Behold And Be Amazed At This $ To Hp Ratio

jerry S · Nov 16, 2005

After adding the following:

RPM Air Gap intake: $240
Electric water pump: $350
Electric fuel pump: $110
new billet steel harmomic dampner: $270
Comp. Cams Pro Magnum roller rockers: $280

and close to $1000 in labor to install all of the above, for a grand total of about $2 grand.

I read from Meziere that dyno results show that eliminating the accessory drag of the water pump frees up to 10 hp. Comp Cams tells me that I should expect to see up to 20 hp by installing their roller rockers. The Air Gap should make up to 15 hp over the torker II. And the dampner will smooth out the crankshaft and prevent power robbing vibrations. The fuel pump will feed the carb enough fuel so the engine won't starve at high rpm. Wow. In the best case scenario, I can see 45 hp but I know I won't. So what do I actually see? A lousy peak increase of 3 hp and 3 ft/lbs of torque.

that is a dollar to hp ratio of 1 hp for every $670 spent. Man am I smart or what when it comes to engine building? It is s damn good thing I passed up on that awesome nitrous system for $2,000.

You won't be seeing me post here anymore. I am going in the basement to start the car and run a hose from the exhaust to a bag wrapped around my head.

ttoney · Nov 16, 2005

I think you are supposed to tune it now amnit: amnit:

You should be able to get at least 6 hp and 6 ft/lbs out of that combo

12sec67 · Nov 16, 2005

the best thing i ever did is to install a windage tray off ebay .. and carb spacer from autozone and then the re-tune

krash kendall · Nov 16, 2005

Jerry, what is your total HP and on what motor? Maybe you hit the glass ceiling for normal aspiration.

jerry S · Nov 16, 2005

ttoney said:
I think you are supposed to tune it now amnit: amnit:

You should be able to get at least 6 hp and 6 ft/lbs out of that combo

it was tuned. Goodbye cruel world

jerry S · Nov 16, 2005

krash kendall said:
Jerry, what is your total HP and on what motor? Maybe you hit the glass ceiling for normal asperation.

299 hp and 396 ft. lbs torque at the rear wheels behind a C6 auto. That is about 385 hp at the fly.

351W recently rebuilt top to bottom. I have RPM Performer cylinder heads, long tube headers, forged flat top pistons at 11:1 CR, and a 650 cfm carb.

I also have a pretty hefty cam in there. It is a crower Ultra Performance Compu-Pro/Performance level 4

adv. dur: intake=297, exh=308
dur @.050: intake=236, exh=242
Gross lift: intake=.538, exh=534

I have seen inferior builds do appreciably better than this.

krash kendall · Nov 16, 2005

With a 20% loss through the drivetrain that works out to be 374 at the crank which is over 1 HP per cubic inch and I think you will find that difficult to improve on. Those are quite respectable numbers for something you can drive on the street.

jerry S · Nov 16, 2005

krash kendall said:
With a 20% loss through the drivetrain that works out to be 374 at the crank which is over 1 HP per cubic inch and I think you will find that difficult to improve on. Those are quite respectable numbers for something you can drive on the street.

Why o why did I let myself get talked out of the stroker? I honestly was expecting 400 with this build.

krash kendall · Nov 16, 2005

Other than the rockers, what else was done to the heads?

rbohm · Nov 16, 2005

you say it was tuned, but what are the bsfc numbers? what timing are you running right now? what is your timing curve? i am betting that your engine is running too rich, and/or the timing curve is now not optimized for your current combination. with the torquer intake you were likely very close with the fuel curve, and now you dont need the added fuel with the performer that you did with the torker.

just putting in fresh plugs does not mean you have tuned the new combination. jetting, timing curve, initial timing, these are what you need to work on.

180 Out · Nov 16, 2005

Regarding the importance of the tune, on Horsepower TV (I know, I know) this past Saturday they did a build up on a small block Ford with aftermarket EFI and the first dyno pull was low 300's, about 305 hp. But they also observed an overrich condition, and with a few keystroke on the laptop they instantly gained over 60 hp! Unbelieveable!

jerry S · Nov 16, 2005

krash kendall said:
Other than the rockers, what else was done to the heads?

