Max HP and Lift With SCJ Heads

rmcomprandy wrote:

Barney wrote:That's not an answer I believe the question is how much reliable horsepower would leave your shop for 10k using any parts (used, new, whatever).I don't think he said could you build a dyno queen, or time bomb.

I just went to records and looked-up something like that from the past.

A 520 engine, (production block, 4.470" bore & 4.140" stroke with "out of the box" A heads from FRPP ... the guy had nothing and spent $9,462.00 when he walked out the door; (not counting money spent for one day dyno time paid to the dyno facility).
That engine made 872 horsepower. I don't have the dyno sheet here; it was 2003.
The engine is still in his bracket car ,(or was at the end of last season) and I have freshened it with rings and bearings in 2009. The full bodied Thunderbird runs somewhere in the 8's NA so, it is not as fast as the horsepower should dictate. However, he is totally happy.
THAT is what I really like; a smile on a customer's face.

wow ....so its 9 years later ...what would it cost to do the same build ? ...

bruno wrote:wow ....so its 9 years later ...what would it cost to do the same build ? ...

I was thinking the same thing (cost of a smile these days)

rmcomprandy wrote:

Barney wrote:That's not an answer I believe the question is how much reliable horsepower would leave your shop for 10k using any parts (used, new, whatever).I don't think he said could you build a dyno queen, or time bomb.

I just went to records and looked-up something like that from the past.

A 520 engine, (production block, 4.470" bore & 4.140" stroke with "out of the box" A heads from FRPP ... the guy had nothing and spent $9,462.00 when he walked out the door; (not counting money spent for one day dyno time paid to the dyno facility).
That engine made 872 horsepower. I don't have the dyno sheet here; it was 2003.
The engine is still in his bracket car ,(or was at the end of last season) and I have freshened it with rings and bearings in 2009. The full bodied Thunderbird runs somewhere in the 8's NA so, it is not as fast as the horsepower should dictate. However, he is totally happy.
THAT is what I really like; a smile on a customer's face.

THERE YA GO, 10,000 GRAND, 520CI ,AND MADE 872 HP, now thats a good build in my book

I dont count the dyno either

thats a big bore.


anyone else?

what kind of power would he get today for same money?

BOSS 429 wrote:

rmcomprandy wrote:

Barney wrote:That's not an answer I believe the question is how much reliable horsepower would leave your shop for 10k using any parts (used, new, whatever).I don't think he said could you build a dyno queen, or time bomb.

I just went to records and looked-up something like that from the past.

A 520 engine, (production block, 4.470" bore & 4.140" stroke with "out of the box" A heads from FRPP ... the guy had nothing and spent $9,462.00 when he walked out the door; (not counting money spent for one day dyno time paid to the dyno facility).
That engine made 872 horsepower. I don't have the dyno sheet here; it was 2003.
The engine is still in his bracket car ,(or was at the end of last season) and I have freshened it with rings and bearings in 2009. The full bodied Thunderbird runs somewhere in the 8's NA so, it is not as fast as the horsepower should dictate. However, he is totally happy.
THAT is what I really like; a smile on a customer's face.

THERE YA GO, 10,000 GRAND, 520CI ,AND MADE 872 HP, now thats a good build in my book

I dont count the dyno either

thats a big bore.


anyone else?

Actually, that year I prepped that block and the block I used in the Engine Masters 470 contest at the same time, as a pair.
I kept the thinnest one for my contest engine, (they were both filled below the water pump holes with grout), as that engine wouldn't make as much power, (just under 700 with then, the newly released aluminum Kaase SCJ heads).
Steel cranks weren't available at that time, (except at a really high cost), so both used "offset ground" FMC crankshafts; (one a 429 ground to 3.740" stroke and the other a 460 ground to 4.140" stroke).
The contest engine had a solid flat tappet cam and that one had a roller cam; (that is also the time where I started buying #1 Cleveland cam bearings in 105 piece lots, from Dura-Bond).
The contest engine made peak power at 6,400 RPM and that one was at 7,400 RPM.

Building both at the same time made the whole experience a bit less taxing on the mind.

That contest short block, redone for a later Engine Masters contest with P-51 heads and a roller cam is now in a drag race car. He was at last years "bash". A full bodied maroon & silver 1970 Mustang and went 6.19 I think.

There is a guy around here that has a 94 mustang, his name is Gary Peters. When I met him he had a 557 engine with blue thunder CJ heads and off the self rotating assembly noting fancy, and that car runs some 5.70-5.80's. It has a PG trans and does the most beautiful wheel stand ever. He has ran that motor for the last 3 yrs I believe with no issues. If I remember I think his cam is like .700 there abouts.

Barney wrote:I thought Nick already had a max effort, high dollar, show stopping 10.5 bad ass mobile....

i dont think his deal is max effort

Gary Blair wrote:The Edelbrock deck is .625 the same as the SCJ, P-51,A-429, TFS Street, & Blue Thunder. I've seen several pulling trucks with Edelbrock CJ's at 15-1 with no problems.

Speaking to dome height. If you have a 562 CI engine you aren't going to have a lot of dome even with a conventional Cobra Jet style head.

same here .........

