spring and Cam Rates ?

I haven't revisited HR's in BB Mopars for a few years now.... and really I can't see any reason to do so again ?
Because,
the root problem was controlling variances in Lifter Bore clearance on 40 yr old blocks and Oil Pressure to maintain the Plunger at rpm ?
which is hard enough to do.....
just on Flat Tappet Cams ? little-lown with HR increased Lobe Rates and Spring Pressures ?

IMO, and as far as I am concerned... Hydraulic Roller Cams in 40 yr old BB Mopar Blocks ? is a waste of time & Money without Bushing the Lifter Bores !
Which nowadays,
as soon as I tell my customers to add $1,000 for me to Bush the lifter Bores(I have the Mill Tooling to do it here), and dig out the old Dyno Sheets showing absolute POO without it ! ..... most then opt for a "Street" Mechanical Roller.... IF they just have to have a "Roller" ?

I often wonder how many guys are out there..... running BB Mopars with HR Cams ? shifting them at the rpm the "catalog" said.... thinking they are really moving ? or even those that DO hit a chassis Dyno... trying to tune AROUND the rpm problems ?
IMO,
The words "Hydraulic"..... and "Camshaft" should not be together in ANYTHING related to Performance.... Flat Tappet or Roller !
just my opinion... no wars wanted

[Cooter]

Wonder why I can build a H roller cammed 331 Ford fox body and shift ut at 7000 rpms with the Stock lifters, but can't spend triple the money on a  Mopar 440 and can't seem to get the same rpm???

[BSB67]

No, it is the Cam, we've seen it before. The 274 drops off quickly past 52-300rpm on this type of build, but again, it is a setup the kick-down linkage and leave it in "D" type Engine. It doesn't matter if it lugs a bit, we loaded it lower... still fine, as it will just pull the 11" Convertor and go. No detonation whatsoever.
I think all Hydraulics drop off early, not just CC stuff, as we've also seen far bigger Lunati's that weren't good to 6K either ?

Solid Lifters always seem to add a few hundred rpm to Hydraulics ?
I have no experience really.... as far as bottoming a Hydraulic Lifter, or close to it ? What's the point ? Might as well just put Solids on the Hyd shaft at that point ?

Right.  But worth it for those that want the performance.  And of course, if it does bottom out, just think how much one might be giving up if it is adjusted at the top.

A little off topic here....
but related to your earlier post, and why guys then go with Hydraulic Rollers in BB Mopars ? thinking they are the be-all end-all ?
Same problems as far as I am concerned, trying to maintain the Lifter Plunger with Oil Pressure against increased Valve Spring and Cam Rates ?

I haven't revisited HR's in BB Mopars for a few years now.... and really I can't see any reason to do so again ?
Because,
the root problem was controlling variances in Lifter Bore clearance on 40 yr old blocks and Oil Pressure to maintain the Plunger at rpm ?
which is hard enough to do.....
just on Flat Tappet Cams ? little-lown with HR increased Lobe Rates and Spring Pressures ?

IMO, and as far as I am concerned... Hydraulic Roller Cams in 40 yr old BB Mopar Blocks ? is a waste of time & Money without Bushing the Lifter Bores !
Which nowadays,
as soon as I tell my customers to add $1,000 for me to Bush the lifter Bores(I have the Mill Tooling to do it here), and dig out the old Dyno Sheets showing absolute POO without it ! ..... most then opt for a "Street" Mechanical Roller.... IF they just have to have a "Roller" ?

I often wonder how many guys are out there..... running BB Mopars with HR Cams ? shifting them at the rpm the "catalog" said.... thinking they are really moving ? or even those that DO hit a chassis Dyno... trying to tune AROUND the rpm problems ?
IMO,
The words "Hydraulic"..... and "Camshaft" should not be together in ANYTHING related to Performance.... Flat Tappet or Roller !
just my opinion... no wars wanted

Yeah, I generally agree.  For a regular Joe, stick with the Hydraulic FT, and if he wants to step it up a bit, go to the Solid FT.  From there, solid roller.  The hydraulic roller can be in there too, but like you said, why bother.  The "hydraulic" part of the hydraulic lifter, whether it is flat tappet or roller, is still the weak link.  With that said, there are guys getting big rpm and big power out of hydraulic rollers, but they are not regular Joe's.  I think either Budnicks or heyoldguy have done it.  

[Cooter]

Yeah, but the ones that are doing crazy stupid unheard of sh*t wanna play that SNS game...

[Challenger340]

Wonder why I can build a H roller cammed 331 Ford fox body and shift ut at 7000 rpms with the Stock lifters, but can't spend triple the money on a  Mopar 440 and can't seem to get the same rpm???

yep, I know.... and confounds the shiat outa me too ?
I personally haven't see any HR's that were stable at 7,000 rpm, but I have run myself a 347 Ford to 6,200rpm that was fine, and it didn't break down really bad until 6,500rpm.
Again,
I think it's strictly related to better oiling control on the lifter ? and with the sb Ford them going with a higher Lifter Casting Boss on the later HR Blocks.
I dunno if the earlier Ford non-HR Blocks that are retro-fit.... enjoy the same rpm capabilities ?

I am not scared to run the HR's in a BB Mopar, NOT a problem... as long as the Customer doesn't mind PAYING me to Bush the Lifter Bores ? I WOULD like to PAY for my tooling I bought some day after-all ?
It's just that without Bushing the Bores.... my past endeavours with HR's in the BB Mopars was not gratifying ?

[Cooter]

So if I'm pickin up on your beat, lifter bushings should extend the bores causing a more high rpm stability?

[Challenger340]

So if I'm pickin up on your beat, lifter bushings should extend the bores causing a more high rpm stability?

With a BB Mopar ?
More to do with Lifter "Clearance", and controlling the "leakage" out, and around the Lifter Body..... in the 40 year Blocks old sloppy Lifter Bores... with the HUGE Oil Gallery exposure ?  
IMO, Lousy Lifter Body Clearance for such a "short" Lifter Bore, and a BIG hole ?
barely adequate for Flat tappets with far less Ramps & Spring rates than HR's ?

I think that's the benefit to Bushing in maintaining rpm stability, controlling Lifter Bleed down and pump up ?

Interesting to note here...
When Ford went HR, they also lengthened the Lifter Casting Boss in the Blocks... ostensibly for Base Circle reasons ?... but I wonder if there wasn't also a leakage factor for a given production lifter clearance they were hedging against ? I dunno ?
All I do know... is Fords run HR's just fine !
and,
I must be doing it wrong... because I can't get one to run in a BB Mopar without bushing the Lifter Bores, and even then..... I wasn't impressed when comparing the Time & MONEY.... for the very little extra power averages ?

[BSB67]

So if I'm pickin up on your beat, lifter bushings should extend the bores causing a more high rpm stability?

The valve train weight and lobe profile and quality lifter are key.