Stroker Engine Advice
Postmaster
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,934
Likes: 0
From: iowa
i have dynosim, the version after dd2, its has a couple more manifolds selections over dd2.
I like your thinking Russ, i like the 112-114 lobe seperation cams. And I like the comp 274 camshaft.
shoot some numbers or specs and i'll see what i can do.
I like your thinking Russ, i like the 112-114 lobe seperation cams. And I like the comp 274 camshaft.
shoot some numbers or specs and i'll see what i can do.
FE "Freakin Expensive"
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,461
Likes: 4
From: Smith Mountain Lake, VA
Greg I think your making more Crank HP than you think..your just running a freakin ton of goodies off the motor!!
Now remember Alt,A/C, water pump, Power steering..etc..
The #'s Matt show are probably with No equipment...at Dyno room conditions..Not real world weather from the back tires... Big Difference!
Russ
Now remember Alt,A/C, water pump, Power steering..etc..
The #'s Matt show are probably with No equipment...at Dyno room conditions..Not real world weather from the back tires... Big Difference!
Russ
Lead Driver
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 6,175
Likes: 21
From: Texas
Originally Posted by RapidRuss
Greg I think your making more Crank HP than you think..your just running a freakin ton of goodies off the motor!!
Now remember Alt,A/C, water pump, Power steering..etc..
The #'s Matt show are probably with No equipment...at Dyno room conditions..Not real world weather from the back tires... Big Difference!
Russ
Now remember Alt,A/C, water pump, Power steering..etc..
The #'s Matt show are probably with No equipment...at Dyno room conditions..Not real world weather from the back tires... Big Difference!
Russ
I meant in comparison to those flat-tappet cams. Shouldn't the increased lift and ramp rates of a roller produce a smoother torque curve and a better HP peak than a flat-tappet cam?
Postmaster
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,934
Likes: 0
From: iowa
greg, your higher advertised duration is hurting your bottomend and your .050 duration is somewhat average and less than the comp cam so your peak hp is less, and so your accel rates are not that good, my program doesn't account for less friction so in reality you would have more power.
Bottom line, the cam could be better.
Bottom line, the cam could be better.
Post Fiend
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,600
Likes: 4
From: Iowa
Yeesh, I miss all the fun! Go away for 1 day and look what happens.
Anyway, 45ACP, you've got the right idea, but I think it's lacking in some areas. First, stock Edelbrocks. These are not bad heads. However, the way they are, the ported stock FE heads flow just as good if not a bit better. According to DD2k, the standard going 390 build would make the same HP as your proposed motor with a bit less torque. You cant have that for the money you're spending.
Send your heads off to http://www.keithcraft.com/ and have 'em ported. You'll probably want stage 2.
Next, step up to the roller cam. The Crane 349511 would be a good one to use, as it gives about the same horsepower and a lot more torque than the 349521, but it wont be out until December 19th.
The way you proposed to build it, with the stock edelbrocks and the 343941, you'd be making 420hp @ 5000rpm, and 484ft-lbs @ 3500rpm. With the ported edelbrock heads and 349511 roller cam, you'd have 516hp @ 5500rpm, and 538ft-lbs @ 4500rpm. The torque at 2000rpm is still 490ft-lbs, so you're not lacking there either.
Anyway, 45ACP, you've got the right idea, but I think it's lacking in some areas. First, stock Edelbrocks. These are not bad heads. However, the way they are, the ported stock FE heads flow just as good if not a bit better. According to DD2k, the standard going 390 build would make the same HP as your proposed motor with a bit less torque. You cant have that for the money you're spending.
Send your heads off to http://www.keithcraft.com/ and have 'em ported. You'll probably want stage 2.
Next, step up to the roller cam. The Crane 349511 would be a good one to use, as it gives about the same horsepower and a lot more torque than the 349521, but it wont be out until December 19th.
The way you proposed to build it, with the stock edelbrocks and the 343941, you'd be making 420hp @ 5000rpm, and 484ft-lbs @ 3500rpm. With the ported edelbrock heads and 349511 roller cam, you'd have 516hp @ 5500rpm, and 538ft-lbs @ 4500rpm. The torque at 2000rpm is still 490ft-lbs, so you're not lacking there either.
Posting Guru
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 2
cam anyone get an average tq number off their dyno program? mine wont, i have to do it the old fashioned way.. :-( i was just curious which cam made the best overall torque...
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Ford Trucks Coming to Mecum Indy 2026
Brett Foote
5 Best / 5 Worst Ford Truck Wheels of All Time
Joe Kucinski
Ford Super Duty: 5 Things Owners LOVE, 5 Things They LOATHE!
Joe Kucinski
Every 2026 Ford Truck Engine RANKED from WORST to FIRST!
Michael S. Palmer
The Best F-150 Deal of Every Trim Level (XL through Raptor)
Joe Kucinski
Thread Starter
|
New User
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Thanks for that great information; the transmission is the np435 4 speed. I like the torque of the 901 and 941 but am wondering what these cams do after 2500 to 4000 rpm. Is the torque curve pretty flat? I spoke to a guy named Dave Cope from my town last night that seems to know fe really well. He suggested I have a custom cam gound in the 224/230 range with 524/529 lift for this motor. Oregon cams makes them with part # 1425. He told me his 428 and buddies run very well with this grind. What are your thoughts?
Posting Guru
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 2
the 941 kinda falls off after 4000, still has 460 ft/lbs at 5000 though.. average torque between 2000 and 5500 is 484 ft/lbs... LOTS! from 2-4500 it never makes less than 480 ft/lbs... it peaks at hp around 5300 or so, with that long of an arm in it you probably don't want to turn much more than that anyways..JMO I'll run that oregon cam and see what it does...
Posting Guru
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 2
oregon cams doesn't list their specs online so i'm waiting back for their reply with the numbers.... with those kinda numbers for the 941 as well as the other cams, i don't think you'll see too big of a difference between all of them.. i liked the 941 for my 390, that big of a motor will take more cam and like it!! i'll see if i can get you average torque numbers on those other ones for the same rpm range, since i imagine you're interested in the flatest highest torque curve you can get...
Last edited by fordraceboy; Nov 16, 2005 at 05:40 PM.
Posting Guru
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
From: Eureka, Ca.
For comparison:
http://www.hotrod.com/webonly_january/index.html
This is a 396cid engine with the Comp 521 roller cam.
I think the 445cid version should do better than what is stated above.
http://www.hotrod.com/webonly_january/index.html
This is a 396cid engine with the Comp 521 roller cam.
I think the 445cid version should do better than what is stated above.
Postmaster
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,934
Likes: 0
From: iowa
as from previous discussions, extra stroke means more torque not horsepower. The hotrod build and dynosim are 2hp apart and that well could be in the slight comp difference.
And once again I will lobby for the comp 274x.
And once again I will lobby for the comp 274x.
Posting Guru
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 2
as from previous discussions, extra stroke means more torque not horsepower
FE "Freakin Expensive"
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,461
Likes: 4
From: Smith Mountain Lake, VA
Just from what I have noticed over the years....Rather your building a Squared motor,Big Stroker, or a High rever....your Peak Hp is generally 1000rpms over your peak Tq... Because you cant build a stump puller, and have it peak Hp at 6500rpm..JMO
Russ
Russ