Goofing around with the Desktop Dyno.300 with 350 crank, TA heads and Crower 50233 cam. 10.5 compression. Here is the interesting part. Input Chevy Edelbrock Performer RPM vs Edelbrock Victor Jr intakes. Check out the graph:
singlevsdual_page-00012.jpg
This graph with the Torquer II would be more like the new Willpower intake compared to a good dual plane:
TorquerII_page-0001.jpg
Now I've put in LT4 "HOT" cam specs:
lt4hotcam2_page-0001.jpg
Interesting Jim. Can you extend the 50233 graph up to see where it peaks out?
Since I have essentially the LT1 Hot grind the last one is relevant but with around 4-5psi of boost it will be extended.
Jim
The first graph shows why I chose a Victor Jr 30 years ago when rebuilding the 350 in my Camaro. Works better on the street than most would give it credit for.
Jim, those are really interesting results. What options do you have for intake and exhaust? For instance, is there an option for the Rover EFI or some sort of throttle body sizing? And I wonder about different exhaust manifold options--for instance, I've heard that the original 300 exhaust manifolds actually flow pretty well.
Jim B I can extend the graph but it drops off at 6000RPM. That cam is retarded 4 degrees to move power band up. Eric, I can input thousands of variables but it takes time. I use open headers, no accessories and electric water pump for flywheel HP & TQ. Deduct about 20% for rear wheel numbers. I have access to real dyno numbers and specs of different intakes, cams, heads etc.
Jim B, 50233 drop off at 6000RPM. I'll work on Eric's Fuel injection and closed exhaust next.
50233_page-0001.jpg
Eric, Willpower type intake with throttlebody, port fuel injection. 50233 cam. 300 exhaust manifolds, dual exhaust 2.5 pipes with H pipe. Dynomax mufflers. The chart above has same specs except 650 double pumper carb and open headers.
efiexmanifolds_page-0001.jpg
Eric, Brian is going to sell his extra Willpower intake.
That's great Jim, thanks. As an aside, I am building a custom intake plenum with 350 CI of capacity (about 50% larger than the standard Rover plenum) for the Rover EFI system and was thinking of using a larger 75mm throttle body than the standard Rover 65mm. I'm thinking that I might limit my CR to 10 :1 and likely go with a 50232 or 50233 cam (not sure yet). And regarding the exhaust manifolds--trying to decide how much I get (or give up) by using tube headers (not block huggers) vs. the original cast iron (which are *free*) and a lot quieter--and I've read aren't much different in weight than the tube headers.
And thanks for letting me know about Brian's intake--yet another option to consider :)
The Buick 300 manifolds probably flow about the same as the shorty headers. The open long tube headers don't gain a lot with no backpressure except noise. A good free flowing exhaust with long tube headers will gain more. I'll change to a sheetmetal intake with
75mm throttlebody.
Not much difference, A little more power at peak. Both types of throttlebodies can flow 1000cfm.
75mmtb_page-0001.jpg
Interesting how similar the numbers are (and how good they all are). This looks like nearly exactly the result I was shooting for. Thanks for putting these together.
Eric, Results on Desktop Dyno's are very optimistic. This program starts with a stock baseline and I add improvements. I can set elevation, temperature, and humidity.There is a huge database library of real results. I haven't messed with the program for a couple years and started playing with it and it becomes addictive. I figured out how to print to PDF and convert to jpg for the graphs on my laptop. .Bottom box colors are the single plane. you can hover with the mouse and it reads actual numbers ,I could have typed in the peak numbers but I was lazy.
Jim, good to know. However, it does give me a better picture that the wild guessing I've been doing so far. I'd be interested in knowing what variables you've used so far. If you want some more fun, I might change a few :)
I can change everything from mild to wild. Turbo's, Superchargers, port size, runner length. I have the experienced user, Pro edition.
I forgot to mention I used 1.9 IN and 1.6 EX valve size. 1.6 rocker ratio. I used Chevy examples on the intakes because few HP intakes are available for the 300.
