Re: Need a new Toy?

[Stan Kafouse <skafouse@xxxxxxxxx>]

Gary
 Sounds like you got it together on these polys. What is your quench area? where does the intake valve close? You may find a smaller cam with less overlap would make the same power. I personally never use anything over 230 on the street, usually 223 or so. If I do I go to 260ish and advance it 5 degrees. Whats your dist. timing curve? A stocker cam is a blast on the street. Try that with a 1.6 intake rocker.
Stan

--- On Fri, 5/6/11, Gary Pavlovich <glpavlovich@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Gary Pavlovich <glpavlovich@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Need a new Toy?
> To: 1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Friday, May 6, 2011, 5:28 AM
> 
> Stan,
> 
> I am asking you questions to see what information your
> comments/opinions were based on.
> The 318 Poly engine will respond like any LA engine to
> traditional HP modifications and "if" a Tunnel Ram worked on
> an LA then it will work on a Poly...however, you cannot toss
> a Tunnel Ram onto any "small" engine and have it
> perform.  The compatibility of the proper parts and
> machining is what makes any engine perform.
> 
> I could say that a Max Wedge has too large of ports to
> produce bottom end or "streetability" but we all know what
> we must do to compensate and "Maximize" to reach the goal we
> are aiming at.
> 
> You wrote that "if the heads (Poly) are any good someone
> would be expanding on their design."  Check out the
> modern Mopar 4.7 engine head design and your question is
> partially answered.
> 
> The Polyshperical combustion chamber provides superior BMEP
> over the Wedge head and is just below the BMEP for a HEMI;
> "... the poly engine had one absolutely unique feature: its
> volumetric efficiency. If the Mopar figures as found in the
> Plymouth factory manual are to be believed, torque of the
> poly 318 was 345 lb.ft. Now, take torque and divide it by
> cubes, then multiply this by 151, and you get brake mean
> effective pressure (bmep). Try it for your self: bmep for
> the poly 318 is 164 psi. (Again, that's the figure Plymouth
> give). That is near to the theoretical limit for an
> unsupercharged engine (and that's with the old log-type
> exhaust manifolds too) and is very close to the 426 hemi's
> bmep of 173psi, which had all those performance-designed
> components. The bmep figure purely reflects breathing
> efficiency (proportional use of the charge coming into the
> engine), and is a product of the head, as opposed to the
> block, which just needs to suck/blow as rapidly as possible
> without flying into little pieces..."
> 
> The Poly head does not stall, unlike other head
> designs.  A bone-stock/unported Poly head will continue
> to increase in cfm flow well past the realistic/usable lift
> of .700."  However, we easily made our HP & Torque
> goals with a modest amount of flow and less dollar input.
> Our last Poly build made a peak of 412HP & 438Torque
> but in reality the Poly engine has such a high & flat HP
> & Torque curve that in quoting "peak" numbers associated
> with LA powerplants and Big Blocks is misleading; it has far
> more average HP and torque.
> For example;
> a modest 208cfm @.500" lift on the intake side
> 9.5 compression
> 1.94/1.60" valves
> small 232@.050" dur. and 292/.482" 110LC Hyd Poly Cam
> cast iron 1957 dual quad w/500cfm Edelbrocks
> Homemade headers...
> Goal reached for the street:
> From 3400-5400RPM (2000rpm spread) we AVERAGED 428ft.lbs.
>   "     3600-5600RMP ( 
> "       "     
>    "   )   "   AVERAGED
> 375HP
> Not bad for a throw-away motor.   Core
> charge is "free."   We will leave your
> non-streetable super stock max wedge engines on the track
> where they shine best.
> 
> The Poly 318 doesn't have to stay "small" with the advent
> of aftermarket Stroker cranks, although some people prefer
> the 318 or 360 Poly to the 390, 402, or larger Stroker.
