Hey guys! This is my copy of the Mopar Performance digest. I would highly recommend that you check the site out for yourself.
http://www.moparchat.com
http://www.moparchat.com
http://www.moparchat.com
http://www.moparchat.com
http://www.moparchat.com
******************
TOPIC: 383-Magnum BuildUp
by 70Chall383 on 01-29-2000 08:36 PM
I want to build a 383-magnum that is a step above stock but still have a high school kid be able to pay for gas =) and suggestions? Also this may be kind of a stupid question but what do you think would win in a drag, a 1970 Challenger 383-magnum or a 1970 Chevelle SS 396?
Mike
------------
REPLY by Christopher on 01-29-2000 11:22 PM:
It really all depends on how much money you want to spend!! I'd use a Edelbrock/Carter/Holley 750cfm carb,Edelbrock Performer intake or the factory 383 deal,shoot for 9.5:1 compression ratio,mill the heads to get at 80cc's(probably about .040)use the 272/455 Mopar cam,or if you want a bit more use the 280/480 Mopar cam.Do a nice valve job,and use the Mopar porting templates,Mopar electronic ign setup.I'm guessing you have a automatic trans.If so, I'd use a converter around 2000 stall.Use a 3.55 gear.Exhaust can be factory manifolds,use 2.5' pipe and a good set of mufflers.As for your question about which engine would win,I'd lean toward the 383 anyday!!
------------
REPLY by sublime70 on 01-30-2000 12:33 AM:
I'd say Chris is on the money. 10 years ago I had the experience of riding along in a friend's '73 Rallye Challenger (auto/3.91 gears) when it walked off and left a fairly hot '70 396 4 speed Chevelle. The 340 was more or less stock, but with a typical rebuild (little more compression) and some type of mild smooth-idle cam. That experience turned me on to Mopars. The Chevy kid almost cried, and sold it to buy a GTO. Some improvement. Don't let the Chevelle guy give you any crap. Your car is ten times more rare and that 383 will outlast that 396 boat anchor by many years.
------------
REPLY by 383boy on 01-31-2000 10:13 PM:
Since the horsepower is close to eachother and a challenger is lighter than the chevelle, you have a good chance at tie but giving that the horsepower of the chevelle is more, I feel that the chevelle will win.
383boy
------------
REPLY by 360duster on 01-31-2000 11:02 PM:
You had better take a closer look,it might be a 454 since 396`s don`t usually live to be 30 years old.I raced a 66 ss396 once that turned out to be a 454.It didn`t mater though i still beat him with my 360 Duster.He couldn`t get all that power to the pavement.
------------
REPLY by sublime70 on 01-31-2000 11:09 PM:
If you really want to toast those Chevy's here's what you do, kid. Save your money, dig ditches, steal from old ladies on the sidewalk, whatever you have to do, get yourself about $400 bucks and order a plain-jane, bare-bones plate nitrous kit from Summit or Jegs. Make sure you have a good fuel pump, like 7 psi at at least 100 or so gallons per hour. Put that 383 back together with a mild cam, decent headers, and good ignition. Install that plate on the intake and paint it to match, epoxy it and sand it down smooth if you have to. Get some various and crusty old mopar engine stickers and put them on the solenoids (after they are painted black, or other discreet color). Believe it or not, most Chevy gearheads will either not notice it or will believe it really is emissions equipment if you BS him a little. Tell him it's EGR or part of the PCV system. This goofy low-buck cheating strategy worked for me all through high school. Even though my '84 Stang wouldn't fall out of a tree when off the bottle (14.10's), i------------
REPLY by hemi-1 on 02-01-2000 08:54 AM:
Just because the SS396 was rated at 350 horsepower vs. the 383's 335 doesn't mean that it really made more horsepower. Horsepower ratings in the 50's and 60's are notoriously inaccurate. I'd pick the 383.
396/375's (not available in 1970 I don't think) were pretty quick, but not the 350 horse versions. Lot more than 25 horsepower difference between the two motors. In 72 or 73 my Dad raced a 70 SS396 with his stock 71 Duster 340 with three-speed stick and outran it three times out of three. The SS 396 had headers too.
As for the 454's, a very few of them in 1970 were the 450 horse versions and were pretty stout, but most were the small port 360 horse versions that were only a little quicker than the 396's.
In the early 70's my daily driver was a 65 Barracuda with a low compression 340 that was stock except for heads milled .030, aluminum intake and 780 Holley, with a 4-speed and 3.23 gears. Just cruising around on the streets, I never came across an SS396 that would outrun it; only encountered two that could stay with me, most couldn't come close.
There's always some that are faster, of course, but a typical stock 350 horse SS396 was just a low 15 second car. No big deal.
------------
REPLY by 70Chall383 on 02-05-2000 01:23 AM:
How does the 383 handle nitrous as far as wear and tear? There is a '69 firebird formula 400 at school that i would like to give a good run =)
Thanks for all the responses
-Mike
------------
REPLY by Christopher on 02-05-2000 07:48 AM:
You shouldn't need nitrous to kill that tin indian.But if you must,do what sublime 70 has said,and go easy on the timing,you'll probably have to retard it some.The 383 can handle the 'gas,just be sensible about it.And as a side note,try to keep your racing on a track,and make sure you have a seatbelt on.
------------
******************
TOPIC: w2 heads on 360.?????????
by ROWDY on 02-05-2000 02:38 AM
I've put the 588b1 on hold for some street fun.I'm looking at building a 360 with aluminium w-2's.The plan was w5's but i was told the oil galleries were'nt matching with the block(destroying valve gear)and mopar didn't want to know about the problem.
So i'm looking into w2's but nobody here has ever used them,so i'm looking for some experiences with performance of the head.The combination as such is still undecided but will be running n02 for that extra fun.
Any suggestions will be much appreciated!!!
------------
REPLY by Christopher on 02-05-2000 07:41 AM:
I haven't seen any aluminum W-2's from Mopar,just the ones C.J.Batten made years ago.But I 'd use a set of W-2's in a heartbeat,whether they be iron or aluminum.These are very good cylinder heads in my opinion,and I'm kind of surprised that more people don't use them.They are plentiful on the used market as well since Mopar started making them in 1976.
------------
******************
TOPIC: new 360 stroker crank
by 360duster on 02-04-2000 10:35 PM
I saw somewhere that MP was producing a 4.0 stroke cast crank for the 360 that is resonably priced.Does anyone have info on this?If so do they have pistons too?