BOSS 429 wrote:what kind of power would he get today for same money?

Today, I could probably build that same engine for about the same money.
Problem is, most customers won't be satisfied with that selection of parts. They almost all want a steel crank or an aftermarket block or CNC porting or shaft rockers and that all costs more money for not a whole lotta gain in power.

I think that's a great build. I would be willing to bet that it also made decent average power. As far as a steel crank and aftermarket block and such I guess it would depend on the customer. For a few grand more you could probly do a 4;5 stroke steel crank and aftermarket block and pick up some power, but that's still pretty impressive none the less.

I think that's a great build. I would be willing to bet that it also made decent average power. As far as a steel crank and aftermarket block and such I guess it would depend on the customer. For a few grand more you could probly do a 4;5 stroke steel crank and aftermarket block and pick up some power, but that's still pretty impressive none the less.

Why does everyone focus on building a monster cubic inch engine and not turning a smaller engine higher rpm. For instance the old school bus engine 466 I ran for several years it ran good but would peak on the shift around 7000 rpm fast forward a few years I ran a 562 that I shifted at 7200 big cubic inch difference peaking at around the same rpm .

KY JELLY wrote:Why does everyone focus on building a monster cubic inch engine and not turning a smaller engine higher rpm. For instance the old school bus engine 466 I ran for several years it ran good but would peak on the shift around 7000 rpm fast forward a few years I ran a 562 that I shifted at 7200 big cubic inch difference peaking at around the same rpm .

I like both,and im sure that like you we both run them higher then most do.I think thats because most still belive the old wifes tale about bbf and rpm.

My guess would be that it's easier to make bigger power with bigger inches. When you spin more rpm to make power the componentry to accommodate the rpm gets expensive.

Barney wrote:My guess would be that it's easier to make bigger power with bigger inches. When you spin more rpm to make power the componentry to accommodate the rpm gets expensive.

yes kinda, once you get to a certain mark things change 730 to 850, then 900,now go to 1100/1200 things start all over again on thinking the build

I was mainly looking at the point a 8000rpm 466 would have less piston speed than a 8000rpm 562,572 etc , until you reach the point that valve train issues arise why not try and spin a smaller engine to produce more or the same power. you can either spend for titanium valves or better cranks and rods.

If you are carb limited, as this "entry" class limits to a 4150 style, which would be better? 514 cubic inches at 7500 or 557 inches at 6900 rpm? Those rpms should be comparable in CFM between the different style motors. An earlier comment from Mr. Evans alluded that more displacement is better when you are intake limited.

Thanks

BOSS 429 wrote:

KY JELLY wrote:Why does everyone focus on building a monster cubic inch engine and not turning a smaller engine higher rpm. For instance the old school bus engine 466 I ran for several years it ran good but would peak on the shift around 7000 rpm fast forward a few years I ran a 562 that I shifted at 7200 big cubic inch difference peaking at around the same rpm .

I like both,and im sure that like you we both run them higher then most do.I think thats because most still belive the old wifes tale about bbf and rpm.

Looking at Colin Wigle's tell tale on the tach after a run of his 429 Super Stock GT, 2005 Mustang ... 9,250 RPM with steel valves and IRON Cobra Jet heads and a 780 cfm Holley 4150.

What Randy said about Colin's S/S is true. However, I did pay attention to the weight of the steel valves and got the lightest ones I could. Also Colin was running shaft mounted Jesel rocker arms, and a big triple valve spring that was over 1000 lbs. open.

Charlie Evans

It's the heavy iron heads...

c.evans wrote:Guys,

I get a lot of cylinder head repair jobs in here. From what I have seen in terms of real world experience, I would not advocate anyone running an Edelbrock Performer 429-460 CJ style head at 15.5:1 compression. It will never hold the head gasket. The head is too much of a lightweight head.

For that kind of compression, I am a strong supported of the bigger and stronger 18 bolt heads such as the TFS A-460, the FRPP C-460, or the Pro-Filer and Thor heads.

Charlie Evans

Gary Blair wrote:The Edelbrock deck is .625 the same as the SCJ, P-51,A-429, TFS Street, & Blue Thunder. I've seen several pulling trucks with Edelbrock CJ's at 15-1 with no problems.

Speaking to dome height. If you have a 562 CI engine you aren't going to have a lot of dome even with a conventional Cobra Jet style head.

Well I guess I will find out. I run a 16:1 P51 headed motor, 572 cid, and I have lost a head gasket. All though after I replaced it I did go to a chassis dyno and the 94 square jets on Q16 was too lean. I ended up going with 98 square jets and now the a/f is where I want it. If I blow another head gasket then I will get a cometic gasket that is thicker. We will see.

I'd be running cometic gaskets at 16:1 why are you waiting for it to pop again?

Well I am hoping the richer A/F fixed the problem. So far so good---I raced at Famoso and Vegas (about 12 1/4 mile passes) and everything looks good so far.

good to hear she is running well

PSF Racer - That is an impressive running N/A car.

Are the heads and intake box stock? Also, what were the track conditions on your best pass listed in your signature?