> 
> It is hard to beat the low cost outlay of "building" the
> indigenous powerplant in the 62-65 Mopars; again, no fabbing
> or modificaton needed to swap enigne/trans or beef-up the
> suspension or other necessary fixes when transplanting a Big
> Block or such into the chassis.  No cost of buying the
> 440 or HEMI core engine and trans...
> 
> Of course it depends on your goals for the car/engine but I
> wanted to address some of your comments/opinions as I do not
> believe you had the information or facts to proffer an
> informed comment or opinion.
> 
> Gary Pavlovich
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stan Kafouse" <skafouse@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 6:14 AM
> Subject: Re: Need a new Toy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are pretty short Im sure, there also small, keeps
> velocity up. Combined with small carb bores you'd get good
> thottle response.
> Neat engine to play with, but if the heads were any good
> someone would be expanding on there design. Dont get upset,
> this is just MY OPINION.
> Ive built stock and super stock max wedge engines and
> worked on a cup team as a machinst. I dont see how a tunnel
> ram on a small engine will have any streetability. Again
> just my opinion.
> 
> --- On Thu, 5/5/11, Gary Pavlovich <glpavlovich@xxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Gary Pavlovich <glpavlovich@xxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: Need a new Toy?
> > To: 1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxx
> > Date: Thursday, May 5, 2011, 5:23 AM
> > 
> > Stan,
> > 
> > How long are the runners in a stock Poly dual quad
> intake
> > or the Weiand
> > single four Poly intake?
> > 
> > Gary P.
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stan Kafouse"
> <skafouse@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 3:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: Need a new Toy?
> > 
> > 
> > So... how tall is this "tunnel ram"? Carb
> > and air cleaner will take what
> > eight inches themselves? Plus clearance so engine can
> > torque over and not
> > hit hood. Is it an individual runner or common
> plenum?
> > Those short runners
> > will have no bottom end, and if manifold is any good
> at all
> > will flow more
> > than any poly head ever did. Got a cam and convertor
> to
> > match intake? Sounds
> > neat, dont think it will work, cept for some wow
> factor.
> > 
> > --- On Wed, 5/4/11, Gary Pavlovich <glpavlovich@xxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Gary Pavlovich <glpavlovich@xxxxxxx>
> > > Subject: Re: Need a new Toy?
> > > To: 1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > Date: Wednesday, May 4, 2011, 9:38 PM
> > >
> > > Yes, I don't think any modern intake can beat a
> Tunnel
> > Ram
> > > for Max HP & Torque, even the "old school"
> > Weiands...of
> > > course a tunnel is not a user-friendly manifold
> for
> > the
> > > average Hot-Rodder due to height (for one) which
> > requires no
> > > hood or a cut-out for clearance.
> > >
> > > I will be running a Tunnel Ram on my Poly but I
> > designed
> > > the manifold to fit under the hood...of course I
> have
> > more
> > > hood clearance than most people (approx. 16" from
> top
> > of
> > > block face) so I can get away with a "tall
> enough"
> > > tunnel ram to make it effective and still have
> the
> > stealth
> > > factor.
> > >
> > > Gary Pavlovich
> > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim
> Altemose"
> > <jaltemoose@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: <1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 8:51 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Need a new Toy?
> > >
> > >
> > > Indy refers to it as an "In-Line Cross Ram".
> > >
> > > Below is a comparison of the manifolds. Looks
> like
> > > the Tunnel Ram won out.
> > > http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/techarticles/engine/mopp_0911_intake_manifold_tests/index.html
> > >
> > > - Jim
> > > Jim Altemose, Long Island, NY
> > > '63 Polara 500 (Max Wedge)
> > > '63 Polara 500 (383)
> > > '65 Belvedere I (Street Wedge)
> > > '71 Bronco
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Roger Pettigrew
> > <dodger7998@xxxxxxx>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ok,,,,,will take your word for it,, would
> have to
> > see
> > > the intake it self to
> > > > understand,,,,,,, sure looks like an inline
> set
> > up to
> > > me
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In a message dated 5/3/2011 11:14:58 A.M.