------------
REPLY by 440Ramcharger on 02-05-2000 07:36 AM:
As far as the 1999 MP catalog goes, there is a 3.79 stroke. Part # P4452979. These are 4350 steel billets.
Z
------------
******************
TOPIC: Big valves or not
by Glen440 on 01-31-2000 11:45 PM
I have a Volare Roadrunner with a 440.
The motor is .030 over with 10.5 Trw slugs, stock crank and rods with Arp bolts.Right now it has the .528 Purple shaft cam in it. ported 452 heads with stock valves,torker intake, 750 holley, 1'7/8 hooker hedders, 727 with factory high stall and 4.30 gears. I am wondering if putting a set of 906's with 2.14, 1.81 valves on it will make a big improvement.I have a set of professionally ported 906's that the valves are sunk. The car has not been to the track since I replaced the 400 with the 440.So I have no baseline, but the motor is coming out soon so this is the time to do it.
The 8-1 compression 400 ran 13.15's all day long with the top end from the 440 and 3.91 gears. I am thinking that the 440 should be good for high 11's. The car weighed 3750 with out driver. Peoples advice is appreciated.
------------
REPLY by Chris A on 02-01-2000 12:30 AM:
You have a decent combo and should definantly be running the bigger valves. I would just get the 452's pro ported and put the valves in them if the 906's are sunk. They have the same basic port configurtion except for one or two spots. Check out the other topics on 452's VS 906's. Good luck.
------------
REPLY by DartGT66 on 02-01-2000 02:37 AM:
The bigger valves and bowl porting is definitely a good help in a big block. Do the 906's have stock size valves that are sunken, and you could bring them back to surface with the bigger valves? If that's not the case, don't bother, valves that are sunk are not a good thing for performance. Instead, put the big valves to your 452 heads.
------------
REPLY by MopART on 02-01-2000 10:39 AM:
Ditto...... I can affirm what has already been said. LET THAT MONSTER BREATHE.
------------
REPLY by Krep on 02-01-2000 12:19 PM:
I agree with the others, bigger valves make the 906 and the 452 come alive (with proper porting). Also when the valves are sunk there is a loss in performance. Keep the valve up as fare as possible. If you are on a buget, increasing the exhaust valve size has greater benifits than the intake. So if you have to choose...
------------
REPLY by Glen440 on 02-01-2000 11:01 PM:
The 906's have stock valves still so going to the bigger valves should fix them. Should I get hardened exhaust seats? The car will be driven daily as long as It doesn't cost too much to drive it. I've priced head work
and looks like for machining, guides, and stainless valves around $800cnd.
------------
REPLY by 340king on 02-01-2000 11:50 PM:
I have to disagree about the need for bigger valves. My engine builder has ported many a RB head. They have optimized the port for the stock valves. Then tried another port optimized for the bigger valves. Both ports flowed the same. Now, I have posted this info before and was basically called a liar. It is the truth as I see it and have a lot of faith, nearly $13,000.00 worth, in my engine builder.
I did post way back the flow numbers they were getting from the stock valves and that was the source of the disbelief. Since you already have the bigger valves, you are not out anything to go there. Just remember they in themselves are not a magic bullet.
------------
REPLY by DartGT66 on 02-02-2000 01:09 AM:
Well, you can't optimise a head with sunken valves, can you? But you can fix them with bigger valves. I odn't call you a liar, maybe your machine shop just knows something that all others do not. However, I have homeported several sets of BB heads. I do not have a flow bench, so the only way to verify how the heads work is to drive them at the track and verify the performance. And according to my experience and with my skills, porting the heads with stock valve size leads to a performance gain, and installing bigger valves and porting the heads makes the cars run even better. And in the case of BB even with pretty small cams. But ofd course it costs some too. I can't take the same performance out of a 2.08/1.74 head that I can from 2.14/1.81 head.
------------
REPLY by Speedy#1 on 02-02-2000 03:19 AM:
I'd have to agree with 340king i would say larger port's and good modern valve desighn would give you more bottom and high range .
------------
REPLY by Tim_K on 02-02-2000 12:28 PM:
Everyone says sunken valves cost power, so it must be true, but I've never heard a good explanation of WHY this is. Extra cc's in the chamber, reducing compression? The valves are now blocking part of the port? Something else? What?
------------
REPLY by ChristianCuda on 02-02-2000 12:50 PM:
Since everybody elses 2 cents are here I might as well cloud the masses with my added 2 cents.
On big blocks all heads will warm up to template porting. But the bigger valves will depend on each application and also the 452 will perform better to porting that the 906 due to a constriction on the 906 casting that is not on the 452 or 346 castings. I have stated all this in other posts. The bigger valves are not always needed but one thing that is shown is that the 1.74 valve is way to small for a big block to breath. Imagine if you could open you mouth wide for intaking air and then had to exhale only through your nose. It takes longer to get all that air out well same goes for the heads. I always increase to 1.81 exhaust valve but keep the 2.08 intake. going any larger then needs more deshrouding on the head and cylinder to make any better power. And with a properly ported intake port the 2.08 flows very good for a motor under 600 horses which is most of our motors. Especially a street motor that is naturally aspirated. Now if you have a blower or turbo than you would benifit more with a larg
Anyway I thinks thats more than 2 cents worth.
Christian
------------------
68 'Cuda 383
Working on adding EFI
------------
REPLY by 340king on 02-02-2000 11:08 PM:
Tim the reason for the drop in performance with sunken valves is the shrouding that takes place at low lifts. Valves are opened quite slowly on the bottom of the lift and spend quite a few degrees just getting to .050' lift. Imagine shrouding the valve for even .010'. This would effectively decrease the duration of the cam quite significantly, as flow would not start until the effects of the shrouding are overcome.
You bring up a good point Christian. Why put larger intake valves in a head design that flows so poorly on the exhaust. The flow balance on the cast factory heads is well below the 75% range. The exhausts need more work to get to optimum performance without increasing the intake flow. I just don't like seeing a guy spend money on bigger valves that could better spent elsewhere thats all.
------------
REPLY by DartGT66 on 02-03-2000 02:53 AM:
The low lift thing is only one point; it can be cured by reworking the chamber and that's what I always do in the heads I work with. Another thing that the short turn in both the intake and exhaust is too low in both intake and exhaust ports in mopar heads. When the valves are sunk, the port floor comes even lower, not a good thing. With bigger valves you gain more height in both intake and exhaust and can make a better working radius there.
