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

[61 Bubble]

Ya guess my guys go a bit overboard on there builds LOL. The Mustang above is also part of a MMPS team with 1900+Hp NA. Now this 452, I think 7-7200RPM and gear changes around 7500 would be nice. 3.766 stroke likes some RPM, my 498 is right around that stroke and it see 9600. BUT then again that me, RPM = POWER/ET.

I don't know, I just see 725Hp in this build??? Just my "gut" feeling. As they look and flow like Bob's "normal" heads and not high ports. A high port deal would be even more.

Good luck and keep us informed on the build. I'm sure that intake will really shine now that the heads can USE IT!!!!

 

[dm62409]

Aubrey, I am pretty much with Boxerdog on cam specs for your build, other than, if the heads flow more at higher lift, try 1.8 rockers on intakes to take advantage of it.

 

[CDNpontiac409guy]

I'm right around there too, dm.

John, with close to standard entrance location in these heads, 7500 RPM won't be in the cards. In reality, I'm hoping for 600-625 HP. Maybe I can compare it to the 468 inch BBC that was in my brother's car. 656 HP @ 6500/6600 RPM. I can't see how his W could beat that

Here's a few pictures of the pistons:


Of course the inside of the domes are milled out.


My own design, a couple unique characteristics.
Finished, these are weighing 608 grams.

 

[jim_ss409]

Wow, 608 grams is terrific!

Just as a point of reference, the engine Joe Sherman built might be worth looking at.
It was 437 ci vs the 452ci of your engine and the bore to stroke ratio was different, but it is in the same ballpark.
http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/hrdp_0911_chevy_w_series_engine_build/viewall.html

That engine peaked at 6,900 rpm.

The Comp HXL cam lobes he used are perfect for a bracket race engine but they may be a little much for street use.
If you could use they would make great power but you might have to look for something a bit less aggressive. (I think those lobes have more lift than you need)
Here's a link to the Comp Lobe Catalog, the HXL lobes are on page 71
http://www.compcams.com/Technical/Catalogs/LC2007/2013LobeCatalog.pdf

Here's the specs for the cam Joe used...
265/270 @.050
.737/.737 lift with 1.7 rockers
108 LSA

I'm guessing you'd want about ten degrees less duration to keep the peak power at 6,400 or so.
I think you could make great power with a relatively conservative cam. Something around 254/258 @.050 should be plenty, as long as you've got decent lift, like .650 or more.
You do have a great head and intake package, so you shouldn't have to resort to excessive duration to build horsepower.

Piston to valve clearance might be another reason to lean toward less duration.
I know you also like tight lobe centers but you might have to consider using 110 in order to have enough clearance.

You know darn well that the bigger you make the cam, the more power the engine will make. It's just a matter of how much power you want to give up in order to make the engine streetable, and durable.
By the way, is this actually going to be a street engine? (12.5 to 1 compression)

 

[CDNpontiac409guy]

Jim,
Compression will end up at just under 12:1. Bob's heads DID require some valve relief massaging. Still need to cc.
Occasional use, mixing C12 into pump premium.
Yes, I use the master profile catalog all the time. You're right, I'm uncomfortable with that much lift, in an engine that's going to be driven to work sometimes ( yes, really is a street engine ! ). My customer has suggested that I use one cam for the "mule" tests, then change to the street cam for him.... but damn, how much work do I really want to make for myself ?

