[Pont428]

Fulper you should denounce your old ways and become a new honest man. Daren has done work for us and Don Kennedy. He is a good man. Lynn was talking low cubic inch engines and Fulper misrepresented it and to Daren like it was 500 inch engines. No big deal unless you are bent on misrepresenting the truth. Turn away from your evil. It under minds our sport.

[Pont428]

Originally Posted by BruceWilkie

Put those dimensions in a 301 deck height block so you can run shorter lighter rods and a lighter crank and add smaller bearings while your at it.... 301 deck is 9.143 iirc... thats still a decent size for those who want more stroke... being a factory dimension helps in the fight to get allowed to run against the LS and SB2 and Ford small block stuff... especially if you make the argument that they all stretch their blocks to compete in 400 -460 ci range... We've lived there for years but didnt have the heads we have today... which in the right hands I see no reason why we cant meet or beat their power in that ci range. We have bore advantage over those motors and need to capitalize on it. They dont blink an eye to exploit any advantage they find... we need to do likewise.

When we run 500+ ci we are up against bigger bore motors... if running same ci that gives them an edge we cant match without lengthening our block. That bore space and valve size relationship matters... and it matters more than any piston speed advantage our longer stroke might have to offer.

The 406 will be 8.900 deck or as close as they can get, 4.40 bore and 3.3 stroke, 2.5 mains, 2 inch rods. Block will be here soon. It will make RPM believe me. Pontiacs have sweet spot in this area. They were all ready to place bets on JCs engine now where are they? The final numbers arent yet in.

[Half-Inch Stud]

Don, seems RA V & RA II share the dry-plug benefits.

[pastry_chef]

Originally Posted by Pont428

Daren thought we were talking 500 inch engines. No big deal unless you are bent on misrepresenting the truth.

Actually funny enough Darin quotes Lynn directly.. LMAO
http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic...&sid=0a1051f0c

Darin Morgan » Mon Jul 03, 2006 3:07 pm

Lynn McCarty wrote:My opinion, this is the head that can produce the most power for 500 cubic inches an above to compete with the BBC Pro Stock engines of today.

---------------------------------------------------

Build what ever size you want, it won't hit remotely close to McCarty's claims!!

If anyone wants to see "misrepresenting" read that entire thread..


Where I live we're getting 10 cm of snow tomorrow!! Does not sound like the west coast of California.

[dci]

What kind of duration @ .050 and .200 does everyone think an engine like this is going to need to get 2.3HP per?


Don Johnston
DCI MOTORSPORTS INC.
330-850-5050 shop
330-628-3354 cell
Designer of the DCI Tiger Heads and the NEW DCI Ram Air 5 Heads !!!!!

[BruceWilkie]

Originally Posted by dci

What kind of duration @ .050 and .200 does everyone think an engine like this is going to need to get 2.3HP per?


Don Johnston
DCI MOTORSPORTS INC.
330-850-5050 shop
330-628-3354 cell
Designer of the DCI Tiger Heads and the NEW DCI Ram Air 5 Heads !!!!!

Sims on this type build suggest open/close rate will have big impact... the more that rate gets toned down the bigger the duration gets and VE decreases... I'd put as much rocker ratio to it as I could... then consider the profile it would "like" vs what could be reasonably attained. My software is currently off loaded til I get a new pc so I cant look to guesstimate.

[Chad Speier]

It's all about RPM. You not going to achieve big hp/cid unless you have high RPM.

Just had a customer make 2.50 with a 349, at 9600 rpm.

[Pont428]

Lynn was referring to Pontiacs having real world goals not that we have achieved them. He even contacted Darin to explain his position. He doesnt believe Pontiacs are even close to Pro Stock that is all taken out of context. If you really want to know what he thinks, call him. 317.260.3486 or www.ramairv.com

Tony said a similar conventional head BBC would make 1250HP out of his shop. McCarty Racing got 1219.8 first try, and they are going back for more in a couple of weeks. This thing has incredible midrange and revs like a smaller engine. This is where Pontiacs run good and out do some other engines. Not just peak.

Pontiac guys need to work together to improve not tear each other down.

[RAIV-Z]

Originally Posted by Pont428

Lynn was referring to Pontiacs having real world goals not that we have achieved them. He even contacted Darin to explain his position. He doesnt believe Pontiacs are even close to Pro Stock that is all taken out of context. If you really want to know what he thinks, call him. 317.260.3486 or www.ramairv.com

Tony said a similar conventional head BBC would make 1250HP out of his shop. McCarty Racing got 1219.8 first try, and they are going back for more in a couple of weeks. This thing has incredible midrange and revs like a smaller engine. This is where Pontiacs run good and out do some other engines. Not just peak.