------------
REPLY by Speedy#1 on 02-03-2000 12:21 PM:
iS that the only way you can raise the valve hieght is buy using larger valves?I can understand larger valves on the exh but why spend the extra cash on the intake?I was wondering because i may bee doing this myself in the year or so.
------------
REPLY by chrisfly on 02-03-2000 06:39 PM:
I have to agree with the majority here. You are running a pretty good cam and porting the heads with bigger intake and exhaust valves will wake this machine up. Just be careful when porting, bigger isn't always better. If this is a dual purpose machine, I would do a mild to medium port job to keep the velicity of the mixture up. You ideally want 350 400 cfm for optimum power. If you port too big, you will lose your velocity and the thing will be a dog on the street. A good website to take a look at is www.hughesengines.com. They have complete stage1,2,3 heads with big valves at a reasonable price. I bought their stage 1 heads and am running a 540/550 lift camshaft. Hope this helps
------------
REPLY by Glen440 on 02-03-2000 09:10 PM:
Thanks Guys!
I'm going to go with 340King and just port the 452's and keep the stock valves. I ported them a couple years ago as close to the mopar templates as posible. I'm going to clean them up and use them another season.
I'll get the 906's done in the summer and I'll get to see the performance gain! I'm sending the short block out instead. Its time for rings and bearings. I bought it off a guy who had it built 16 years ago. It was driven hard enough to break hemi springs!
Thanks for advice
Glen440 ~Mopar forever~
------------
REPLY by ChristianCuda on 02-04-2000 02:56 PM:
Glenn Since you mentioned springs i remembered. Make sure you put New or Known Good Valve springs on that 452 head cause without it all the work is for naught.
Christian
------------------
68 'Cuda 383
Working on adding EFI
------------
REPLY by Christopher on 02-04-2000 06:47 PM:
I'll throw my 2 cents worth on this,and I'm agreeing with what most of you guys have said.On my 440, I have 452's with the big valves and no porting or bowl blending,they are as factory produced except the chamber cc's are at 80.I also have a set of 906's that have the stock valve size in them and they too are at 80cc's.I wanted to see if the bigger valves really were worth the extra money as I have several sets of NOS small Mopar valves on the shelf.I swapped the 452's for the 906's and the car slowed down 3 tenths in the 1/4 mile.I swapped the 452's back on and the following weekend,the car went back to running 11.30's.
------------
REPLY by ROADRUNNR on 02-04-2000 09:32 PM:
has anybody read mopar muscle jan,feb &mar 99 issues about bb heads? they claim bigger valves in 346&452 castings with minimal porting is the way to go. they claim what really makes these heads breath is a 30 degree seat.
------------
REPLY by ehostler on 02-05-2000 06:47 AM:
What is the minimum over-bore to get the 2.14/1.81 valves to work in a 383, without interfacing the cylinder wall?
------------------
'96 Dodge Ram 1500 SLT CC 360 4X4
'68 Charger 383-4
------------
******************
TOPIC: MOPARS STAGE VI HEADS
by carbkid on 07-23-1999 12:21 AM
JUST PURCHASED SET OF ALUMINUM STAGE VI HEADS ANYONE HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE WITH THESE CARBKID
------------
REPLY by Cudaloco on 07-23-1999 06:39 PM:
I've been wanting a set, but I figured if I go with a new set of heads (I've got 908's now)I wanted something with an angled plug to bring it in the bore centerline....like the new Max Wedge StageVI. Did you get the standard or the new MW? Keep the rest of us informed on how they do, no matter which set you went with!
------------
REPLY by Christopher on 07-23-1999 10:57 PM:
My understanding is that these heads are no better flow wise than a stock set of 906's.I also understand that they need to be ported and the bowl area blended then they really come alive.They are a good set of heads.I also like the fact that they don't need alot of expensive parts that the Indy's do.
------------
REPLY by carbkid on 07-24-1999 03:05 AM:
CUDALOCO, I got the standard straight did not know about MW's till Mopar Nats but I did get them bran-new inthe box with valves for under 1400 off the internet mopar alley classifieds. Serno heads will bowl port them to flow close to stock B-1's. Need to find out cc,s to work with my 13;1 forged pop up's. I read you can mill them to at least 76cc's straight plugs will work well with my pistons w/plug notch in dome. I want to take advantage of high compressions awesome power burst.
------------
REPLY by sanborn on 07-26-1999 09:54 AM:
We worked a set of these several years ago with good success. Our application was oval track, yours is probably different. The location of the spark plug dictates a different approach. Use .000' deck height (with billet steel rods). Mill .100' to get the CC to about 75-76. Just clean up the combustion chamber (equalize CC), Use a dome height of .100' and closely match the dome to the combustion chamber. Use minimum valve reliefs, .040' intake and .100' exhaust clearance. This will get you in the 13.5-14 to 1 area. In the exhaust port, raise the roof .200' and form into a 'D' shape. Do not touch the floor other than clean up. The port width should be 1.800'. Very carefully raise the port roof in the guide area, remove as much of the guide as possible without removing strength. Use a 1.800' valve. Flow will be in the 240-250 CFM area @ 20 dominator. We ran 32-34 degrees advance. We also modified the water flow to help cool the exhaust valves and seats. Drill a 5/8' hole between the center exhaust valves in both block and heads, restrict the flow at the back of the block with a freeze plug with a 1/2' hole drilled in it. The ports do not stall so you should be able to use .750' or more lift. Because ours was an oval track application, we used only a .680' lift for better valve spring life. These heads love RPM, plan to turn your engine 7800-7900 RPM with good power. Use either aluminum main caps or 4 bolt caps. Our engine with the heads modified as described produced 745 HP.
------------
REPLY by Rue on 01-04-2000 01:03 AM:
Hi dude's talkin about MP Stage VI Heads, I have a pair to put on my 440. The heads I have are P4876311. I understand that these can be bolted on to an RB without the spacer package. (at least that's what the guy said) The ones I purchased were still in the box and I had the keepers and retainers upgraded to 10 Deg types and springs upgraded for use with the P4120663 camshaft.