On the above all were very similar and the changes were intake, cam and exhaust. I have also done Ford V6 and V8, Buick 215/Rover V8 and Buick and Chevy V6.
Jim, nice--good to know. Thanks.
I suspect "Pipemax" software might not be as robust as your stuff, but for a 302ci rover block/Buick 300 heads that flow 180/150-ish, it spits out:
Camshaft = Hydraulic Roller Lifter
600 RPM/Sec Dyno Test Level=5 Level=6 Level=7 Level=8
Peak HorsePower @ 6200 RPM 383.7 388.6 393.5 398.5
Peak Torque Lbs-Ft @ 4800 RPM 357.4 361.9 366.5 374.2
Chad, I've got similar results with the Rover 4.6 with 300 crank and 300 Iron builds. on my program with more radical cams. I usually tame it down a little to more streetable results.
Might be a bit optimistic to expect the OEM rocker arms to be a 1.6 rocker ratio. Or maybe you expect to use aftermarket. Even those are not always on the money.
I would be surprised if the OEM Buick rockers measured more than 1.55. I think that is one of the reasons that Dan LaGrou recommended the larger 50232 cam for 3.5-3.9 engines.
I asked Woody for as aggressive a cam as he'd be willing to spec, and got a 226in/ex @ .050, 112 separation jobbie. I expect it'll be more streetable than I wanted!
T&D rockers from TA are 1.6 ratio.
Carl, I used aftermarket roller rockers in the simulation. Chad, I like around the same rear wheel HP as engine cu in size usually for the street. I'll do the specs for a 50233 but roller cam in a 300 stroked Rover V8 and see what I get with this program.
Chad, this is with individual throttlebody fuel injection and 1 5/8" headers:
Rover300_page-0001.jpg
That was with 300 heads with the biggest valves to fit the stock seats. 1.69 IN and 1.39 EX. I'll dio with larger valves like I used before 1.74 IN and 1.5 EX.
1.74 IN and 1.5 EX
Rover300largervalves_page-0001.jpg
Now with TA heads 1.9 IN 1.6 EX
Rover300TAheads_page-0001.jpg
Thanks for all that, Jim!
I started this engine project thinking "1 per cube", then saw the over-350 numbers and thought "wow!" The Pipemax result is formatted as a text "report", and includes the cam specs it'd like to see for the higher levels that it reports: 228-233in / 231-236ex & 107-107.5 separation.
Interesting that the 300 heads have concave-down ("fuller") torque curves, versus the concave up ("hollow") torque curve for the TA's. I think by the time the 300's are working as they should, with all the supporting parts and machine work, I'll be a fair bit more expense than the TA's, so the graph with the extra area under the curve helps ease my conscience!
"Never underestimate the human ability to rationalize."
Smaller valves help low end torque and give sharper throttle response. Lower but broader torque curve.
Chad, I didn't know if I could print this, Engine label is wrong but is for the Rover 300 crank stroker. TA heads. Asterisks on timing are set to prevent pinging. Click twice to expand.
rover300stroker_page-0001.jpg
Price and supplier of roller cam ?
Art.
I got a hydraulic roller cam and lifters from The Wedgeshop. Their process is to have a chat with Woody, then he develops a cam spec that is fulfilled by Erson. It was 1100 cheaper (HALF!!) when I bought it:
https://thewedgeshopstore.com/roller-cam-setup-rover-v8/
"Hydraulic roller cams are not meant to rev past 6500rpm"
I'm out. :D
I'm pretty sure a 60 year old 300 crank ought not go past 6.5k either!
Going solid and using all the revs entails using big springs, which the 300 aluminum heads can't take. I was advised to keep spring pressure under 400, to avoid pulling the rocker shaft bolts out - and that, after installing Keenserts or similar. So, the whole package has a roughly 6.5k limit, I guess.
I noticed some of Kent's spicier cams (234, 238, 248 I think are the part numbers) all call for their generic double spring upgrade. Other sites (3rd party sellers) say those springs are 260# open. I'd call to verify that Kent's website isn't lying about the springs to go with those cams, but price wise a Kent cam is under $400, and TWS hyd roller lifters are under $600. That combo sure beats the price of the TWS kit right now.
