Never said a 302 couldn't make 400TQ either?? However, ask your track buddies, if you do what col. flashmans done to his six to a 302, generic TQ cam, higher compression, port work on the stock head, 4bbl, not likely your gonna get 400 TQ at any rpm.

Your last paragraph would mean something if I stated the 300 would make more TQ than a BB. However, your finally understanding what I was saying, its all about the stroke, no kidding, take a simillar stroke engine, tack on 2-4 more cylinders, it better make more TQ. Now why can the I-6 do what it can do, the stroke, compare it to a simillar displacement v-8, shorter stroke, whos wins? The 300.

I get your reasoning for wanting to look at the lower rpms of these hopped up six's (heck I wanna see it too ) but what your missing is the camshafts used (for the most part) are low rpm TQ cams, sure the rpm peak goes up due to the port work but at the same time, I think it reasonable to expect the TQ below the peak to be healthy.

I will be honest, I agree with most everything you've stated and not sure what we are discussing...as it appears we are simply looking at things from two different perspectives.





Col. Flashman

Would it be possible the dyno operator saved your information?

 

Motorhead, I'm not really sure what we're discussing either, and I don't think I disagree. The longer stroke engine should make power lower in the rev range than a short stroke of the same displacement, all else being equal. However, when both are optimized, the torque is the same; the utility is different.

My point is, I guess, that somewhere, somehow, the bill's gotta be paid. If 300's were the equivalent of big blocks, then they'd be putting them in new one ton trucks instead of V10's and big block Chevies. In obtaining the highest possible torque figures for the six, something may be lost; very low speed torque. In obtaining these high torque figures, the six runs more like a small block V8 than the original motor did. We've moved the torque peak up 1300-1500 rpm. I'm not surprised it can produce power in this range with the stock cam-the motor was so breathing impaired that opening the breathing helps greatly. And honestly, the 3300 rpm torque peak is not all that high. But it's no longer all that low. Is there a point where the torque output falls away substantially? A point at which the greatly enlarged ports let intake velocity fall so low that good torque is no longer being produced? Mating the modified engine to an automatic transmission would mask a lot of the low speed torque loss, if it does occur.

But, I still believe that if you expect 450 lb. ft. out of a motor, and expect most of it at low rpm, then success is much more likely to come with a big displacement motor than a small one. SS's figures (see earlier post) about being able to mathematically calculate engine output at speed seem to call Clifford's claims into considerable doubt. I'm interested in the discrepancy presented there. Posters imply that low revving, 450 lb. ft. 300's should be as common as dirt; the calculations say otherwise. Why? Let's get the dyno charts posted as the definitive answer.

Both of my trucks are stick shifts, and the EFI truck has the poorly geared Mazda tranny. Low speed torque is of great interest to me. And that's why I asked to see lower speed performance.

 

I supplied the #'s from the Smudged & Mangled, Dyno Sheet Print-Out I had access to on several occasions & stated the reasons behind posting them the way I did, yet you still persist in you Skeptism, hence my belief that you think I'm being Untruthfull about them.

Those #'s would have been rather better if they hadn't run out of Premium Pump Petrol & instead had to use a Top Fueler Blend of Petrol they had on hand. I am rather bored of continually reading from you over & over & over again about your Unwarrented Skeptism about the TQ #'s @ the R #'s I've supplied for my engine. Can we state,"Beating a Dead Roo".

My 312c.i.ers 400 @ 3,200rpm is Fact & if you've a problem w/ the #'s I've posted, you'll just have to deal & Ask you to Desist from making any further mention of me, including Vague ones or making further Skeptical comments or references about my engines Dyno results in any future posts you might make if you continue to maintain your Persistent Disbelief about those results. You are NOT going to receive a Copy of a Dyno Sheet I Do Not Have, as I would have previously sent it to 351 or S.S. or 4Speed, etc., & asked them nicely to post it here for me. & your persistent Request for that Dyno Sheet is Childish @ best

I could care less about Clifford's claim of 450fpt, for as I've stated in the Past, they're Resting on the Laurel's of Old Man Clifford's Past Achievements, have not come up w/ anything new in years & are asking scary amounts of Rhino for what ther're offering when it can be shopped around & done @ a less expensive price else where.

 

Beating a dead horse? Sounds like it. I won't get a dyno posted from anyone here, clearly.

Unwarranted skepticism? I'm not the only one who wants to see the figures. People with more experience than I have commented unfavorably about Clifford's numbers; verification would be nice, but such, apparently, cannot be had. I do not place the request upon your shoulders, but upon anyone who can verify it. You do not feel compelled to post and I do not blame you; you do not have to justify yourself to me, and I am not requesting that you, specifically, do so.

I am just asking if ANYONE can do so.

Recall, please, that the original post, and followup, was about Clifford.