I have ordered P5249506 Stage VI porting template kit. In the MP Performance Catalog it states that these particular heads are 'Street Stage VI' ... what does this mean? Is there differences between the Stage VI's ie. apart from the Max Wedge types etc.
I havn't a clue as to what this things goin to go like ... its goin into a backhalve 68' Dart with 5.14 gears, 4 Link and 16x33 Slicks. It's got H-Beam 4340 Rods, top and bottom Stud Kit, Holley HP950DP, M1 and MSD7AL2 etc. It should tip the scales around 3200lbs when completed. I would love to hear from others who have similar combo's. I live in New Zealand and MoPars are kinda thin on the ground here. But what one's there are here - are 'KickButt' Chryslers - no worries. Thankyou.
------------
REPLY by DartGT66 on 01-04-2000 03:37 AM:
I have had the Stage VI's for many years. The chambers were 84-86 cc out of the box. The bowls actually have a lot of material, and it's no wonder that in stock form they do not flow more than the stock iron heads. At the time I got my heads there were no porting templates available, so I ported them without the templates. Later I bought the templates, and they matched the bowls almost perfectly. These heads were first on a mild 440, and were a big power boost over the iron heads. Some other small mods were done at the time, so I can't honestly compare them to the template ported iron heads, anyway the mph went from 109 to 116.5 mph. I think these heads are best oriented for street; there are better racing heads available that need less work to perform. I even think that in a wilder street engine the B1/BS or Indy SR heads are a better choice. Currently the Stage VI's are on a '451' short block; the spacers are history. I just didn't like the idea of spacers in the first place, the intake face angle is only 7------------
REPLY by Belvedere65 on 01-04-2000 09:04 AM:
Went from ported 906s, .590 cam, TRW
12.5 pistons to StageVIs,bowls cleaned
up, gasket matched, Ultradyne .640
cam, Ross 12.5 pistons,deck height
010. Car ran 10.90s @ 121 MPH with old combo & 850 carb. Runs 10.40s @126 MPH now, just shaking it out. Had to add Dominator to wake it up! Harland Sharp rockers hit valve covers on push rod side, changed to Cranes. Intake pushrod holes need clearancing to align with rocker.With more porting ETC. I am sure there is more there.
------------------
BFRACN
------------
REPLY by Christopher on 01-04-2000 05:59 PM:
Glad all of this info is here.I have been debating on a aluminum head setup,and you guys gave me all the answers I needed.
------------
REPLY by PRO on 01-04-2000 10:22 PM:
The Stage VI(6) head is 78cc's(all are closed chamber).Has 210cc intake runners and are of the raised design,the exhaust port is also raised.You can mill them quite a bit as they have a .450 deck.In aluminum you save 40lbs. and gain 40hp over stock 906/452s.Stock valves sizes are 2.14/1.81. P4876311 needs no int adapter to use stock intakes.Dont confuse this with the 'older Stage V(5) head,as it was a stock repacement head w/stock flow.Stage 6 definitely has a flow advantage over stock heads and if you buy P4876186 you gain 12% int and 20% exh flow.If you buy the P5249523 you get 2.18/1.81 valves and gain 20% int and exh flow.Remember the aluminum dissapates heat much better than cast iron so you can gain 1 full point of compression w/o detonation. 10.5-11.0 works well on 92 octane w/these heads.One note though if you have a short duration cam dont exceed 10.5.Go Fast....PRO...
------------
REPLY by DartGT66 on 01-05-2000 03:10 AM:
Pro, have you measured nay Stage VI's? Mine were 84-86cc out of the box, and I have heard about even bigger chambers. The exhaust ports have been raised more than what the advertisment tells, I once measured the bolt hole distance from the deck but don't remember it. They were raised way more than the 1/8' that the factory tells. I assume you base your 40 hp power advantage to the wedge crate engines? Whenever you read the 'articles' (=advertisments) in the mopar muscle where mr Shepard tells you how good the MP parts are, he always reminds the fact that the Stage VI's have a lot smaller ports than for example the Indy SR heads, 210 vs 260 cc, and therefore a better velocity. I think he doesn't remember to tell the fact that the Indy heads have longer valves, bigger short side radius and overall wider head, and therefore much longer ports. The Indys have raised ports too, but you don't have to use any intake spacers with them. So to compare the velocity thing you should add the spacer to the intake port displ------------
REPLY by PRO on 01-08-2000 01:17 PM:
Dartgt66,I'm just quoting MP on their spec,s,inaccurracies in cc measurement though is a given in my book,all burrettes are not made with the same precision as are not all chamber plates,to read 84-86cc when MP says 78 might on paper seem like a big difference but 6-8ccs is in reality about 4 drops of water,the most accurate burrete I've found has the smallest diameter of 1' and has the graduations molded in the glass.When I compare it to one that is 2 1/2' dia. and has painted graduations ,theres a 5cc difference at 100cc's.MP states 40hp gain and 2 fellow racers gained more than that when changing from stock 452s to stage VIs,both did slightly clean up the bowls as recommended by MP,1 car took .4 off his et and one .6(he also went to 2' headers vs 1 3/4')so I believe 40hp is actual.The exhaust port is substanstially raised as you said,MP claims a 70% flow increase!!! The P4876311 does not require an intake spacer when used on a RB,all other Stage VI heads do(there are 8 different Stage VI heads),I'm sure th
[This message has been edited by PRO (edited January 08, 2000).]
------------
REPLY by DartGT66 on 01-10-2000 04:13 AM:
I'm not using a burette when measuring the combustion chambers, I'm using an other medical instrument, I think more accurate thing, but I don't know what it is in English. I also doeble check the result using a weight scale accurate to 0.5 gram; I use water with a drop of soap to remove the tension, and since the water weighs 1 gram / cc I can weigh how much water I have put to the chamber, both systems give the same results so I think it's pretty accurate. I have not dealt with the end spacers, in my 440 stage VI I used self made spacers and a modified bath tube gasket to seal the lifter galley. I think that RTV seals almost anything and I use it enough. I can't straight compare the results with the Stage VI's since there were some other changes too. With the pocket ported iron heads the cam was a MP 280 hydraulic, with the Stage VI's a custom mechanical with 262 advertised degrees, but more lift than the 280 cam had. There was also more CR because I milled the block, about 9:1 with the iron heads and little amount of milling! My part supplier didn't have the 260/268 cam in stock that I would have liked to use, so I took the one step bigger 268/272 cam and installed it 4 degrees advanced to 104 degrees. I first thought about shimming the rocker shafts for pre load, but since the valve stem heights varied a little, I shortened the stock pushrods in a lathe. Those things are pretty hard stuff. Although I intended to use the 1.5$ quadrajet with the engine, the plan may change. I just got a Holley 6210-3 spread bore free, and will propably use that istead. No idea where has it come from, but it seems to be a replacement carb and even the choke systems etc. seems like a bolt on. But we'll see, more on that later...