My 1963 215 crank has spent quite a bit of time at 6-6.5K. Even a few trips to pegged the needle at 7K. Probably not a good idea, though. ;)
The crank is not a problem. GS Johnny has been running the SBB up to 7500 rpm for decades now and has never had a crank failure. I think he saw something like 9 grand when he banged into the wall and the engine was still good.
You do need more valve spring and whether or not you have to have solids above 6500 is more a function of spring pressure vs valve train weight than anything else. You can boost the pressure and remove weight to rev higher and/or you can go to solids. No more than we drive these cars a winter lifter adjustment should be reasonable for most of us. Wasn't the 4 banger equipped with solids?
Beehive springs can reduce the weight along with upping the spring pressure. There's a thread that gets pretty deeply into that but I don't have the link.
TA sells roller cams. You buy the core and then pay for the grind. Not cheap but then you can run modern oils with it which is an advantage.
Jim
Chad mentioned the rocker shaft hold down bolts pulling out. I personally know of 4 people having that issue. All with the softer 300 heads. Steel inserts with Loktite is a good idea, especially with high spring pressure.
The fella from whom I purchased some Buick headers (and engine...) had drag raced 300s, 350s, and big block stuff too. He said that the crank wasn't the problem with the 300s, as Jim says. But for road course/sustained higher revs, it just doesn't seem like a good fate to tempt. Maybe as the rest of the package comes together, I'll get a little less skeered, but it seems like there's plenty of useful power below six and a half, and it's quite a bit harder to get the rest of the parts to be happy at 7k as well - like the solid vs hyd roller discussion above, Ti vs chromoly vs tool steel vs mild steel retainers, conical vs beehive vs double springs, and on and on. Limiting myself to 6.5 means I'm still trying to get "good" versions of each component, without feeling like needing to buy the absolute be$t.
Chad, I'm there with you, as well. Trying to build a "good" but not "best" engine. Sounds like you'll be ahead of me, so I'd be interested in what you come up with. Did I read that you're going with the 300 heads? I did splurge a bit and bought the TA heads, but my engine is in storage, so it'll be awhile before anything is done.
To clarify, you reduce main sizes to 2.5"? Where do oil holes wind up ? Then you twist for maximum HP at 6k.?
300 crank and later (4.0, 4.6) Rover mains are already compatible, but Rover (4.0, 4.6) big ends are bigger than Buick 300.
Early Rover used smaller mains, but same size big ends as Buick.
There's a handy chart on this page:
http://aluminumv8.com/Home/Displacement
As far as targeting a particular rpm, both the Pipemax predictions I've done, as well as Jim's dyno software, seem to show the combination not running out of breath until around 7, provided the flow inputs can be matched by reality. So far none of the choices I've made would lead me to think I've got to worry about breakage at 7, but I haven't gone for a valve and spring and lifter and head package that I absolutely know won't float past 6.5. To guarantee stability at 7, I'd think about spending more on those components. That's the thought process I've used to make my purchase decisions - feel free to nudge me differently if you see a logic failure in there!
On the 340-350/300 stroker crank setup, yes the oiling holes do migrate across the main journal a bit when you cut down the mains. A little judicious work with a die grinder gets you back in the center. Then the mains are ground and polished normally. Don't overlook the seal journal. Honda or Toyota rod journal sizes used with Nascar take-out rods (Carillo, etc) gets you back to a standard size on both rods and mains but be aware, some sizes only have standard size racing shells available, so if you have to replace the bearings on down the road it may become necessary to prep another crank or swap rods. Careful rod selection can avoid this.
Incidentally I have a standard 300 crank available if anyone needs one.