Pontiac guys need to work together to improve not tear each other down.

Stacy,

I’d like to hear some of Lynn’s explanations.

[J.C.you]

Originally Posted by Chad Speier

It's all about RPM. You not going to achieve big hp/cid unless you have high RPM.

Just had a customer make 2.50 with a 349, at 9600 rpm.

what head, intake package?

Keeping the cubes down the visner or warp head could definately be a player in that ballpark with a short decker.

Sportsman short deck Pontiac anyone?

[Transporter]

Originally Posted by J.C.you

what head, intake package?

Keeping the cubes down the visner or warp head could definately be a player in that ballpark with a short decker.

Sportsman short deck Pontiac anyone?

Wasn't someone offering a 9.2 Pontiac block? in aluminum?

That is what you need, hell it would probably bring Marcella back!

[BruceWilkie]

Originally Posted by Transporter

Wasn't someone offering a 9.2 Pontiac block? in aluminum?

That is what you need, hell it would probably bring Marcella back!

Not one pro stock I'm aware of runs aluminum block... Iron is far better for this task. I've been advocating for short deck for several years... 9.2 is fine... our much maligned 301 is 9.143.

[Transporter]

Originally Posted by BruceWilkie

Not one pro stock I'm aware of runs aluminum block... Iron is far better for this task. I've been advocating for short deck for several years... 9.2 is fine... our much maligned 301 is 9.143.

Yeah Bruce, I was just throwing the aluminum out there for the Marcella effect, actually I would think that CGI block would be the best compromise between durability and weight.

We are even starting to see CGI's in class 8 diesels.

Are ANY of the available aftermarket blocks solid decked to where you could "machine" an inch off and redrill and tap?

[BruceWilkie]

Originally Posted by Transporter

Yeah Bruce, I was just throwing the aluminum out there for the Marcella effect, actually I would think that CGI block would be the best compromise between durability and weight.

We are even starting to see CGI's in class 8 diesels.

Are ANY of the available aftermarket blocks solid decked to where you could "machine" an inch off and redrill and tap?

Not that I'm aware of but you can order a short deck block.

[Transporter]

Originally Posted by BruceWilkie

Not that I'm aware of but you can order a short deck block.

I did not know that, AP I imagine?

[dci]

I agree Bruce, The cam lobe profile is going to dictate the power potential and rpm for this type of engine. I think that an asymmetrical lobe will definitely need to be used to be able to control valve acceleration and bounce. Rocker ratio in my opinion is going to need to be 2.0-1 or 2.1-1 because of the traditional Pontiac's cam core limitation. The only problem with that is. The amount of load they will put on the cam and pushrods. Flex in these two areas might be an issue. I think that we can get a 60 mm core in there, but the journal in the back of the block will need to be smaller (50-55mm). Maybe with a little creative cam relocating we could possibly get a 65 mm core to fit. A short deck block will definitely help with the pushrod lengths, but for the cu in we are speculating. The rod to stroke ratio is going to pose a problem with the piston at the bottom of the cylinder bore possibly. That would have to be looked at for sure. I think the longest rod you could use and still be able to have enough room for the ring package would be 5.70"-5.850". If the wrist pin gets below the cylinder it will not live long.

JC, Did you guy's do any spintron testing with your combo?


Chad, If that 349 needed 9600 rpm to make that level of power. What rpm do you speculate a 500 cu in would need? With the assumed optimal csa for this engine of course.



Don Johnston
DCI MOTORSPORTS INC.
330-850-5050 shop
330-628-3354 cell
Designer of the DCI Tiger Heads and the NEW DCI Ram Air 5 Heads !!!!!

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by Chad Speier

It's all about RPM. You not going to achieve big hp/cid unless you have high RPM.

Just had a customer make 2.50 with a 349, at 9600 rpm.

