New dyno numbers

[smitty_64]

Well, after screwing around all day at the dyno, I got 1 more HP out of it, and 7 more ft./lbs. torque. It still wants to peak on HP at about 5300 though. The builder seems to think that is was the lower intake manifold that he used. He's not happy with it either, so that's a good thing. He wants to replace it, and for free so that is in my price range. I guess those numbers work out though, 311.2 x 1.15 = 357.88 Engine HP. If we could get it to peak around 6 grand it would be around 330-345.

 

[final5-0]

Well, after screwing around all day at the dyno, I got 1 more HP out of it, and 7 more ft./lbs. torque. It still wants to peak on HP at about 5300 though. The builder seems to think that is was the lower intake manifold that he used. He's not happy with it either, so that's a good thing. He wants to replace it, and for free so that is in my price range. I guess those numbers work out though, 311.2 x 1.15 = 357.88 Engine HP. If we could get it to peak around 6 grand it would be around 330-345.

Well Greg

I remember your thread from a week or so back.

Without getting into talk like ... you need this specific set of heads or intake or cam

The fact is you are working with 50 more cubes

The intake you have chosen I can relate to

I'm not all that familiar with those Edel Victor Jr. heads
are they close to AFR 165 or 185 or close to TFS

I just wonder if they flow better than the typical head one puts on a combo with 50 less cubes

I admit ... Cams is not one of my stronger points
but
My general thinking would be similar to the heads ..............
Is that cam suitable for that stroker motor

As for the track heat manifold ...............

I know I've seen peeps on several occasions port an Edel RPM which is Edel's middle of the row intake like the track heat is in the TFS product line and they picked up power every time on 302 combos.

Now ... Since that worked great for combos 50 cubes smaller than the one you have built ... you would think an intake that flowed better than the track heat would work even all the better for your larger motor sized combo.

Just thinking out loud
and
Most likely not helping all that much

Grady

 

[smitty_64]

Grady,

I really do appreciate your levity when dealing with the "engine ignorant" people like myself. Some of your posts in response to my threads have helped me to narrow down the questions that I keep taking back to Jason, and has made him second-think some of the things he has done to the motor. The specs on the Victor Jr.'s are 60cc combustion chamber, 210cc intake runner, 75cc exhaust runner, 2.05"/1.60" int/exh valve, .650" max valve lift. His bailiwick is building 1000-2000 HP dragsters, not really building street cars. Of course he told me that before building it, so I don't hold it against him. From the specs it looks like they are closer to the TFI TW's.

 

[final5-0]

I've seen many quote a kind of ... rule of thumb phrase ... that is to be found on all the various boards

"You don't wanna use 302 combo parts on a 347"

The fact the combo is done at so early of an rpm kinda causes me to have the gut feeling that is what is happening here

I was kinda thinking those heads were a bit more able to flow more than entry level 302 heads such as AFR 165's and TFS TW's. I don't know but maybe something like AFR 185's.

If that is the case with those heads

You would look to the intake and cam ... seems to me

You could go to a better flowing intake
You could also port that track heat for more flow as well

You could also go with a cam that may be more suited

Again, just thinking out loud, but I somehow or the other think the cam just might be the weak link in your quest for more power.

If you were to do ... just one thing .............

I suspect the cam is where you would find the most gain as opposed to the intake ... again ... if those heads flow pretty good.

I look forward to seeing what you guys come up with

Grady

 

[smitty_64]

He's going to port the intake first, and then I'll see how it is. I am sure you are right though, since the cam is similar to the B-cam.

 

[Therian]

I'm going to fall in line with Grady on this one.

I believe without the addition of aftermarket Roller Rockers to raise the duration, a B-cam is supposed to make max HP somewhere around 5300 RPM. Since you have raised the lift on the cam, you're giving it extra room to breathe (due to the bigger heads + bigger combustion area) BUT the max HP a cam makes on a 302 at xxx RPM will be lower as you increase CID.

so if you had a 302 making max HP at 5300RPM

a 347 with the same cam will be making max hp lower than 5300 RPM

I believe the intake is not your problem here.

 

[smitty_64]

Alright, bigger cam is required, but will have to wait on that probably. I guess considering in March I had a stone stock car, and now I have all the stuff listed, I am doing alright. But, he did put new rockers on too.

 

[smitty_64]

What can I say, I am thick-headed.

 

[Therian]

What can I say, I am thick-headed.

it takes a lot of studying and research to even begin to understand how different components of an engine work together to create certain desired qualities. Don't sweat it.

search and google are your best friend in your quest for knowledge

good luck

 

[final5-0]

Hey Greg

Worse things could happen to ya

I looked at the dyno curves again when this thread popped up.

I'm sure with how those curves look, you have a lotts of fun driving around your Stang
Good low end tq and all

The r&r of an intake is cake compared to the r&r of a cam
so
its not like its a ton of work to do the intake anyway.

I'd not consider steeper ratio rr's myself. I'd get some good reliable data on cams and just swap it and stay with your current rr's when you are ready.

Talk to your guy and see what he thinks about retarding the cam somewhere around 4 degrees

Scrub off a little down low and shift it up higher

Grady