------------
REPLY by Rue on 02-05-2000 04:21 AM:
Advice please ... I have a pair of Stage VI Heads (P4876311). I ordered a set of Stage VI Porting Templates (P5249506) from out of the MoPar Performance Catalog. I have recieved the templates and upon reading the Instruction Sheet it states that 'These templates can only be used on Stage VI aluminum heads, P4529335; they will not work on any other cylinder head, cast iron or aluminum'
What?!!
I surmise that because the Stage VI P4876311 is one of MP's latest offerings, and that the template kit P5249506 was offered before the advent of these particular heads that ... they will be Ok for using on my heads.
Comments?
------------
******************
TOPIC: hooker a body headers
by larry phillips on 02-03-2000 01:09 PM
ive got a nice set of used supercomp 2' fenderwell headers and was wondering if anyone had templates to cut out the fenderwells with it would be a great help to a guy new to mopars that is on a limited budget
thanks bigl
------------
REPLY by Dart on 02-03-2000 03:54 PM:
Have you run those headers before? I think they stink.
Here is why:
1)limited tire size on front of car
2)Heat in the engine compartment/floorboards
3)Butcher your inner fenderwells
4)2' tube is way too big unless you have over a huge cam and 440.
5)Exhaust set up is a pane (have to cut more out of the car)
I realize most of us are on a budget, but you would be better served to buy the underchassis headers. Granted they are expensive (~$500), but worth every penny. I think it makes the car a lot more streetable. The exhaust hangs way too low on the fenderwell headers and the tires rub unless you have really small tires on the front.
------------
REPLY by MopART@hm on 02-03-2000 05:43 PM:
Larry,
Dart is right on the money with everything he said. Oh, and if you're gonna trailer this car, be ready to hang those collectors on the end of the trailer unless you custom make some ramps or can jack the trailer WAY up there. Since you have to put such a small tire on the front it's gonna grab.. And I surely wouldn't recommend these headers for a car that's gonna see ANY street use.
I *gave* a 6 month old set away...and the onlt reason why the gut got them was b/c his car was already hacked up.
But I must say ---- they look pretty nasty.
------------
REPLY by DUSTER340 on 02-03-2000 08:44 PM:
Had a friend who put a set on his '68' Barracuda and we changed the master cylinder about once a month[daily driver]. Heat in the engine compartment was so bad we had to install cool can to stop problems he was having with gas line getting to hot! Sure the starter was very easy to get off but he never had any trouble with it. No possible way to make the exhaust look good no matter how much money you spend. MOPAR or I walk!@#$
------------
REPLY by Christopher on 02-03-2000 08:47 PM:
I agree with all.I would never consider using Hooker's fenderwell tubes.You really weaken the uni-body structure cutting up the fenderwells and the bottom of the frame.I use a set that is avalible from Bob mazzolini racing in Riverside CA.1 tube from each side goes thru the fenderwell,and the hole is only big enough for the header flange to go thru.I'm considering a set of Stahl headers,but they are $900.00,so I'll have to debate that a bit more.I use 2' headers on both my mild 383 and 440 and they work fine.I have thought about a 1 7/8' tube size,but if the car went slower,I wouldn't be happy.
------------
REPLY by DartGT66 on 02-04-2000 01:13 AM:
I disagree with you all. I have used both underchassis and fenderwell headers in a BB A-body, and must truky say that the fenderwells are the way to go. I first bought the CPPA underchassis headers, I knew they were hard to install but handled it with a few extra dents. Had to use the convetional starter, because the MP mini starter didn't fit with them. Once in place, I had continuos trouble with primary to plug wire clearance problems, it ate plug wires almost daily. I tried to use different insulators between them, but no help, actually the boots touched the primaries, so it's no wonder. Changing the plugs was next to impossible, there was absolutely no room for a wrench in a RB A-body. After using them one year, I tossed them, and have never looked back. Performance wise they were a compromise, unequal length and very steep turns out of the heads + doglegs for the spark plugs. In our '73 Valiant we have the Hooker 2' super comps with a B-block; access to spark plugs is straight forward and working on the tec under the cylinder; no problems. The inner fenders have been removed and replaced with aluminum panels, and the Front end is supported by 2' rollcage tubes. The 'Pro-Parts' headers that Mazzolini sells are propably the best of the underchassis designs power wise, and the Schumachers easiest to install and perform well up to 4-500 hp. The CPPAs maybe support the same power, but are a real pain to install and live with. If you really want underchassis headers and have an ordinary street car, I suggest that you use the Schumachers. But if you have more power, on my opinion the fenderwells are the only reasonable possibility.
------------
REPLY by Christopher on 02-04-2000 06:54 PM:
No problem with any disagreeing at all from this end!! But you did bring up a point,actually two.I don't like the fact about the tire size limitation.I use a Moroso 7.10x15 and I know the tires of this size will hit the headers on a good turn.And I agree with running tubing from the front frame to the roll bar or cage if you cut the fenderwells.I feel this is a must if you do this.
------------
REPLY by dusterrcr on 02-05-2000 12:44 AM:
Seems like we have all had this discussion b/4.No I wouldnt put s/comps on a street car,no hooker doesent care about the problems that will cause.why? they were designed to produce HP in race cars. put ANY set of headers on ANY car and your asking for problems.I flashback to the chassis hdrs on my ol 71 charger,i could take the starter off,but i couldnt get it out without removing the header.Sort of like the guys that buy Holley carbs for the superior performance,then bitch about the ocassional leak theyre all born with. My hookers rub a little,I have to wrap my m/cyl with heat reflective tape.but they gave me 2 tenths off my time slip with no other changes. My suggestions for a street car,A set of Ma Mopars fine factory low restriction exhaust manifolds.---theyre bitch free!------later
------------
REPLY by Marc on 02-05-2000 01:00 AM:
I run the 2' CPPA's and must say there will probably be a different opinion or view from every car they are on! Mine eat starters. I'm intending on trying the new Mallory with the orbiting solenoid and a heat sheild.It also ATE plug boots. I solved this by squeezing rolled up wads of fireblanket between the primary tube and the plug boot.The collectors are big. My car sits LOW so it's a minor pain. I find the plugs fairly easy to change. Never had a problem. To fit the 2nd generation mini starter you must ding 1 header tube about 3/8' in. Most clearancing problems vary depending on where the engine is. Mine is mounted with Mancini elephant ears and seems to work pretty good. Anyone swapped to the 1 3/4' CPPA's or Schumachers?
