Rockers ( oh its WORSE) assembly.

[Musicman]

That's an interesting result Mike. The only problem i see with those results are that the cam will drop off power before 6.5K (not enough duration) and the valves would be into float at that rpm. Hydraulic cams don't like to rev over 6k due to lifter pump-up and on the dyno they begin to drop off hard beyond that rpm range.

Just out of curiosity, how much power was the software showing at 6000 rpm ?

Ron

Hi Ron

As I said earlier... I was not familiar with Justin's build at the time, so I was not able to enter a correct cam profile. I didn't even know what type of cam he was running at the time, Hyd, Solid, Roller, so I was just playing around. I just recently learned that he is running a Comp 21-242-4. Obviously float is a concern above 6000 rpm with this design, especially at extended intervals.
I'm going to run his build again just for squirts and wiggles now that I have a little more information. I don't have reliable specs for the TM-7 at this time either, but I believe I know someone who does. Perhaps you have the basic info. from your own testing... runner diameters, runner lengths, flow coefficients, etc.

[firefighter3931]

Mike i don't have any measured data on the TM7 but from my own dyno experience it is an excellent single plane....more suited to high rpm builds. It was near identical to the Street Dominator in terms of hp/tq and both were just a little shy of the Victor. I'd have to categorize it as a max-performance standard port single plane intake. Not sure if your program allows for that option. I believe it flows in the 280-290 cfm range unported. Maybe that will help ?

The Comp 501 that Justin is using is a 244*@.050 single pattern profile but he is now running a 1.6 rocker so that will create more high lift area that the cylinder head wouldn't otherwise see (with a std rocker). The stock rockers he replaced are normally in the 1.4-1.45 ratio range and the Cranes are allways larger than advertised. The 1.6 Golds are usually in the 1.63-1.65 range as measured at the valve....so the increased lift and faster valve action will for sure make more power on his engine. 


I originally stated 450hp+ as an estimate and it's probably more.....but you never really know without actual cylinder head flow data or even better a reliable dyno test. It is an "easy" 450hp build....no doubt about it. 



Ron

[Musicman]

Mike i don't have any measured data on the TM7 but from my own dyno experience it is an excellent single plane....more suited to high rpm builds. It was near identical to the Street Dominator in terms of hp/tq and both were just a little shy of the Victor. I'd have to categorize it as a max-performance standard port single plane intake. Not sure if your program allows for that option. I believe it flows in the 280-290 cfm range unported. Maybe that will help ?

The Comp 501 that Justin is using is a 244*@.050 single pattern profile but he is now running a 1.6 rocker so that will create more high lift area that the cylinder head wouldn't otherwise see (with a std rocker). The stock rockers he replaced are normally in the 1.4-1.45 ratio range and the Cranes are allways larger than advertised. The 1.6 Golds are usually in the 1.63-1.65 range as measured at the valve....so the increased lift and faster valve action will for sure make more power on his engine. 


I originally stated 450hp+ as an estimate and it's probably more.....but you never really know without actual cylinder head flow data or even better a reliable dyno test. It is an "easy" 450hp build....no doubt about it. 



Ron

I agree with you 110% Ron... I know for a fact now that the Cam and intake specs were "way out" on the first run that I did on his build, and that still produced 436 installed. It will be fun to run it again with better info.

Mike

[firefighter3931]

Mike i don't have any measured data on the TM7 but from my own dyno experience it is an excellent single plane....more suited to high rpm builds. It was near identical to the Street Dominator in terms of hp/tq and both were just a little shy of the Victor. I'd have to categorize it as a max-performance standard port single plane intake. Not sure if your program allows for that option. I believe it flows in the 280-290 cfm range unported. Maybe that will help ?

The Comp 501 that Justin is using is a 244*@.050 single pattern profile but he is now running a 1.6 rocker so that will create more high lift area that the cylinder head wouldn't otherwise see (with a std rocker). The stock rockers he replaced are normally in the 1.4-1.45 ratio range and the Cranes are allways larger than advertised. The 1.6 Golds are usually in the 1.63-1.65 range as measured at the valve....so the increased lift and faster valve action will for sure make more power on his engine. 


I originally stated 450hp+ as an estimate and it's probably more.....but you never really know without actual cylinder head flow data or even better a reliable dyno test. It is an "easy" 450hp build....no doubt about it. 



Ron

I agree with you 110% Ron... I know for a fact now that the Cam and intake specs were "way out" on the first run that I did on his build, and that still produced 436 installed. It will be fun to run it again with better info.

Mike

Cool, while you're at it plug in 250cfm for max cylinder head flow and see what the program spits out. 

I might run this through Camquest to see what that program predicts. 



Ron

[mally69]

Great info going here guys  Im loving every second of this.   
I await the numbers for curiosity.