Nothing. I have a guy who has offered to port the heads and intake. What kinds of gains in terms of HP and torque might one expect for such work?

jerry S · Nov 16, 2005

rbohm said:
you say it was tuned, but what are the bsfc numbers? what timing are you running right now? what is your timing curve? i am betting that your engine is running too rich, and/or the timing curve is now not optimized for your current combination. with the torquer intake you were likely very close with the fuel curve, and now you dont need the added fuel with the performer that you did with the torker.

just putting in fresh plugs does not mean you have tuned the new combination. jetting, timing curve, initial timing, these are what you need to work on.

that I do not know and it is not on my dyno print out. I have to ask.

LMan · Nov 16, 2005

another victim of marketing hype. That's why its so important to talk with people who have *been there*, and not glossy incestuous magazine 'how-to' "articles" and ad campaigns.

jerry S · Nov 16, 2005

LMan said:
another victim of marketing hype. That's why its so important to talk with people who have *been there*, and not glossy incestuous magazine 'how-to' "articles" and ad campaigns.

I knew I wasn't going to see any where near 45 hp. Not without a supercharger at least. I was certainly expecting more than 3 hp and 3 ft lbs of torque. But that is not what is bumming me. I really thought that my combo should be making 400 hp at the fly. My build is very similar, if not better, than some of the crate engines that come with engine dyno sheets proclaiming 400 hp.

12sec67 · Nov 16, 2005

What Was You A/f Reading On The Dyno?

57fairlane · Nov 16, 2005

Like it has been said, we really need to see a dyno graph. Or at least tell us where these numbers came in at, especially peak torque.

But for starters, what RPM are you taking it to?

Depending on lifter type and lsa, it seems you should be near the 6300-6400 range. Personally, I have seen that the larger a motor, the less the differences in dual-plane vs single-plane are. Meaning that torque is a little less, however the peak hp numbers are significantly higher. The problem is that you just bought all this stuff so you probably don't want to spend another dime on it. I would try a victor jr. on it, if you feel so compelled. The cam, displacement, compression just seem a little high for *most* dual-planes. For a moot point, you would probably be better off with a built c4 but again the problem is the c6 is already in there and paid for.

iskwezm · Nov 16, 2005

jerry S said:
My build is very similar, if not better, than some of the crate engines that come with engine dyno sheets proclaiming 400 hp.

Have you seen those engines on dynoes to prove they did what they say???
I think your numbers are pretty good,enough to get a 12 second pass,but there a few hidden horsepower,degree the cam,timing,jetting/carb size,header size.,You might have done some of these already.

Thesres a lot to be said for matching parts,but i think overall your not doing bad.mayb what you had before was already a good combo????I added Edelbrock heads/cam over my stock cast iron and comp cam and lost HP.

Jc69Stang · Nov 16, 2005

1 hp per cubic inch aint bad. Like it was said though. we need more info, post the chart if possible.

Ronstang · Nov 16, 2005

For comparison, I built a 351 using a sportsman shortblock from Ford which is basically the good block with stock truck internals. The compression ratio is 9:1, heads are Edelbrock Victor Jr.s which I gasket matched and blended, and a Victor Jr. intake was used. The Lunati roller cam specs I do not remember but I know the lift was right about .600 with the 1.7 roller rockers. Now this engine is fuel injected using the factory Ford 5.0 setup as a base with an 86mm throttle body and 77mm mass air meter along with a Tweeker chip in the ECM to allow us to tune using a laptop. Longtube headers and a Dr. Gas X-pipe dump into cheap Dynomax mufflers and turndowns before the 9 inch axle.

This enging is very basic by my standards and really is a bolt together engine considering we bought the short block assembly straight from Ford and simply bolted on the heads and installed the cam. The engine is in a 93 Mustang coupe with a Tremec TKO 600 trans and a 4.33 geared Strange 9 inche rear. The initial dyno tune netted us ~400 RWHP but since then we have tuned it quite a bit with the tweeker and considering the car just kept getting faster there is probably a little more there now.

This car runs 11.3s at the dragstrip and is tame enough to drive on the street everyday if you actually wanted.

Based on my experience I would say there is definitely something wrong with your combo, whether it be a simple tune or a mismatch of parts.

Behold And Be Amazed At This $ To Hp Ratio

jerry S

New Member

ttoney

Member

12sec67

Active Member

krash kendall

Active Member

jerry S

New Member

jerry S

New Member

krash kendall

Active Member

jerry S

New Member

krash kendall

Active Member

rbohm

180 Out

Member

jerry S

New Member

jerry S

New Member

LMan

jerry S

New Member

12sec67

Active Member

57fairlane

New Member

iskwezm

Jc69Stang

New Member

Ronstang

New Member

Similar threads

Behold And Be Amazed At This $ To Hp Ratio

New Member

Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency