434" Windsor build Predictions

General engine tech -- Drag Racing to Circle Track

Moderator: Team

Post Reply
86cobraclone
New Member
New Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:05 am
Location:

434" Windsor build Predictions

Post by 86cobraclone »

Sup guys, Been a long time since i been on this site, I had just stumbled on some old emails from here, and here i am...
So I'm in the Process of building a Dart Base 434" Windsor for my brother, 12:2.1cr, 4.155 bore, 4.000 stroke, Brodix T1 CNC 225cc, Fully Ported Super Victor, I talked to my cam guy and told him i want this thing to be quick on motor and streetable and also be able to spray 200-250 max, He come up with this, 278-292 .704-.688 114+4, My goal for this set up was as close to 700hp N/a as possible and spray 200-250 on top that,

Right now the car has a stock Block 11:4.1 383" windsor with these heads and 258-262 .661-.665 110, car is daily driven, and runs 9.20 @147 1.25 60ft,
Car is a 89 Fox body Coupe, full weight, 3380 with driver, :)

What do you think this thing will do HP wise, Any advice ?
mag2555
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4606
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:31 am
Location: Heading for a bang up with Andromeda as we all are.

Re: 434" Windsor build Predictions

Post by mag2555 »

Flow wise if you net .650" lift after lash you have enough air flow to make 700 hp In NA form, yes!
You can cut a man's tongue from his mouth, but that does not mean he’s a liar, it just shows that you fear the truth he might speak about you!
BradH
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1186
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:34 am
Location:

Re: 434" Windsor build Predictions

Post by BradH »

For the NA aspect of the combination, that cam looks HUGE to me, unless you are expecting the RPM range to shift up significantly.

FWIW, it looks like it runs really well now for what's in it. I ASSume the ET & MPH mentioned are on the bottle. What's it run NA now?
86cobraclone
New Member
New Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:05 am
Location:

Re: 434" Windsor build Predictions

Post by 86cobraclone »

BradH wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:47 am For the NA aspect of the combination, that cam looks HUGE to me, unless you are expecting the RPM range to shift up significantly.

FWIW, it looks like it runs really well now for what's in it. I ASSume the ET & MPH mentioned are on the bottle. What's it run NA now?

Yes Sorry, I forgot to put that was on a 150 shot, it run's 10.teens @ 133 n/a
Last edited by 86cobraclone on Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
BradH
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1186
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:34 am
Location:

Re: 434" Windsor build Predictions

Post by BradH »

I'm thinking that 150 shot makes a big difference to the 60-ft... probably close to .2 since that's a lot of MPH to still be in the 10s.
86cobraclone
New Member
New Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:05 am
Location:

Re: 434" Windsor build Predictions

Post by 86cobraclone »

BradH wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:05 am I'm thinking that 150 shot makes a big difference to the 60-ft... probably close to .2 since that's a lot of MPH to still be in the 10s.
Yes we had to drop down to a 373 gear for the nitrous, it was doing mid 1.3s on motor, but now only mid 1.4s 1.25 - 1.28 on the bottle leaving on foot break, the car is also heavy, 3380-3400 depending on how much fuel is in the tank,
n2omike
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1067
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 10:56 pm
Location: West Virginia

Re: 434" Windsor build Predictions

Post by n2omike »

Cam does look HUGE for a naturally aspirated, heavier car that has a gear/converter that is even remotely streetable. Nitrous will be your friend with this beast. You may end up spraying more than you originally intended. Good Luck!
86cobraclone
New Member
New Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:05 am
Location:

Re: 434" Windsor build Predictions

Post by 86cobraclone »

n2omike wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 8:19 am Cam does look HUGE for a naturally aspirated, heavier car that has a gear/converter that is even remotely streetable. Nitrous will be your friend with this beast. You may end up spraying more than you originally intended. Good Luck!
what do you think is should be around ?
User avatar
mt-engines
Expert
Expert
Posts: 871
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:35 pm
Location: MN

Re: 434" Windsor build Predictions

Post by mt-engines »

86cobraclone wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 10:28 pm
n2omike wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 8:19 am Cam does look HUGE for a naturally aspirated, heavier car that has a gear/converter that is even remotely streetable. Nitrous will be your friend with this beast. You may end up spraying more than you originally intended. Good Luck!
what do you think is should be around ?
i'd be somewhere in the 268/274 112lc .435" lobe

Those heads are small if you are trying to spin it over 7000.
CGT
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2063
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 12:29 pm
Location:

Re: 434" Windsor build Predictions

Post by CGT »

I think it would run out of cylinder head way before the 278-292 cam had a chance of being any better than something smaller.

Mt's cam recommendation makes a lot more sense.
BradH
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1186
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:34 am
Location:

Re: 434" Windsor build Predictions

Post by BradH »

I forgot to ask the OP how much NA performance really matters. Does the car only need to run "good enough" between N2O passes, or does NA performance matter more and spraying it is the secondary consideration?
86cobraclone
New Member
New Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:05 am
Location:

Re: 434" Windsor build Predictions

Post by 86cobraclone »

BradH wrote: Sun Dec 06, 2020 12:39 pm I forgot to ask the OP how much NA performance really matters. Does the car only need to run "good enough" between N2O passes, or does NA performance matter more and spraying it is the secondary consideration?
Would like to at least be in the 9.60 range n/a and spray on top of that, the car went 10.10s @3380 with a pump gas 383ci windsor with otb 192 canfields before, I don't see why it shouldn't be close to our goals being that it's a 434 ci 12.4 compression, bigger heads, and also taking some weight out the car,
Post Reply