452 CID 409 W/ Bob Walla Heads & Speed-Port 7000 Intake

61 Bubble

Well Known Member
Engines are just air pumps! X amount of air/fuel IN, BOOM, power, X amount out. As a certain HUGE named engine builder told me in the pits of an IHRA event:

"an engine doesn't know WHAT valve cover is on it. Therefore the "theory" of producing power is the same. Bore with a direct relationship to valve size/profile and placemant is more important then stroke. Heads with regards to SSR and LSA helps determine the amount of power one can produce. If your after Hp and fast ET, then RPM's are your friend."

Now with that being said, most BBc street cars with rollers are well over the old .714 cam now adays. 700 Lift doesn't do squat to the inside of a motor any more then 600. Lift DOESN'T kill valvesprings as some people are saying. There are way to many factors that do effectively reduce valvespring life of which lobe design is probably the most critical. That along with RPM and duration of run time does contribute to these factors. The video I posted, has a SB under 400 inches, make 3+Hp per cube, cam is OVER 1.175 lift and as long as he keeps the revs around 10,300 RPM the springs should last a season. Now at 10,800 maybe a weekend and a half. BUT we also have a SS car with a killer set-up that when he's going to National events can go through a set of springs in 4 passes. Anyone ever try to run an OLD Stock Eliminator on the street? They are low lifts??????

My guys 632 that runs 4.70 NA without the 3 stages turned on and street tire through the mufflers and has a cam in excess of .800 can cruise all day long with a STACKED injected BBc on fuel with a lenco. 3 hours of solid driving with about an hour of highway running thrown in too. BUT THAT'S not the point. Cams/springs have gone like clutches. YEARS ago people were buying 3500+lbs clutch to hook these high Hp cars. Killing guys left legs, NOW look at the clutches!!!! It's like driving a factory Honda clutch car. Gone are the "shaky legs" from the '80's when guys were at the light waiting for the green.

Time and technology has also helped get make things last at the same time as making BIG power for the street. Yes it's not gonna drive like a Honda Civic, but that's the point. These are OLD muscle cars and therefore need some muscle. YES some of it cost more, but that's part of the equation as well.
 

61 Bubble

Well Known Member
I realize that every engine family has it's own particular wants and needs to make it WORK, but if you look at a given displacement and cam specs to achieve a certain rpm for a variety of different makes of engines........you will see a lot of similarity. In my opinion it has less to do with bore/stroke and more to do with total cubic inches also. I'm not saying a 452" W with a 3.766" stroke won't turn up quicker and rpm higher with the same cam as a 474" with a 4" stroke. I am saying that if you were to build 2 W's with close to the same cubic inches, same cam specs, compression, etc., with the only difference being the bore/stroke. The rpm range would be about the same.

To some extent I would agree. YET the 452 with the smaller stroke would need more RPM (a good thing), and maybe as much a 500RPM, but the rate of acceleration could be the determining factor. Now add that to the fact that MOST of the cars here are NOT light weights, but are tire limited, a engine with higher RPM, that accelerates faster, but with less torque, could just be the winning combination. Final Hp doesn't mean faster or even a certain range of ET.
 

61 Bubble

Well Known Member
Aubrey, all the best. PLEASE keep us in the loop on the goings on of the build and what progression are being made. As for lifters? Seriously talk the Struab about getting some Morrels. From what the others are saying they are a great lifter, and do stand up well. I know you don't want Jesel but that would be my first choice, and are in my street motor.
 

Dr Richard Kimble

Well Known Member
old thread , not sure if this is the same engine? heard it was on the dyno last week
anybody know the specs? what it did for power?
 