Originally Posted by dci

I agree Bruce, The cam lobe profile is going to dictate the power potential and rpm for this type of engine. I think that an asymmetrical lobe will definitely need to be used to be able to control valve acceleration and bounce. Rocker ratio in my opinion is going to need to be 2.0-1 or 2.1-1 because of the traditional Pontiac's cam core limitation. The only problem with that is. The amount of load they will put on the cam and pushrods. Flex in these two areas might be an issue. I think that we can get a 60 mm core in there, but the journal in the back of the block will need to be smaller (50-55mm). Maybe with a little creative cam relocating we could possibly get a 65 mm core to fit. A short deck block will definitely help with the pushrod lengths, but for the cu in we are speculating. The rod to stroke ratio is going to pose a problem with the piston at the bottom of the cylinder bore possibly. That would have to be looked at for sure. I think the longest rod you could use and still be able to have enough room for the ring package would be 5.70"-5.850". If the wrist pin gets below the cylinder it will not live long.

JC, Did you guy's do any spintron testing with your combo?


Chad, If that 349 needed 9600 rpm to make that level of power. What rpm do you speculate a 500 cu in would need? With the assumed optimal csa for this engine of course.



Don Johnston
DCI MOTORSPORTS INC.
330-850-5050 shop
330-628-3354 cell
Designer of the DCI Tiger Heads and the NEW DCI Ram Air 5 Heads !!!!!

HP is about mass air flow / fuel, or you can think about it as VE and power cycles. Lets take a 499 ci engine, bore = 4.44", stroke = 4.03" @ 125% VE and 9600 RPM it will have around 7938 lbs / hr mass air flow. At 8600 RPM to get the same mass air flow the engine would need just about 136% VE.

Stan

[Tiger Paw]

I think the problem area for a 500ci Pont is the needed port crosssection to achieve the desired port velocity will run into a pushrod. You can't move the lifter lobes/bores enough laterally and still not hit the lobe/lifter on the other side of the engine. Compare your cams to a even a stock BBC. Pro stock cams are montrous in every dimension compared to a Pont.

You need to think smal CI so you can get the pushrod out of the port to get 2.2 and up.

I had to design and machine our own cores for my 500" comp engine after some clown here in Detroit moved our lifter bores to a place where no one had cores available. I've been down this road.

[cgeise]

I see all this back and forth about 2.3 - 2.5 - -2.7 per cid. but I see so very few trying to get there ? The reason they don't is two fold - or three depending on approach. First for a lot of guys is the expense, there is a point that the dollar per tenth of improvement gets astronomical -- I have a chart some one did and it gets really crazy at the upper limits. Second is just plain "WHY" Id say 98% of us are some form of bracket racer or index racer, you could probably count on one hand the number of guys running true heads up, so where is the need??? I admit that SOME of the information gathered doing this kind of thing trickles down to the mass's -- but it takes a long time and some of it is not applicable to bigger engines. The last is -- it is just easier to build it bigger -- stress it less and make as much or more HP. A 400cid at 2.5 per is a 1000 hp and a high maintenance bitch to run and take care of. A 560 cid at 1.8 is over a 1000 hp and way easier to build and maintain. So - for the four or five guys that want that small engine stuff. I get it --kinda, but for the mass's I think its big muscle that seems to be the way the majority of the racing world is headed.
And we haven't even talked about power adders :-))))))))

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

HP is about mass air flow / fuel, or you can think about it as VE and power cycles. Lets take a 499 ci engine, bore = 4.44", stroke = 4.03" @ 125% VE and 9600 RPM it will have around 7938 lbs / hr mass air flow. At 8600 RPM to get the same mass air flow the engine would need just about 136% VE.

Stan

First let me correct myself that should be 139.5% VE

Originally Posted by cgeise

I see all this back and forth about 2.3 - 2.5 - -2.7 per cid. but I see so very few trying to get there ? The reason they don't is two fold - or three depending on approach. First for a lot of guys is the expense, there is a point that the dollar per tenth of improvement gets astronomical -- I have a chart some one did and it gets really crazy at the upper limits. Second is just plain "WHY" Id say 98% of us are some form of bracket racer or index racer, you could probably count on one hand the number of guys running true heads up, so where is the need??? I admit that SOME of the information gathered doing this kind of thing trickles down to the mass's -- but it takes a long time and some of it is not applicable to bigger engines. The last is -- it is just easier to build it bigger -- stress it less and make as much or more HP. A 400cid at 2.5 per is a 1000 hp and a high maintenance bitch to run and take care of. A 560 cid at 1.8 is over a 1000 hp and way easier to build and maintain. So - for the four or five guys that want that small engine stuff. I get it --kinda, but for the mass's I think its big muscle that seems to be the way the majority of the racing world is headed.
And we haven't even talked about power adders :-))))))))

Exactly, if we look at a 572 ci engine, bore = 4.375", stroke = 4.75" at 8400 it will have the same mass air flow at 124.8 % VE.

Stan