I'll try ANYTHING - header swap,starter swap ...or?
------------
******************
TOPIC: Suggestions on heads, intake and cam for street 360?
by Knucklebuster_jr on 01-29-2000 10:32 PM
I found a short block 360, now I need heads and intake, and cam. But I'm not sure which ones...any suggestions would be appreciated greatly.
Andy
------------
REPLY by cudadude on 01-30-2000 12:13 AM:
question 1 is what kind of performance do you want out of your street 360. Try and find the last 4 issues of mopar muscle. they did a budget street build-up (2500.00) on a smog 360. They retained the stock smog heads and did a lot of work to them and got them flowing better than x heads. The end result netted them 390 hp. on the dyno. More power than the 360380 crate motor for a lot less money and a lot more work. One note, if you read these articles and decide to do your own heads be very carefull with them . They are easy to screw up. it is generaly better to take them and have them done unless you have a few sets to play with.
------------------
'MOPOWER' There Is No Substitute
*CUDADUDE*
------------
REPLY by cruzerjd on 01-30-2000 12:15 AM:
Hi, good find. I would use Mopar J heads, 2.02 intake, 1.60(?) exhaust, either a factory 4 bbl intake or an Edelbrock Performer depending on if you are on a budget or not. The Edelbrock is a close replica of the factory intake except for the plenum opening and the weight. If you are shooting for good mid range to upper rangs power, get the Performer RPM. As far as the cam, I am still wondering about that myself. I have a 318 with a 600 cfm 4 barrel holley on a cast iron manifold and plan on using the 1.88 intake heads (318's have a smaller bore, so I do not want the 2.02 heads), and may be upgrading the cam soon as well. From what I have heard, the MP 340 cam is a good selection and may be what I run. What exactly are you putting it all in anyway?. cruzerjd
------------
REPLY by Knucklebuster_jr on 01-30-2000 08:18 AM:
Yeah, I'm still on a budget, but I'm getting that short block for $30!! So basically you're saying I can take any head and make it flow like crazy with lots of work? This will go in my '88 Dakota. I hope it'll fit with headers!
[This message has been edited by Knucklebuster_jr (edited January 30, 2000).]
------------
REPLY by Speedy#1 on 01-30-2000 09:03 AM:
I thought that mopar muscle was a vary good build up especially for the back yard machnic .Any time you can get 79 smog heads to flow better than X heads you got my attention .I don't know if you guy's priced X or J heads lately but you can rebuild the hole head for what you would pay for just a core.plus all the tinkering was just new valves ,gasket matching,and some blending.I don't consider that to be a lot of work unless some one else is doing the work for you.plus most of the gains were from the valve desighn and a 30*valve seat.but after reading that my thought's on cylinder heads went to sh----t .
------------
REPLY by MopART@hm on 01-30-2000 10:54 AM:
knucklebuster_jr,
What year model is the 360?
------------
REPLY by Knucklebuster_jr on 01-30-2000 01:12 PM:
I don't know what year. I know it's pre-magnum, if that helps. And does anyone know, is there any one block better than another?
------------
REPLY by 340king on 01-30-2000 08:11 PM:
You can determine the uear of casting by inspecting the driver's side of the block. There should be a cast date on it. You can also look just under the driver's side deck on the front of the block. There should be a set of numbers stamped there also. These numbers are coded, but if you post them someone here is sure to decode them for you.
The pre-74 blocks are generally considered to be better. They were supposedly cast thicker. If you have any doubts, sonic test the block, checking for thickness and core shift.
------------
REPLY by 440Ramcharger on 01-31-2000 08:50 AM:
I would definitely check out the Weiand 8007 dual plane intake. I have this on a 340
4 speed '75 Duster and on a '70 Duster. Engines were set up in the following manner.
'75 '69 340 x heads 9.0:1 MP 284 / .484' cam, TQuad runs in the 14's with 225 wide (skinny) back tires.
'70 '70 318 block with J heads 360 crank machined to fit & rotating mass balanced.
270 Comp cam 904 tranny TQuad. This is a hell of a combo with the added stroke ( 3.58 vs. 3.31') of the 360 crank.
Michael
------------
REPLY by Speedy#1 on 02-02-2000 04:19 AM:
440Ramcharger could you post a build up on that 318 with the 360 crank I'm thinking of going that direction with my 69 Dart ,I have everything i need to build it,just don't know how.
------------
REPLY by mopar_nerd on 02-02-2000 12:39 PM:
My humble opinion is that you'll save a great deal of $ if you're trying to locate stuff from the boney yard.
You got a block, the best heads is the #302 from 88-90 trucks, they are better than the old X and J heads, mill them and use the stock pistons. Remember that porting is expensive, but with these heads you can go stock...and use pump gas as well. Get a -71 340 intake (pretty rare) or equivalent, weiand, Edelbrock performer...) Try to find a good Thermo-Quad, -72 up. (cheap). Cam...try the 340 blue print from MP, or perhaps one step bigger. Use thin head gaskets, MP electronic ignition, and you'll have muscles...
Why even consider to modify a 318 when you get a 360 block for peanuts? the 360 has larger main bearings, fatter crank and you may use 340 heads & intake...
------------
REPLY by Tim_K on 02-02-2000 07:50 PM:
Minor corrections, mopar_nerd. The '87-'91 cylinder heads had the 302 casting number on 318 heads, and 308 on 360 heads. I've read that they had improved (W-2?) exhaust ports and regular intakes for use in the pre-magnum engines. I've been looking for some 308's myself, but haven't seen any yet. Maybe not true W-2 exhausts, but similar to them. That's what I read in one of the less reliable Mopar magazines, not something I came up with myself.