Don Jacks

Well Seasoned Member
Supporting Member 3
That's one beauty of Aubrey's manifolds.VERY wide power band,very little "drop-off" in power past peak.His small port version was the same way.These will make a great street/strip/Bracket race manifold.He's also working on an "intermediate" version for small inch[380 or so] with large port heads.
 

biscaynewagon

Well Known Member
Supporting Member 2
Dr. Kimble,
Thank you for the heads up, and I don't usually post too much BUT this is a thread the one that I been watching for sometimes now with a very high interest
Went to see Aubrey few months back for a visit and saw his new intake yes it and looks very promising :brow, tried to buy it but there are all spoken for :doh gotta put me name down on waiting list :pray for that next batch

That youtube video of the engine on the dyno does sounds great. Hopefully "that" is the engine that Aubrey talking earlier in this thread
Let me try get some info and I'll post, if I know something more

Danny
 
Last edited:

Don Jacks

Well Seasoned Member
Supporting Member 3
Full HeadersPrintable View
Hello, Don
I just saw your post on the 409 club.
I OWE YOU
period
Second
Some DAMN GOOD news for a change...
On Monday last week, I got an email from my foundry man, saying that the casting
turned out nice, no issues... he was HAPPY ! He had never been happy about
this thing before. Thursday afternoon, last week, I received the new test casting.
FINALLY, thanks to my new pattern maker... in 2 months, he made all the changes,
corrections that were needed... at a cost to me of only $1400.
I gotta stick with these guys !
The casting... other than a couple of what I call 'imperfect contours"...
is FLAWLESS !
so
good working, accurate pattern + happy foundry man = intake manifolds...
when we need them !
Third
The big dyno session last Friday ( April 3rd )
NOBODY has ever said anything publicly, about how these work.
SOMEONE has to advise the public, to help people make an informed decision.
When the intake was off the engine, my dyno man ( Pierre Guyon... yes, another
Frenchman, who lives to eat good food ! ), said that he believes that the ports in
these heads, are too "slow", and belong on a very large cubic inch engine.
I explained that the achilles heal with these engines, is the horrible "about face"
that the intake path makes into the cylinder. His summary... this will hurt torque
in this engine.
I think we chose the wrong version of Bob's heads, for this particular engine.
Bob, communicated with me, that he will exchange them. Unfortunately, we won't
be back to the dyno. However, I think they will give my customer a better engine.
Now, in all honesty... this large port version of my intake, did not enhance anything
below about 4300 RPM... and really only "took off" after 5000.
Pierre figures it's the heads... but I think it's both.
Without a doubt... the "7000" is not for a "small" engine.
and
the engine:
409 bored .060", 3.766" stroke ( 452 CID )
Actual compression ratio ended up at 11.4:1.
Gentle ramp, street mechanical roller, .694" net lift, 260 / 264 @ .050"
Bob Walla heads.. standard port location... CNC ported.
Tested with headers.. 2: stepped to 2 1/8", 34" length, 3 1/2" collector.
Here are the highlights of the results with the various intakes:
As mentioned, my Stocker setup was in a VERY fine state of tune for this engine.
The other intakes never had the benefit of gettig jet changes.
We used... stock 380/400 horse intake, Performer RPM, "Stock" ( massaged ! ) 2X4,
and my intake.
Stock 400 horse intake peak torque 492.8 @ 4700peak HP 513.6 @ 6000
pulled to 6500 RPM, where it was holding 510.0 HPEdelbrock Performer RPMpeak torque 515.3 @ 4400peak HP 520.1 @ 6000
pulled to 6500 RPM, where it was holding 516.1 HP ( don't let the low HP increase with the Eddy, mislead you. the "average" numbers were VERY convincing, over that
piece of crap 400 horse intake ! )"Stock" 425 horse 2X4 iintake... "massaged" a little, from my race car,
using two 600 CFM Edelbrocks, has already been very finely tuned for
C12 in my own engine, with similar cam duration )peak torque 521.4 @ 4600peak HP 547.5 @ 6500
pulled to 6800 RPM, where it was holding 536.0 HP
Speed-Port 7000
peak torque 525.8 @ 4900
peak HP 572.3 @ 6300
pulled to 6800 RPM, where it was holding 568.0 HP

_________________________________________________________________
And below, torque figures for the various intakes, at given RPM's:
at 3600 rpm
Stock 400 HP Intake
483
__________________________________________________________________
4,100 rpm
Stock 400 HP Intake
492.6
Performer RPM
513.4
Stock 2X4
501.2
Speed-Port 7000
506.8
___________________________________________________________________
4,500 rpm
Stock 400 HP Intake
490.8
Performer RPM
515.0
Stock 2X4
521.0
Speed-Port 7000
517.8
__________________________________________________________________
5,000 rpm

