393C dyno results

The main caps are pretty, who makes them? Why did you not change #1 main Cap? The whole engine is pretty.
[addsig]

Sum'ins wrong here...that motor should have gone well over 650. Carb? Flow numbers optimistic?
Torque is pretty low coming off of 5500 RPM too. I would have expected 50+ lb/ft more.

I actually made more power with smaller headers than bigger. Something else to try?

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2004-05-30 17:28, fast63falcon wrote:
The main caps are pretty, who makes them? Why did you not change #1 main Cap? The whole engine is pretty.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

...wasn't really going for pretty, but I guess that if it looks better, then it is a good thing.

The main caps are Milodon nodular iron straight bolts into a standard 4-bolt block. Apparently they also make angled caps for 2-bolt block conversions in addition to the straight caps.

The #1 and #5 caps were not changed because they are not made by anyone, at least no one that I know of anyway.

:davis:

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2004-06-02 01:25, allenman85 wrote:
Sum'ins wrong here...that motor should have gone well over 650. Carb? Flow numbers optimistic?
Torque is pretty low coming off of 5500 RPM too. I would have expected 50+ lb/ft more.

I actually made more power with smaller headers than bigger. Something else to try?
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

Actually, I the dyno operator overfilled the crankcase with oil creating a good bit of drag, since he didn't know how much oil the pan held and really isn't the kind of guy to just call someone and ask. My 8qt oil pan had 9 in it. I'm thinking that slogging through the oil probably robbed every bit of what you and others think are "down" about it. Of course, some of that oil would be at the top end, even with oil restrictors, but how much? Who knows? It doesn't really matter to me how much power it makes. I was more interested in just seeing it with a good A/F ratio so that I don't have to worry about it. If I can eventually tune another 50 out of it, it will be the difference between a low 8 and possibly into the 7s.

The actual flow bench numbers are those provided. I don't know if "optimistic" is the word I'd use to characterize them. They are what they are.

My own "Desktop Dyno" analysis had the numbers right at:

643 HP, 512 TQ. Actual dyno testing (on multiple passes) had 510 TQ and 608 HP as peaks achieved. Did I lose some somewhere due to any of several "concerns" during testing? The "extra" oil deal? Not spending enough time actually tuning it (only made 6 pulls)? Probably all of those contributed to it. When I left the dyno shop that day, I personally felt that it had another "about 30" in it BEFORE even "investigating" the rest of the things I learned subsequently, like the overfilled oil. I'm not going to spend another $550 and several hours of time just for some number. If it is in the engine, I'll be able to get it out of it at the track. What I've got now is a good baseline for track tuning/testing it. I don't have to worry about the A/F and there is nothing in the numbers to indicate that anything is really amiss. Also, I'll probably get a bit more out of it when I switch it over to synthetic at the track. It doesn't really matter, the car is going to be plenty quick as it is, and I'm already started on the "big brother" of this engine, which will definitely make a lot more power.

:davis:

GOOD NUMBERS!!
[addsig]

Can you tell us a little more about its big brother? will it be over 400 ci ?, will it have better heads? will it be forced induction?

It is a Fontana-based block, 4.125" bore by 3.850" stroke 412 CID naturally aspirated but running on alcohol using a Hogan's sheet metal inlet at 16:1 compression and a pair or Ron's Terminators. The cylinder heads are a set of the 4-valve per cylinder Arao parts. Should make around 1100 HP and weigh a bit over 300 pounds all dressed to kill!

:davis:

Just doesn't seem right.

With those flow numbers you should be making alot more power. Hell, my 205cc intake runners with your cam would make more power than you did. I'd say who ever ported those heads ripped you off and gave you bogus numbers.

Good thing you put that motor in a light rail car to mask its power problem.

You could add alittle n2o to hang with us big dogs. If you need any advise on installing it shoot me a pm and I'll give you some pointers.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2004-08-16 01:59, fogged408w wrote:
Just doesn't seem right.

With those flow numbers you should be making alot more power. Hell, my 205cc intake runners with your cam would make more power than you did. I'd say who ever ported those heads ripped you off and gave you bogus numbers.

Good thing you put that motor in a light rail car to mask its power problem.

You could add alittle n2o to hang with us big dogs. If you need any advise on installing it shoot me a pm and I'll give you some pointers.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

I'll give you some pointers without the PM. You're not running even close to low 8s even on the nawhssss, so when you're next dreaming how you're a big dog, wake up. I think that your brain must be what is fogged.

The "power numbers" are just about perfect for the cam. It is off a bit due to not spending the time tuning it and from sloshing around with too much oil in the pan, but that won't stop you from going on with your ignorant spew, will it?

Quit telling me what your Windsor heads would do with my Cleveland cam. You don't make anywhere nearly as much power with your larger engine as I do with my smaller engine on what you're saying is my crappy heads. Why else would my smaller engine make more power than your larger engine on the motor? It isn't my off-the-shelf cam or out-of-the-box heads (no porting, no rip-off, sorry loser). Nothing like early 80s technology blowing away your hotshot recent stuff, huh?

I think that you need to go out and race with the ricers and other nawhssss wanna be somebody special someday. And, just so you don't take it personally, I'll share a little bit of insight with you, a lot is two words. No need for further replies. There is nothing you're going to say that will make your ENGINE make more power than mine N/A. See you when you get to the big time. Side by side, you'd lose and you know it. I've got the faster and quicker car by at least 2 seconds. Let me know when you're ready to run side by side with your Windsor powered car versus my Cleveland powered car. Otherwise, keep your trap closed...sounds too much like the sound made by a fish gasping for breath on shore. Just remember that you're the one who said:

"Your motor should make more power NA than mine"

...duh, it's a Cleveland! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]

:davis:

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2004-08-16 10:23, davis wrote:
Why else would my smaller engine make more power than your larger engine on the motor?

:davis:

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

First off your motor dynoed LESS. You cam is a NA cam, put those lobes on my cam and you would feel even "since my grammer is no good" badder.

Its that simple. Good day mate.