Poor Combo Good Results

[af2]

I agree, the mph is a little soft, but its hard to argue with the et. Only have had it to the track twice, give me some time to tune on it a little bit. At minimum converter 300-400 rpms too tight.

You will get there. MPH is HP.

I dissagree because if you leave soft or blow the tires off the MPH at the end is way lower than if everything went as should have.

[vortecpro]

and Stan Weiss calc shows 748hp for ET. Agreed, there is more there, give me some tune.
74 Nova
SBC 406
3200 pounds
Speierracing heads

60 1.29 (10/15)
1/8 6.06@110 (10/15)
Best 9.87@131 on the rev limitor 1 Feb 2013
User avatar
banjo
Expert
Expert

Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: San Angelo Tx



I really don't want to hijack this thread but, using your logic which is incorrect my 10.8 compression GM oval port headed big blocks make 936 HP, we know they don't, your not helping your situation by fooling yourself, lets just say theres some more to find in your combination.

[vortecpro]

I agree, the mph is a little soft, but its hard to argue with the et. Only have had it to the track twice, give me some time to tune on it a little bit. At minimum converter 300-400 rpms too tight.

You will get there. MPH is HP.

I dissagree because if you leave soft or blow the tires off the MPH at the end is way lower than if everything went as should have.

"I dissagree because if you leave soft or blow the tires off the MPH at the end is way lower than if everything went as should" have.
GURU is only a name.
Adam

In that case how do you explain this: 660 divided by 110 = 6.00

[Old as Dirt]

Blows me away with the 86/93 jetting on an 1150 Dominator.. they come with 95's squared.. down 9 sizes on the primary jets? WOW..

[stokerboats]

Blows me away with the 86/93 jetting on an 1150 Dominator.. they come with 95's squared.. down 9 sizes on the primary jets? WOW..

Apparently that is what the engine wanted. I had to go out and verify those numbers. SMI had prepped this carb for this combo and it worked out so I guess it is what it is.

[Old School]

The dyno sheet has different cam specs than what you wrote in the description. Which is correct?

[stokerboats]

The dyno sheet has different cam specs than what you wrote in the description. Which is correct?

This was round two dyno session. The first session back in May revealed some issues so the pistons were changed due
to the machine shop failing to use a torque plate and the cam was changed to better accomodate the exhaust flow. I
also switched from 1/16th inch standard tension rings to .043's and light tension oil rings along with verticle gas porting.
The compression remained the same.
There were some other "loose" clearance issues which were addressed and the align hone was improved over the first go
round as well. I learned the hard way to "trust but verify" all the claims made by even the pro's.
The worst part is that the machine shop is a well
known "high end" shop. I won't get into that though. It is a real sore spot with me.

[Tony Mamo]

"The AFR 300 ovals reworked by Tony Mamo - are they still 300cc? "

What do the worked over heads now cc at?

And I ain't getting into the pissing contest that seems ta be coming.....

Just wanna know about the heads..

pdq67

They are alot smaller than you might imagine....while I never cc'ed them I also didnt remove alot of material. Its alot of detail work.....a different valvejob, bowl work, chamber work, and some short turn work. Dressed the valves slightly differently (back angles etc.). I would guess the intake port is no more than 5 cc's larger literally.

Honestly....how this engine carried power with such a small head and a cam most would agree is medium sized at best for a 565 compression motor, it was just very impressive to say the least. I think that's what surprised me most with the testing results.....its goes against alot of conventional thinking without a doubt. I told Dan it should make 850-875 HP and had it not carried as flat as it did (which surprised me), that's about where we would have landed which would have still qualified as excellent considering we are discussing a low 400 CFM head too small by most standards for this application. Granted that's alot of airflow for that size runner but we still only had a little more than 400 CFM's to convert into horsepower.....certainly hammers home what I have always believed and that is that the velocity of the charge also plays a large role in power production and its one of the reasons I always approach my cylinder head port designs the way I do.

This engine made 900 HP (within a few ponies) from 6700 - 7100 and was making close to peak TQ at 4500 where we started the pull. It has an extremely flat torque curve and hangs it out there long enough to make the big power. With this high airspeed design in the car, this engine is going to be absolutely wicked with incredible razor sharp throttle response at any RPM.

Dan will have his hands full no doubt!

Here is a better view of the curve for this who like to look from left to right versus down to up.....LOL



It was a long road for Dan who really went the distance and was ultimately rewarded for his perseverance and patience in figuring out the several things that were amiss with his shortblock in the first go around

Its a good lesson for others who may be initially disappointed with their results

Cheers,
Tony

[JoePorting]

Great to see you posting again Tony. Thought you gave up on it.