Nothing more can be said, except that information is a good thing, and that the thread here has generated more heat than light.

 

I wrote "Roo", not Horse, just the same as you did previously, as in Kanga.
I've posted the Dyno Sheet Numbers, Time & Again, if you Do Not Believe those numbers that I Supplied, Not My Problem.
As for being Compelled Not To Post the Actual Sheet, Thank'ee for taking Such a Burden off my Poor Shoulders.
What Do You Not Get about my Statement that I Do No Have It in My Possesion. I Can Not Post What I Do Not Have, & it's Not a Justification, it's just Simple Statement of Fact.
Yes, this thread started out about a Clifford Build, But you made statements referencing those of us that have built a 300c.i.ers w/ impressive numbers & that the Only way you'll believe those numbers is if you see an Actual Dyno Sheet, hence our beliefs that you believe us to be Un-Truthfull &/or Exaggerating those same stated numbers.
And I've a feeling that when "j41385a" gets back from Iraq, he'll be more than Happy to Ablige you w/ posting you his Dyno Sheet, but untill he's back from his tour in the Great Sand Box, you'll just have to bide your time till then.

 

"The C series and 390 Holley are a bit of a mismatch, as supposedly the DP is better for a milder cam torque motor used for hauling, but despite this the older modded motor has far more low speed torque (using the unreliable seat of the pants comparison). What makes this a more valid method of comparison is the fact that the newer EFI truck is both lighter (200 lbs) and has lower gearing. The EFI is 16:1 in first, while the older truck (T18 tranny) has a 6.32:1 granny and 3.09:1 normal "pavement" first gear with 3.55 diff, so it is only 11:1 in first. The modded truck pulls harder in "pavement" first than the EFI truck does, and will lug like mad down to 4-500 rpm. The EFI truck dies if it has much of a load below 1000 rpm clutch engagement. I understand some of this may be due Ford retarding the cam to meet emissions in the EFI truck" quote from 309Ford.

I have been researching the best carb for the offy c intake, what is the DP of which you speak? double pumper?

 

DP when talking Holley carbs would be Double Pumper, has accel pump for both the primaries and secondaries.

DP when talking Offy intake manifolds would be Dual Port, it has 2 ports from the carb base to the head ports for each cylinder.
The smaller port would flow the primaries and the larger port the secondaries. The smaller port is to help with low RPM power by keeping the air / fuel mixture moving at a high rate that keeps it mixed.
Then when you need more power and the secondaries open the larger port is used.
The only problem I see with the DP manifold is how the carb mounted on the manifold as it does not make it easy to hook up throttle / kick down cables as one member has found out in the 80-86 truck area I think it is.

I would go with the "C" manifold and either a Motorcraft v2 carb (noy likely) Holley 2300 v2 in the 350 CFM size or the 390 v4 and if I really had money the Sniper 2300 v2 EFI all with the EFI exhaust manifolds.
Buddy runs the Sniper EFI and EFI manifolds and the truck ran great when I was with him. Sorry to say he moved to HI shortly after he got it running so did not get to sped a lot of time with him / truck
Dave ----

 

I did not think it could be the double pumper, that is why I asked.
The 1bbl on the 300 is basically sideways, as the throttle cable
pulls left to right, instead of front to back. Is this what the issue is when
using a DP? Is this the reason the 4v's have issues? Can the 4v not be
mounted sideways like the 1bbl? I don't want to run into this swap
headlong and get any surprises. Is the an issue with the "c"?

 

I have to say all I know is what I have seen posted over the yearsso take that for what it's worth.

Look at the 2 manifolds where the carb mounts and you will see what I am takling about below.
I believe the problem is with the DP (dual port) manifold and the way the carb HAS TO BE mounted.
It has small & larger runners from the carb mount to the head. The smaller runners are for the carb primaries and where they are at the mounting end will dictate how the carb gets mounted.
If I remember from the post the other day the cable pulls left / right and the way the carb mounts the throttle pulls from the right.
He had factory AC so a large HVAC box the cables hit, he had auto trans.
Because the small runner / primaries are at the head I believe you cant turn the carb.
If you were to turn it then the primaries would be over both small & large runners and cause rich / lean cylinders I would think and if you turned it 180* I dont know if the secondaries would open?

Now you can mount it like it should be, have the cable come over the valve cover like factory, and make a pivot that would change the pulling of cable to pushing of the throttle.
Think older Ford trucks with linkage had something like this mounted to the firewall?
If you had a arm that rotated in the center the cable would pull on 1 end of arm and the other end of arm would push the throttle.
Just a matter of how long the arm would be and how to mount the pivot bracket but I think that would be the way to go.
If you had a auto that used as cable I think you could also mount it to the arm either top or bottom for push / pull.
So you see just go with the open carb mounted manifold and be done with it.
Dave ----