This is the first time I ever read that entire build on the Joe Sherman engine. We should first thank them sincerely, for being so open with the specs and theory about that engine. I can tell you, not everybody would do that.
The ultra light ring package, and vacuum pump, is obviously out of the question here. Also, a pair of 750's ?
HHMMM... me thinks that throttle response and driveability could be less than ideal

I AM sort of gauging the potential of this engine, with that engine. Seems somewhat out of reach though.
However, I'm sure Bob Walla's CNC'd heads are superior, and I'm guessing that my intake manifold might work better.

thanks, Jim, for your info
I'm learning stuff

 

[1961BelAir427]

Aubrey, If you aren't familiar with it - you need to check out (Thom) Monk's engine he built for the '55. It made 644 HP @ 6300 rpm using a Comp cam similar to the Crower that Dave mentioned. It was a 4" stroke, so about 22" larger than yours. It used ported Edelbrock 2x4 intake and heads. I think that a grind like that Comp or the Crower will RPM a little better in your build and together with the increased flow from Bob's heads and your Speed Port - - I think you should see a considerable amount of increased power over the 600-625 you are hoping for.
http://www.348-409.com/forum/threads/409-build-update.13440/
http://www.bangshift.com/forum/showthread.php/15149-My-409-55-Chevy-Project

I also think that if you stick with specs around those that it will live well for limited street use. I know the one I mentioned above has been around for a few years now.

I am pretty sure the engine Ronnie Russell built for Clyde Waldo 's Thunderbird uses a solid roller in the low to mid .600" lift range and gets driven a good bit with reliability. While I don't think that Ronnie or Clyde intended it to be a race engine at all, it is a good indicator of a W with a moderate sized solid roller that lives up to being street driven more than an occasional trip to the corner store. (Memory may be wrong on Clyde's camshaft so hopefully he or Ronnie will correct me if I am.)

I think the real important thing to do is to invest in quality lifters.......preferably the ones that use a solid roller bushing instead of needle bearings. Isky makes them and I know that Comp has them out now too (though not off the shelf for W's). Quite a bit more expensive than normal lifters, but cheap compared to total engine failure due to a lifter taking a crap.

I didn't go that route with mine, but I plan to within the first year or two after it's running.

 

[jim_ss409]

I think that's good information.
Here's a link to Monk's cam card...
http://www.348-409.com/forum/threads/409-build-update.13440/page-6

254/262 @.050
110 LSA
.661/651 lift
It looks like it's the Comp Extreme Energy Street Roller intake lobe (page 54)
http://www.compcams.com/Technical/Catalogs/LC2007/2013LobeCatalog.pdf

Monk's 474 ci engine peaked at 6,300 but Id guess that cam would peak closer to 6,600 on your engine.
If you wanted a bit more lift and a quicker opening valve, you might opt for 1.75 intake rockers. that would give you .680 gross lift.
You could also take a few degrees off of the exhaust duration to lower the rpm and improve the idle.
A little less exhaust duration should also bump up the low and midrange power just a tiny bit and give you more piston to valve.

 

[BRYAN FUGATE]

I'm far from a expert here.But I drive my car at least 750 miles a year and to date I've had no problems and runs nice and cool cam is a 644 isky solid roller with your pistons of course. Edelbrock heads ported by Dave Mills and walden intake.

 

[1961BelAir427]

I'm far from a expert here.But I drive my car at least 750 miles a year and to date I've bested a 10.91 with no problems and runs nice and cool cam is a 644 isky solid roller with your pistons of course. Edelbrock heads ported by Dave Mills and walden intake.

Bryan what lifters are you using?

 

[CDNpontiac409guy]

Guys, I'm starting to lean towards the extra work... IE, 2 cams. One to test. One to drive.
And yes, I'm going to be particular about the lifters

Thanks, Bryan. You have to be making 550 street horsepower. Yeah, you won't be late.​

 

[Ronnie Russell]

Clyde's cam is a RR 620/241... I can't find the specs. I remember that I called Isky to get the specs but I believe it was in the .620-.640 lift range and I think duration was right at 250 @ .o50. Clyde chose to spend the big bucks on the Isky Red Zone roller lifters with bushings. Probably a good investment because Clyde likes to take trips with his car. Lots of horror stories about roller lifters losing bearings and causing major damage. Of course, high spring pressures are blamed for lifter failure so, what is strong enough to do the job, yet not too strong for the street. A guy has to make that decision , then live with it. I''m a big believer in ---- Build a race car or build a street car. Having said that,, the last 4 out of 6 engines I have built were all street engines with solid rollers. The owners paid no attention to my advice. They are all running well so I guess the owners were right. I like Aubrey's idea of using 2 different cams. The owner can afford the extra expense so using big killer cam for dyno numbers then sliding in a more conservative cam for the street is the best of both worlds. Aubrey's intake is going to make big hp, no matter which cam is chosen.

