Heck, just realized I had ran the first numbers with a dual plane intake. Switched that to a single plane and opened up the headers to large tubes and got 1236 points. I even got 1142 points running that exact same combo with numbers from stock unported Edelbrocks. It sure seems that the stock 460 stroke helps.

 

BigSnag,
It has to be 470 cid MAX and Flat Tappet Camshaft. The biggest 460 stroke engine you can run is .030 or .040 over.

 

I was running a 470 CID. However, I didn't realize the flat tappet rule. I'll have to rerun some numbers. I have heard that the advantage to running a roller over flat tappet is the overall lift. So if you aren't going crazy on the lift the flat tappet is better. I've actually heard that flat tappets can have a steeper ramp, at least the initial part of the ramp. Can anyone verify that??

 

Okay, I just ran some numbers with a flat tappet cam. This was using a stock 460 stroke and a bore 4.385 which equals 470 CID. I used 13.2:1 CR just like Kaase, an 1100 cfm carb, single plane manifold, headers with mufflers, and I even used the head data that is on the popular mechanics website for the Kaase SCJ heads. Even though the article says they flow 420 cfm on the intake, the chart only showed 397. I used the chart exactly. More could be had if they actually flow 420. (I know some blue thunders flow over 400). Anyway, my torque average was 619 and hp average was 561, with a max hp of 714. Point total is 1180 which would have been good enough for a win. I am no master engine builder and this is just theoretical bull-sh#$, BUT with me working on it for only a few minutes I was able to come up with a combo that would outdo the proposed combo, pretty badly. I think that is a testament to the stroke advantage of the motor, not my engine designing or DD2000 prowess.

 

Not really...lol...this is all just fairy-tells. If you think that there is any way you could win the EMC with the little insight you have....then go to it! (I am assuming that you are not a professional nascar/NHRA caliber engine biulder) Take that $200K+ in winnings 2 years from now at the next one.

I know this, I am 385 series booksmart, but I would never challange Gary Blair, Scott Main, Jon Kasse, or any of the time proven masters of this engine. Im a hobiest, I love my Fords, but I have a full time job....and it is not biulding reliable and winning race engines for competition use...I buy those engines with the money I make at work :]

 

How many times do I have to post about this being bench racing BS for you to understand that I realize that it is virtually meaningless???? I do think that it shows that compared to the proposed engine combo (the one that started this thread), one that I came up with in about 5 minutes, is better. The only things that were significantly different were the bore and stroke. It is a decent testament to the ability of a longer stroked engine to give you a flatter torque curve. Go read all the discussion concerning the decision to go with a small bore and long stroke in Kaase's engine, as well as all the knowledge behind all the other decisions and then tell me that short stroke is the way to go. I have never pretended that I could actually build an engine that would compete with those guys. The only reason I brought up the points was because someone else had posted that the proposed engine combo had enough points to finish 8th. Mine would have been, "theoretically", high enough to win. It was just a convenient way to measure our proposed engine combos against each other.

 

I meant no harm to you. I was only reinstating that as we play our theory in fantasy worlds, that the true craftsman and artist of the BBF are far beyound reach, as I once more assume that like myself, you are hobiests. Be happy, and enjoy our game, I was not in attempt to slander your name or your visions.

I have read the Kasse article and I was also a paying supporter of the "Team 385" entry in this past years EMC. I am intrigued over the fact that that the 385 engine made such a fine showing, it will bolster the fact for the world to see that the often dismissed 460 truck engine is in reality a very capable performance engine. My hope is that the aftermarket assumes this position as well, and begins to offer more refined aftermarket parts for the 429/460. There has been little R&D by the aftermarket on the 429/460 compared to the GM engine families......could it be that our time has come?

 

"could it be that our time has come?"

I sure hope so. I think the day has come that the BBF has met or surpassed the BBC in terms of potential. Now it's time to push the envelope a little more and more improtantly get the prices to drop a little at the same time. You can't tell me that it costs Edelbrock almost twice as much to make BBF heads as it does SBC heads.