Stock 400 HP Intake
485.4
Performer RPM
501.2
Stock 2X4
510.1
Speed-Port 7000
525.0
___________________________________________________________________
5,500 rpm
Stock 400 HP Intake
473.8
Performer RPM
482.5
Stock 2X4
493.9
Speed-Port 7000
515.2
ActionsMark as UnreadMark as ReadMark as SpamStarClear Starallw heads-portingPreviousNext
b
p
 

Dr Richard Kimble

Well Known Member
Don , that looks like an email to you?
that's a whole lotta numbers right there . Like he said, the speed-port intake seems to really take off after 4500 . Over the range , it looks like it would average about 25 hp over the 2X4 . Too bad they never got to tune it . might have been more dramatic .
on the other hand , that stock 400 hp intake is really "something" , isn't it ?:teehee Makes Tony Schaffer's accomplishment look even more impressive . then again , imagine what this intake would do on that engine? bolt on another 40 hp
 

Don Jacks

Well Seasoned Member
Supporting Member 3
Yes,That was an email that I just received from Aubrey just a little while before I posted it here.The 2x4 intake used from his stocker had been tweaked some,so the results would be more dramatic when compared to one out of the box.Then,with fine tuning,yes you'd make more power and only have one carb to tune and maintain.
 

jim_ss409

Well Known Member
Supporting Member 5
The dyno results turned out very well. :beer
I gather that the Speed-Port 7000 might be just about perfect for a typical 476 ci bracket race engine in the 600 plus horsepower range, but it also did great on a more streetable engine.
 

Dr Richard Kimble

Well Known Member
Like Jim ss409 just said , I too , think it may be best suited to a bigger engine .
the intermediate port that Don talked about , if that is made , may be the best of both worlds , and not give up torque at lower rpm .
 

jim_ss409

Well Known Member
Supporting Member 5
Like Jim ss409 just said , I too , think it may be best suited to a bigger engine .
the intermediate port that Don talked about , if that is made , may be the best of both worlds , and not give up torque at lower rpm .

Yeah, the manifold does work very well on that engine but I think it would really start to pull away from the pack on an even bigger engine.
I guess you could put this manifold in the Edelbrock Victor range but there might be a market for something that was just a little smaller for engines that were in the 400 to 500 hp range.
Maybe something more comparable to Edelbrock's Torker II. Maybe a Speed-Port 6,500 :D

With all the strokers and bigger inch aluminum engines being built, the Speed-Port 7,000 should be a nice option.
 

Don Jacks

Well Seasoned Member
Supporting Member 3
Yeah, the manifold does work very well on that engine but I think it would really start to pull away from the pack on an even bigger engine.
I guess you could put this manifold in the Edelbrock Victor range but there might be a market for something that was just a little smaller for engines that were in the 400 to 500 hp range.
Maybe something more comparable to Edelbrock's Torker II. Maybe a Speed-Port 6,500 :D

With all the strokers and bigger inch aluminum engines being built, the Speed-Port 7,000 should be a nice option.
That's what I'm hoping for with my little 380.I've been told that mt Walla heads are most likely are in the 310-315 range.I may have to look into a custom roller cam as well.:rub:think:dunno
 

Don Jacks

Well Seasoned Member
Supporting Member 3
I spoke to Chris at length today,and one thing that I hadn't thought of [of many in all likelyhood] was the percentage of flow between the intake and exhaust flow when it comes to cam selection.We all talk about the intake flow,but no one seems to mention the exhaust flow and the percentage relationship.If the percentage is not taken into account,it would be easy to have a cam that over scavenges the cylinders,causing a loss of potential power. Chris is a really great guy to talk too and work with,and I'm really glad he has joined our little madhouse.
 

dm62409

Well Known Member
Supporting Member 12
Don, I don't think many flow benches have the angled deck cylinders that would replicate the exhaust valve opening into the cylinder wall. Just my opinion on this, but I think a gentle ramp lobe, with limited lift, to keep the valve away from the wall, then use somewhat more duration than normal , should be helpful to our unique engine design.
 
Top