...and you're a new member.

[WO23Coronet]

You could eat dinner on the torque curve graph it's so flat

[jason snyder]

it amazes me that there is always (((( 1 )))) major ego here that tries to make everyone look like like they suck !!! it just flat bothers me .

[MadBill]

Great to see you posting again Tony. Thought you gave up on it.

...and you're a new member.

Yes; we're going to credit you with your former 300+ posts and look for more!

[mk e]

Honestly....how this engine carried power with such a small head and a cam most would agree is medium sized at best for a 565 compression motor, it was just very impressive to say the least. I think that's what surprised me most with the testing results.....its goes against alot of conventional thinking without a doubt. I told Dan it should make 850-875 HP and had it not carried as flat as it did (which surprised me), that's about where we would have landed which would have still qualified as excellent considering we are discussing a low 400 CFM head too small by most standards for this application. Granted that's alot of airflow for that size runner but we still only had a little more than 400 CFM's to convert into horsepower.....certainly hammers home what I have always believed and that is that the velocity of the charge also plays a large role in power production and its one of the reasons I always approach my cylinder head port designs the way I do.

Cheers,
Tony

Most of what I know or maybe better think I know about flow and porting comes from a buddy who does H-D stuff and says exactly the same thing....keep it small and watch the velocity number more than the flow and it always makes more hp than calculations say he should with board flat torque curves. When I through his stuff or the stuff I do that's like his stuff into pipemax it says the heads will choke.....and that's how I know they're right

Yes you probably are giving up a couple % on the peak hp that way but man it sure make a good running engine. Nice job.

[Tony Mamo]

Great to see you posting again Tony. Thought you gave up on it.

...and you're a new member.

Yes; we're going to credit you with your former 300+ posts and look for more!

Hey.....I'll take it!!

Just been busy getting Mamo Motorsports off the ground. Could use a few extra days in the week kind of think.....lots going on.

I have been developing a library of proprietary new product designs in BBC, SBC, and LS (focusing on the bowtie products for now), as well as handling the construction of a shop and a chassis dyno cell in the shop which is obviously a big endeavor.

Since leaving AFR last October, I have slowly built up a nice line up of product (some of it utilizing their castings and machine work), and have been shipping it the better part of this year (I realize some of you reading this already know that and have seen some of the results). The oval port featured in this unique and a bit unorthodox build is one of those examples of course. I really need to find time to update the website but if any of you reading are in the market for heads you should look me up. I have a few really good programs for the 23' SBC, Rect and oval port BBC, and a good line up of cathedral LS castings and LS3.....I'm currently working on an LS7 product at the moment which looks really promising (410+ CFM with a port smaller than an OEM piece). Im also doing alot of manifold porting, custom cam designs, and a little bit of engine building as well. Just finished a pump gas hyd roller 416 LS engine about a month ago that put out 650 HP on the same dyno Dan's BBC was tested on. In fact I will be building and dyno'ing an almost identical engine in about a month with one of my ported LS3 products.....that's going to be an interesting comparison and might be featured in one of the magazines. I'm curious to see how the two curves compare

Anyway....the main reason I haven't dropped in as much is simply time but I will do my best to frequent a little more often

If any of you want to contact me, email is best

Tony@mamomotorsports.com

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

-Tony

[user-9274568]

Honestly....how this engine carried power with such a small head and a cam most would agree is medium sized at best for a 565 compression motor, it was just very impressive to say the least. I think that's what surprised me most with the testing results.....its goes against alot of conventional thinking without a doubt. I told Dan it should make 850-875 HP and had it not carried as flat as it did (which surprised me), that's about where we would have landed which would have still qualified as excellent considering we are discussing a low 400 CFM head too small by most standards for this application. Granted that's alot of airflow for that size runner but we still only had a little more than 400 CFM's to convert into horsepower.....certainly hammers home what I have always believed and that is that the velocity of the charge also plays a large role in power production and its one of the reasons I always approach my cylinder head port designs the way I do.

Cheers,
Tony

Most of what I know or maybe better think I know about flow and porting comes from a buddy who does H-D stuff and says exactly the same thing....keep it small and watch the velocity number more than the flow and it always makes more hp than calculations say he should with board flat torque curves. When I through his stuff or the stuff I do that's like his stuff into pipemax it says the heads will choke.....and that's how I know they're right

Yes you probably are giving up a couple % on the peak hp that way but man it sure make a good running engine. Nice job.

That's the beauty of cylinder head porting. I totally disagree with all this.

Great formula for low engine speeds, but not every application.