 

Realizing that this is nothing but bench racing, I just thought it would be interesting to see what something different than the norm would do. I meant no harm to anyone, and if I had DD2000, I wouldn't have to ask. Give me some time to locate a different cam profile, and some different compression specs, and we'll see what I come up with. Until next time.

 

fordtrkpuller,
Being that I am crazy, could you be so kind as to run an "improved" combination for me?

4.55 bore
3.59 stroke
14.2:1 compression

camshaft
116* LSA
int. exh.
.705 .705
330 340
284 289
lash at .030

large tube headers
3 inch hi flow mufflers

Stealth intake
1500 cfm Dominator

This should take care of the small CID claims.

 

OK, It is done. Her eis your latest dream engine but with large tube step headers and NO MUFFLERS......

RPM HP TQ
3000 222 388
3500 282 424
4000 362 475
4500 462 539
5000 559 587
5500 643 614
6000 712 623
6500 756 610
7000 770 578
7500 791 554
8000 753 494
8500 752 464
9000 711 415

OK, Your averages from 3K to 6.5K are as follows:
HP = 499.75 and TQ is an average of 532.50 ft/lb.

Same engine with large tube primarys and mufflers....

RPM HP TQ
3000 200 350
3500 268 401
4000 349 457
4500 439 513
5000 518 544
5500 584 557
6000 636 556
6500 666 538
7000 666 499
7500 674 472
8000 616 404
8500 595 368
9000 531 310

So, with mufflers (and as you requested :])......

Averages are HP= 457.5 and TQ = 489.5

I showed you the power to such a high RPM because the program shows you holding HP over such a wide RPM band it was worth noting. The cam is clearly making the HP in a range outside the EMC window and hurting you, to achieve those same HP peaks that are seen from 5K to 9K in the window of the EMC would be awesome! The TQ is also windowed a bit high in RPM for the task at hand. There is no question (And never has been...) that a small CI engine can make fantastic HP numbers....but it comes at a cost. That is expensive unobtainium parts that can allow the RPM's needed to generate these HP numbers and shorter overall engine life.

Also, the ex valve timing with the 116 lobe CL is not able to be entered, the cam math calculator displays it as an invalid valve timing event and throws you into an error. I was forced to drop to 338 degrees duration on the exhaust to satisfy the software. All else is as you requested.

 

Almost forgot...the cam iterator I ran last weekend on your original design with the small tube primary headers and lower compression ratio.....

OK, I was able to maximize tq, and the HP output with the averageing taken into account........ this looks sweet! Where would this cam/combo put you in the EMC?

The program came up with this as a best tq cam choice....

IVO 28 BTDC IVC 70 ABDC
EVO 83 BBDC EVC 27 ATDC
Seat to seat duration is 278/290 with 55 degrees overlap and a valve sep angle of 114.5 degrees, and a 111 deg intake centerline.

Here is the breakdown on tq and the less than ideal hp...BTW...this would be a great hot street cam!

RPM HP TQ
3000 318 556
3500 392 589
4000 470 617
4500 545 636
5000 608 638
5500 648 619
6000 669 585
6500 655 529
7000 626 469
7500 594 416

So the averages we get from 3K to 6.5K are: 538.125 HP and 596.125 FT/LB, remember this is with 0.5:1 less compression than the original config and also with the small tube primary headers. This is still assuming your running free flowing race exhaust and mufflers.

 

OK, same as the last combo I asked for but with this cam and comp.

camshaft
112* LSA
int. exh.
.775 .775
295 315
265 280
lash at .022

14.9:1 comp.

This should lower where it occurs, but should keep the power pretty good.

 

OK, this set up looks like this;

RPM HP TQ
3000 279 488
3500 354 532
4000 437 574
4500 526 614
5000 605 636
5500 669 638
6000 712 623
6500 743 600
7000 741 556
7500 734 514
8000 695 456
8500 669 413

So averages from 3K to 6.5K are;

HP = 540.625 and TQ = 588.125

 

Thanks, looks good to me. I appreciate you putting up with my questions. Thnks again.