------------
REPLY by LA360Dart on 02-03-2000 02:08 AM:
Hi in my opinion the best head would be P5007086 complete Magnum cyl head, then use cam would be 280/.474 P4452992 Also if daily driver use on cam smaller 268/272 .450/.450 P4452761 and a the M1 dual plane if driven daily if more strip then single plane. Then buy rocker package P4876050 for 8. Then use an AMC type lifter. Cost less that what you might think heads about 275/300 each Cam 125/150 Rockers about 5/7 each. 5/16 push rods must be made to lenght about 130.00. Manifold is about 200.00 New cam and lifter could save money buying cam after market, but watch lift magnum rockers are 1.6 ratio not 1.5.
------------
REPLY by 32what on 02-04-2000 09:59 PM:
I have to put up a small caution flag. 88 dakota? Have you checked on the smog laws? In california you can't have anything that wasn't offered and it has to have ALL the smog crap on it for that year vehicle. Only pre- 1974 are exempt.
------------
REPLY by Knucklebuster_jr on 02-04-2000 11:03 PM:
Yep, 32what, this is Indiana...no junk like that (yet). My smog equipment consists of an air pump and catalytic converter. Thanks.
------------
REPLY by 340king on 01-31-2000 06:45 PM:
You can continue with the previous thread you started by posting a reply to your first post. That way we can all keep up with the subject. I hope this helps.
Always give as much info as possible. What convertor stall speed do you have or plan to have? Tire size? Proposed use? The more info, the better answers you will get. This is a very ggod source of info, so use it to your advantage. Good luck and welcome aboard!
------------
REPLY by dart69 on 01-31-2000 06:55 PM:
quote:Originally posted by 340king:
You can continue with the previous thread you started by posting a reply to your first post. That way we can all keep up with the subject. I hope this helps.
Always give as much info as possible. What convertor stall speed do you have or plan to have? Tire size? Proposed use? The more info, the better answers you will get. This is a very ggod source of info, so use it to your advantage. Good luck and welcome aboard!
not sure what converter , or tires to use will be street / strip mostly street. whats your opinion. thanks
------------
REPLY by 340king on 01-31-2000 07:08 PM:
This is the original message reposted by dart69.
'to anyone.i have a 73 440 im wanting between 400 to 500 hp what parts should i use? and whats the best
way to raise the compression id like around 10.1
all at reasonable cost. thanks a lot im a new guy.'
Christopher is your man here. This is nearly the same combo he is running.
------------
REPLY by dart69 on 01-31-2000 07:12 PM:
quote:Originally posted by 340king:
You can continue with the previous thread you started by posting a reply to your first post. That way we can all keep up with the subject. I hope this helps.
Always give as much info as possible. What convertor stall speed do you have or plan to have? Tire size? Proposed use? The more info, the better answers you will get. This is a very ggod source of info, so use it to your advantage. Good luck and welcome aboard!
i dont know if u got my last message but im not sure what converter or tires to use.this will be a street/strip car. mostly street though thanks
------------
REPLY by dart69 on 01-31-2000 07:21 PM:
quote:Originally posted by 340king:
You can continue with the previous thread you started by posting a reply to your first post. That way we can all keep up with the subject. I hope this helps.
Always give as much info as possible. What convertor stall speed do you have or plan to have? Tire size? Proposed use? The more info, the better answers you will get. This is a very ggod source of info, so use it to your advantage. Good luck and welcome aboard!
not sure what converter or tires to use.whats your opionion?this will be a street/strip car, mostly street though.thanks
------------
REPLY by 340king on 01-31-2000 07:44 PM:
I would like to help you out, but as my name implies, big blocks are not my specialty. As a matter of fact its been 20 years since I have had any serious contact with one. It would be like a GM product to me, only much more classy. Like I said Christopher is likely a good source for your combo. I could tell you about the SB Duster we drag race, but it wouldn't translate very well. I race circle track and was on that board just now.
------------
REPLY by Christopher on 01-31-2000 08:19 PM:
Well.... Here's what I'd do.This also depends on what you are wanting besides the 500 Hp.If you want fuel economy too,you're not going to get it from this engine.I'd use a 750 Holley double pumper,Edelbrock Torker or Mopar M1 intake,the Mopar 292/509 cam,a good set of replacement 440 pistons for a 69 440,moly rings,street hemi valve springs,hi-vol. oil pump.Oil pan cane be a Moroso or Milodon clone of the stock pan.Use the heads you have,install the 2.14I 1.81E valves and use the Mopar porting templates.Mill the heads to arrive at 80cc's.1 7/8' or 2' headers,I'd also use a converter with around 2800 stall.At least 3.91 gears,but if it were my car I'd use 4.10's.The pistons can be either TRW forged,KB Hypertetuic,or a set of TRW cast replacements.Don't be afraid of the cast pistons,I used them in my 440 and it was running 11.30's with them,at 9.2 compression ratio.Put it this way,this is a easy 11 second engine for your car.The big thing is to seal the engine well,take your time in assembly,and have fun!!
(And thanks 340King.)
[This message has been edited by Christopher (edited January 31, 2000).]
------------
REPLY by RunnerDave on 01-31-2000 09:34 PM:
I agree with Christopher, I have 'almost' exactly the motor he described, and I'm running 475HP with a 10.25c/r. Haven't got ET's yet but spring is coming soon.
------------
******************
TOPIC: will a 509 lift 292 duration mp cam work in my 440 on the street?
by pyro on 01-23-2000 02:19 AM
i have a 73 charger se with a 72 modle 440mag 906heads eldebroke 750 carb and othe name brand chrome preties i wanted to know if the mopar perf purple shaft 292 dur cam will runn fine on the street im in the proces of buyin stage v street heads and other new parts to rebuild my 440 this is a daily driver info apreciated thanx pyro
------------
REPLY by Agamemnon on 01-23-2000 03:45 AM:
The MP 509 cam makes a good replacement and it sounds like your engine (given the few specs) would work fine with it. A 3000 stall convertor is a must for that cam though. I would also suggest a final gear ratio of 3.7x to 4.1x. I run this cam using a 3.91 SureGrip.
Expect about a 6 to 10 psi drop from the stock cam...maybe more...run a vacuum booster if you have power brakes and such.
A much better grind for the street, IMO, is one with .484 to .494 of lift and duration @.050 somwhere around 234 to 246. It keeps the vacuum for use with pb and such, without the need for a booster can.