Did you buy the bare heads or complete? If bare have you decided on your valve sizes? TA heads can go up to a 2.02" intake with a 1.6" exhaust valve but that requires you to siamese the seats. Which can be done but it does add another potential failure point. A 1.9" intake with the 1.6" exhaust avoids that problem and makes use of the seats the heads come with. It's about as big as you can go with the seats as supplied. But, that's a big step up from any of the OEM heads. It also eliminates any concern about shrouding. I was lucky enough to find some good used titanium valves I could make work, but had to shorten the stems and cut down the heads of the intakes. In the process getting into the whole keeper/retainer issue including angles and groove designs. But these valve weigh about half as much as stainless. Spring height is another issue you can play with, the TA heads are designed to take a taller spring than the OEM heads. There is a good beehive spring that will give you somewhere around 300-350 lbs on the nose and maybe 150 seated. Those numbers are good for 6500-7000 rpm with a 1/2" lift roller cam. The decreased weight of the beehive springs is an advantage, as is the coil stability at speed but you have to run them close to coil bind to get that last benefit. So your calculations are important.
Also important are the weights of your pistons and rods. A good forged piston should come in under 500 grams, a good rod not much over that. You can drop nearly 100 grams by using a light weight wrist pin. The crank bobweights are lightened as a consequence. All of these things matter and result in a more responsive engine. Should be standard cost for balancing. The later 350 crank should be heavy enough to allow internal balancing without adding mallory slugs which can allow you to use Chevy flywheels and balancers without an offset weight, reducing the cost of those parts. The Chevy flywheel requires one hole to be elongated a bit to match the Buick indexing. Not really sure how much of an advantage this is, as matching Buick parts are available at competitive prices.
TA carries a paired roller rocker set that uses the stud mounting and is an economical choice. Uses guide plates. Be aware that the cheap import chevy roller rockers have a history of bearing failures.
If you are going to the trouble of enabling 7k on the top end it just makes good sense to properly prepare the bottom end as well. The resulting engine's performance in an MGB will be outstanding.
Jim
Jim,
I got my heads bare--they would not sell them as complete as they told me they are backed up by over a year on head work. Having said that, I am definitely going to go with your suggestions and stick with the standard valve seats with the 1.9" INT and 1.6 EXH, which, as you mentioned, is already a big improvement over the stock heads. I will also go with the TA roller rocker set you suggested (as well as the Buick flywheel, which I believe they offer).
Regarding your comments on the Nascar takeout rods, I have a set of Ford rods, which I thought has the standard sizes, but now I'm wondering what you mean by "standard size racing shell"?
Once again, the advice here is invaluable :)
Eric, I don't remember the exact details but I bought two sets of 6.2" nascar take-out rods. One set was Carillo and the other was... Pankel? Not sure, they were bought by Carillo and are better in some ways and not in others. (Had a better split interface) They used two different brands of big end bearings both around 1.9", maybe one was Toyota and the other was Honda bearing shell inserts. As it turned out one was pretty common with a variety of bearings available and the other was a one size racing insert. I do not remember which was which so if you see a set of rods you like that is a thing to check out before buying them.
But my point on the nascar rods is that for around a hundred bucks you can have the best rods available anywhere. Then you take what you saved on the rods and spend it on a good set of custom pistons where you can specify every detail so they match your needs perfectly, and then without spending too much money you have a bulletproof bottom end in a perfectly designed engine. Even if you spend $1200 on the pistons, that's still only half that if you split the budget between the pistons and the rods and $650 for a set of custom forged pistons is quite a nice price. It's a handy way to justify it. And then you get to spec out not just the bore size, pin size, compression height, squish distance, skirt design, dish and CR but also ring package size and type, pin locks, gas porting, oil drainback holes, coatings if desired, and any number of other details you can come up with. Spec out light weight tool steel wrist pins at the same time and drop even more weight.
But do not choose teflon buttons. They are nice but they are heavy and unless the engine will be torn down often there is just no need for them.
Jim
Jim, thanks for the additional details--the approach you've suggested is definitely what I'm going to pursue. Should make for a strong and reliable engine :) Now, if I can get one of the piston companies to return my call. Best, Eric
I bought Wiseco through my local machinist, let him make the calls.
Jim
Makes sense, thanks.