> > Central
> > > Daylight Time,
> > > > mcreglow@xxxxxxxxx
> > > writes:
> > > >
> > > > actually that is a cross ram. that is the
> indy
> > > cylinder head x-ram,
> > > > and is the hot ticket for nostalgia super
> stock
> > > racing.
> > > > http://www.usaperform.com/indy-chrysler-cross-manifolds-p-231.html
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Roger
> Pettigrew
> > <dodger7998@xxxxxxx>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Nice toy,,,,,,,makes me wonder what the
> real
> > story
> > > is on cars that are
> > > >> obviously misdescribed in their
> > description,,,,,,,
> > > that is definitely
> > > > not a
> > > >> crossram on it, so makes me wonder what
> else
> > is
> > > not being seen
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> In a message dated 5/1/2011 4:03:10
> P.M.
> > Central
> > > Daylight Time,
> > > >> shelby_nut@xxxxxxxxx
> > > writes:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > http://ontario.kijiji.ca/c-cars-vehicles-classic-cars-1963-plymouth-savoy-W0
> > > >> QQAdIdZ279189587
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> [Non-text portions of this message have
> been
> > > removed]
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ----
> > > >> Please address private mail -- mail of
> > interest to
> > > only one person --
> > > > directly to that person. I.e., send
> parts/car
> > > transactions and negotiations
> > > > as well as other personal messages only to
> the
> > > intended recipient, not to
> > > > the Clubhouse public address. This practice
> will
> > > protect your privacy,
> > > > reduce the total volume of mail and fine
> tune
> > the
> > > content signal to Mopar topic.
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >>
> > > >> 1962 to 1965 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion
> > > Guidelines:
> > > >> http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html and
> > > > http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.com/general_disclaimer.html.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have
> been
> > removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----
> > > > Please address private mail -- mail of
> interest
> > to
> > > only one person -- directly to that person.
> I.e.,
> > send
> > > parts/car transactions and negotiations as well
> as
> > other
> > > personal messages only to the intended recipient,
> not
> > to the
> > > Clubhouse public address. This practice will
> protect
> > your
> > > privacy, reduce the total volume of mail and fine
> tune
> > the
> > > content signal to Mopar topic. Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > 1962 to 1965 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion
> > Guidelines:
> > > > http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html and
> > > http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.com/general_disclaimer.html.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----
> > > Please address private mail -- mail of interest
> to
> > only one
> > > person -- directly to that person. I.e., send
> > > parts/car transactions and negotiations as well
> as
> > other
> > > personal messages only to the intended recipient,
> not
> > to the
> > > Clubhouse public address. This practice will
> protect
> > your
> > > privacy, reduce the total volume of mail and fine
> tune
> > the
> > > content signal to Mopar topic. Thanks!
> > >
> > > 1962 to 1965 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion
> Guidelines:
> > > http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html and
> > > http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.com/general_disclaimer.html.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > ----
> > Please address private mail -- mail of interest to
> only one
> > person -- directly to that person. I.e., send
> > parts/car transactions and negotiations as well as
> other
> > personal messages only to the intended recipient, not
> to the
> > Clubhouse public address. This practice will protect
> your
> > privacy, reduce the total volume of mail and fine tune
> the
> > content signal to Mopar topic. Thanks!
> > 
> > 1962 to 1965 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion Guidelines:
> > http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html and
> > http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.com/general_disclaimer.html.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> ----
> Please address private mail -- mail of interest to only one
> person -- directly to that person.  I.e., send
> parts/car transactions and negotiations as well as other
> personal messages only to the intended recipient, not to the
> Clubhouse public address. This practice will protect your
> privacy, reduce the total volume of mail and fine tune the
> content signal to Mopar topic.  Thanks!
> 
> 1962 to 1965 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion Guidelines:
> http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html and
> http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.com/general_disclaimer.html.
> 
> 
>