 

[CDNpontiac409guy]

I hope so, Ronnie.
BTW, "the owner afford the expense" ?
I suppose he could... but he's not paying for this craziness. He's been patient with me making changes to something that is perhaps more than he's bargaining for. Then again.... it was HE who insisted on that "gut wrenching" ride
My old race car will sit out another season, while I accumulate a number of rather expensive "test parts".

I just had a real go through in Monk's engine / car thread.
one word...
outstanding

BTW, just got word... pattern maker is pretty much done with some minor refinements to the pattern, and the second run of castings will start shortly. I aim to have as many as I can, available for people, before the big convention.

 

[chevytaylor]

 

[1961BelAir427]

All great news Aubrey, except your car sitting for another season. I share your pain for sure.

 

[61 Bubble]

Umm if Monks was around 644, the BWR heads (which I'm of the the theory there better) along with the Speed Port intake, seems like my 725Hp might not be too far off.

Now as far as cams specs and street? Well with these W motors, I know squat. BUT Plenty of BBc with .800+ lift running for hours on end driving on the street. Couple buddies have FAST streetcars, one was pump gas, about 47? inch and 3250lbs. Car ran 8.40's thru mufflers. Second is FAST, 4.70 in the 1/8 street tire thru muffler. 4.70 car has cruized hours each way and even been in Toronto traffic for a while, all while his son was with him.

Pay attention to lobe design and ramp speed to be your friend.

 

[yellow wagon]

A big solid roller is going to beat up the valvetrain. Sure you can drive it around town a few times. That goes into the whole debate as to what is TRULY a street car? There are guys here with funny car cages, 14.5:1 compression, parachutes etc but since the car has working headlights and turn signals they call it a street car. Sure it can drive 10 miles to a cruise night. Point is, the lines have grayed a little between street car and race car. Nowadays it seems that everything is Procharged or has at least one turbo. We have plenty of 8 second "street" cars around here. I guess its common sense that the bigger you go (more lift etc), the harder on parts its gonna be.

Here is my buddy Andy's low 8 second fox body Mustang....small block Ford power, procharger, blow thru carb, glide etc....and it does see some street miles.

 

[1961BelAir427]

I would stay under .700" lift unless you want to buy/change valve springs once a year or more if you're really going to drive it. Sure people can run .800"+ on the street, but I guarantee you they are not using the same springs for more than a few long cruises/races.....that or they have more invested in their springs than most of us would want to spend. My old 427 used some 1.625" diameter triple springs with over 300 pounds open/800 pounds closed spring pressure. They were overkill for the .714"/.680" camshaft, but they have lasted a long time. The bad thing is that when you get spring pressures up that high they take a toll on the other parts. Pushrods need to be stronger, roller lifters and rocker arms wear out quicker, etc.
725HP may be possible with your combination, but it may depend on that turn the air/fuel has to make from intake manifold to cylinder head so much that improved head flow may not give the increases seen in other engine families.

 

[chevymusclecars]

Aubrey

If you go to your favorite cam manufacture and tell them the specs of the engine, desired RPM and how it will be used I'm sure they can make a cam grind that will meet your needs. Before the breakup of Crane Cams I called them and they made a more modern grind of the Z11 cam for me?

Bill

 

[CDNpontiac409guy]

Yes, Bill, they certainly could. Trouble is, they don't know the heads... and nobody knows the intake manifold.
Crane was always good to me.

I REALLY appreciate all the guidance. I'll be ordering in a couple days.

 

[1961BelAir427]

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.