[firefighter3931]

Well i just finished plugging the numbers into Camquest and lets just say it was very generous 

Using actual measured  flow numbers from the Stealth heads, 292h cam, high flow single plane, 750 cfm carb, small tube headers with mufflers it predicted :

594hp @ 7000 & 535tq @ 5000 

I know for a fact this is wrong....my cam is a 264@.050 .580 lift custom solid lifter fast ramp profile and my cylinder heads fowed just under 300 cfm at .600 (292 @ .550) and mine made peak hp at 6100 and peak tq at 4500. There's no way a hydraulic cam with 20* less duration at .050 and a head with 50 cfm less flow makes more power....at least not on the dyno i'm familiar with 


Vegas Mike's 440 has a similar solid cam that's also in the 244@.050 range with similar compression and stock e-heads and his was at peak hp around 5700-5800 rpm allthough his intake (old school torker) is holding him back. Those are more "realistic" results in my opinion. 


Mike, lets see what your program comes up with 



Ron

[Musicman]

Sorry, can't do anything until tomorrow at the earliest as I am stuck at work at the moment. Busy schedule tomorrow but I'll see what I can do. I sent a message to a friend who owns a custom build shop, he uses the same program in his shop that I have here. Chances are he will have the missing info that I was looking for concerning the TM-7 intake. If not I'll work from the info that Ron graciously provided.

Hey Ron, I got a kick out of those numbers from Camquest 

[firefighter3931]

Hey Ron, I got a kick out of those numbers from Camquest 

Ya, me too 


The power peaks are 1000 rpm off....unfortunately the Camquest program doesn't provide a graph with incremental power numbers....it just show's peak HP/TQ. Perhaps if it showed the entire pull from say 3500-7000 rpm the numbers are 6000 would be more in line with "reality" 


No rush Mike....post up your results whenever you have a chance. Don't work too hard tonight 



Ron

[Musicman]

Sorry for the delay, but I have been busy lately getting things ready for a big upcoming party. I'm suppose to be busy right now in fact, so don't tell the wife I'm here goofing off.
Long story short, my friend did not have a TM-7 or similar model either, so I had to extrapolate a model from known & proven builds. This wasn't easy either since most of the builds out there are posted as... Hey, I put a .5 lift cam in there, put a carburetor on it, my favorite pistons, etc.... We won't even get into the finer details of room temperature or engine temperature etc at the time of test, what type of dyno was used, etc.
At any rate I came up with what I believed to be an acceptable model, so I ran it against a few known examples before applying it to Mally69's build and it worked out pretty well.
As an example... MFR426's build was fairly well detailed. His Dyno sheet said that the cam had been advanced at the time of test but it didn't say how much so I applied a standard 4 degrees... as you can see in the images below, it worked out well enough. My numbers were ever so slightly higher, but if I had advanced the curve a tad more it probably would have hit the nail right on the head...close enough for government work.

Side note: This cam was run with a factory 1.45 Rocker Ratio per Ron's report.

[Musicman]

OK... so assuming the intake model is fairly accurate, I have applied it to the Mally69 build here. As you can see the HP numbers are still comparable with MFR426's stroker, but the TQ numbers are much lower. Of course that what strokers are all about right. The other difference is where the numbers peak, this is where the cam shows up.

Side note: This cam was run with a 1.62 rocker ratio per Ron's report.

So what do you think RON... do we have it about right?

[firefighter3931]

Awesome work Mike ! 

I still think the HP is a little on the high side but probably not by much. Again, it would depend on who's engine dyno the "actual" numbers came off of and who was operating it on that particular day. I like the torque number and believe that to be closer to the actual result i would expect to see out of a combo like Justin's 

This should be a reliable and very streetable build that makes loads of torque and pulls hard to 6k. 


The true test will be when the Red Beast makes a pass down the track. The terminal mph will tell us how much power it's making. 



Ron

[Musicman]

Yeah... the 1.62 rocker really helps out there... would have run 478 without it. Truefully, I was expecting a little less HP myself... maybe 480. To many open ended variables to account for in my program, and as you know it only takes one wrong number to screw up the entire project. Plus, that particular intake model produces "slightly higher" numbers. All attempts to fix it however have just made things worse, so I have left well enough alone for the moment.
Should be a good reference point none-the-less 

Mike

[mally69]

Musicman,Firefighter, Thank you for taking the time to run my combo on that program. I am very pleased with what you had posted up, good job  ..
I can't wait to get to the track again soon, to see what 1/4 numbers I come up with.  I drove my car around with open headers and man I honestly think it runs better with the exhaust hooked up makes more noise now than anything. 


I would like to thank everyone that helped with this post concerning getting my engine back in the car and on the road.     I will post up some track numbers when I get a chance.

[Musicman]

I drove my car around with open headers and man I honestly think it runs better with the exhaust hooked up.

It should run better around town with an exhaust system connected.

[mally69]

Here is the link to a video I took with my cell phone running open headers. It has a rough idle, its ideling around 600 rpm then I give it a slight rev.       

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHkj6mlocH8

[Steve P.]

Pretty cool Vid. but if it were me I would raise the idle to 750-800 RPM.. That cam needs all the oil it can get.. 

[firefighter3931]

Pretty cool Vid. but if it were me I would raise the idle to 750-800 RPM.. That cam needs all the oil it can get.. 

Mopar flat tappet cams are 'splash' lubed and at low idle speeds there's not a lot of oil getting flung around in there. Bump the idle up to at least 850 rpm in drive. You don't need a wiped camshaft at this point. 



Ron

[mally69]

I can definatly do that.    I like that lopey sound it has, it never really had that before..