Still, if you can set it up and tune the drivetrain around it, that 509 grind will do wonders for your performance.
Regards,
Ag
------------
REPLY by ted on 01-23-2000 02:25 PM:
what c/r? this cam wont work with stock cr.
------------
REPLY by RunnerDave on 01-23-2000 07:13 PM:
I have the same cam in my 'runner and i love it. I have manual brakes so I had no need for the vaccum booster but it would be necessary if you have power brakes. You definitely need a stall converter though. I only had the factory high stall(1800+-)and it went nowhere until the rev's approched 3000, but then she just screamed. Great cam if you can make it work for your car.
------------
REPLY by Dave D on 01-23-2000 08:18 PM:
Can i suggest an alternative? I've been running a Hughes Hydraulic #HE2330BL in my engine;'70 440HP, stock heads, Edelbrock Performer intake, Holley 3310, MP Electronic ignition, CPPA headers, and the both the street and track performance are startling. I've got this in my '66 Coronet, using a 727 with stock high stall converter, 3.55 gear, 26' BFG Drag Radials. Best ET.s are 12.90's in the qtr, 8.20's in the 1/8, with 60 ft times in the high 1.80's, low 1.90's. Low end torque is real good, and it pulls hard all the way to 6000 rpm. To me, it's a lot better on the street than the 509.
------------
REPLY by pyro on 01-24-2000 12:20 AM:
thats some news i been wantin to hear yes i do have vacume breaks and yes im gona get summits vacume asist can ill let yall know what happens with it thanx alot fellow mopardians pyro
------------
REPLY by DartGT66 on 01-24-2000 03:54 AM:
The 292 cam is a good one. You'll need 3000-3500 stall speed with it. I have used it with power brakes and there was no problem or need for a vacuum canister. I don't have a vacuum canister even with my current cam that has over 270 degrees at .050'. On my experience the 292 cam needs some CR to work properly, we once had a 8.5:1 real CR and switched from the 280 cam to 292, picked no power but lost some bottom end. I would use at least 9.5:1 with it.
------------
REPLY by sublime70 on 01-24-2000 10:35 PM:
The decades-old .509 cam is a good grind , but it is WAY obsolete for a car where driveability is a factor. Contrary to MP's propaganda, they don't always have the best stuff for Mopars. A properly chosen Hughes grind will run circles around the 509, with better idle, more low-end torque, and better gas mileage to boot. The MP may have been leading edge cam technology 15 years ago, but why live in the past when you can get a much better cam for the same price, give or take $20?
------------
REPLY by pyro on 01-25-2000 02:31 AM:
ill try any thing but a crane or eldebroke ive snaped a crane in my rr and a friend just snaped a 2 month old eldebroke in his demon thanx yall can u turn me on to a bad ass streetable cam?
------------
REPLY by DartGT66 on 01-25-2000 02:35 AM:
I can't really say anything to that, because I have not used any Hughes or Ultradyne cams. But I still have my opinions, and that is to pick the right cam for the combo. MP is pretty good in that they recommend complete engine packages that should run a certain ET, and they plainly work. It's pretty much the same thiong with the Hughes, you call them and they recommend you a cam that does well with your combo. I see cars with MP cams or comp cams 'chevy' grinds that run extremely fast, they shouldn't do that because they don't take advantage of the new technology and the bigger lifter diameter, should they? I still think that there is no miracle cams that can beat an other cam that suits your application with a great margin. Where I live, the only way to get Hughes or Ultradyne cams is to order them straight from them, that makes it a lot more than 20$ difference. What bothers me a little too, is that if their cams are so fantastic, then why aren't all the 'name' engine builders using them? Do you actually th------------
REPLY by Dart on 01-25-2000 06:11 PM:
One problem, what kind of exhaust do you have? Stock magnum manifolds will not cut it. You will need headers and 2.5' dual exhaust at a minimum.
I disagree with 'the 15 year old cam isn't as good' mentioned previously. If these cams are so lousy why haven't they replaced them? I need some real explanation on why these cams aren't as good as today's grinds by Hughes. No speculation, no 'my buddy ran...and it was 2 sec faster' stories either, I want hard numbers and a good explanation.
------------
REPLY by Marc on 01-25-2000 08:20 PM:
Mopar Performance grinds are great. Everyone has their own tastes. I've ran 509 cams in daily drivers MANY times. 2000 REAL stall speed is fine. Power brakes work WITHOUT a vacuum can. Torque is good with 355 and up gears.If you can PROPERLY set up your car, the cam should be fine. I run tunnel rams and dual quads on all my street stuff, for BETTER drivability. Never had a problem in 15+ years. It's HOW you set it up. I drive in -15 degrees Celcius weather to 32+ Celcius. I pass B.C. 'Aircare' emissions tests, which are ridiculous. If you go the 509 route, make sure you set up the car properly. Watch for excessive timing, excessive distributor curves and poorly set up carb(s). These three things will surely be a thorn. Hope things work out whichever way you choose to go. MoPar To Ya!!
------------
REPLY by sublime70 on 01-26-2000 12:48 AM:
Dart, no numbers are necessary, just common sense. Why do you think roller cams can make more power with the same driveability, or, have a wider RPM range for the same seat duration? It's because you can get more of area under the curve, due to the fact that the lobe profile can come closer to the ideal of instantly opening the valve to its max lift, holding it there until just before reversion begins in the intake runner, and then closing it instantly. All companies like Ultradyne and Hughes are doing is designing solids and flat tappets that are a little more agressive in getting the valve off its seat. Duration in itself does not make power, duration at high lifts makes power, while duration at low lift more or less just hurts driveability. This is NOT ROCKET SCIENCE, just basic four stroke engine fundamentals. If you pick up the MP catalog you apparently blindly follow, you'll notice the MP grinds tend have much lower lift at similar duration than the brands mentioned above, just because that was the best------------
REPLY by DartGT66 on 01-26-2000 02:42 AM:
Sometimes common sence doesn't work at the track. According to common sence, when you have more lift at same duration you should make more power. I have raised the lift with different ratio rockers at the track, and there was no change in anything. Like I said, I have no personal experience of these cams, but no one with a hughes cam has left me behind at the track, and I have a very slow ramp in the cam motion cam I use.
------------
http://www.moparchat.com
http://www.moparchat.com
http://www.moparchat.com
http://www.moparchat.com
http://www.moparchat.com