98 SNAKE EATER

Looking at a '69 RR with a built 440.

Here are some specs the seller gave me:


Assuming all of the parts listed were actually used in the build, what kind of hp should I expect?





Rick

Gorts 5th

Welcome to the forum

wow... High compression racing fuel only?

Good heads any port work?

What are those "Super stock springs"?

with that cam maybe a narrow short power band peaking around 660hp.

TVLynn

What are those "Super stock springs"? Rear leaf springs
NOT a street motor
Race fuel only
600 hp- heads would be the limiting factor..

98 SNAKE EATER

Umm, perhaps I'm missing something here, but how is it race fuel only?

He says it's a pump gas motor and has been running 93*

TVLynn

The only way to run 93 in a 11 1/5 motor is to severely retard the ign timing..
Run a compression test-- What is the cranking pressure ?

Gorts 5th

i never heard of a mopar using a cam button?
that's a chevy thing isn't it?
maybe for that comp cam, i mean isn't that a chevy based design?
It does have a retard box installed on it maybe that's how it runs on 93oct.
those are some thick azz push rods you could jack up the engine with those babies.
Wonder what the supper stock spring pressure is loaded?

Moparbob

Yes, Roller Cams in a BB Mopar also require a Thrust Button to control the Camshaft endthrust.
ALL Roller Camshafts for Mopars are Chevrolet based designs(other than ALKY/NITRO applications), common "Roller" lobe profiles because, unlike a Flat tappet Cam design, there is no .904" Tappet surface area advantage in a Roller, and even IF the Roller could be made BIGGER for the .904" Mopar, the Cam base circle would simply move out of range exposing the Lifter Gallery Oil Hole.

Super Stock ValveSpring stuff(if thats what he's talking about) typically runs on the edge, 350# seat pressures(sometimes more), REALLY high over the nose. THAT...do NOT live on the Street !!

Maybe 600 hp, without Headflow data, no way to tell.

Gorts 5th

Lunati cams makes mopar design cams... taking advantage of the wider lifter and the longer rods in mopar, over the chbby, furd short rod geometry.

98 SNAKE EATER

Thanks for the info, guys

I guess it must be different for Mopar cause I've been pushing higher CR on both Chebby and Pontiac motors while running 93/94 without issue

As for the "super stock springs", I'll have to verify, but I'm pretty sure he meant the rear leaf springs cause the stance is jacked with stinkbug

I thought the stand along retarder was mainly used to automatically pull timing during start ups so you don't kill the starter motor

I have an actual controller with a **** on my coupe so I can make changes up to 15* by turning a ****.

Works great cause you can easily adjust to suit your fuel type, but it's not automatic.

Moparbob

Absolutely correct for some applications, but IMO, maybe NOT for all ?

.904" cams are nothing new, we used them in the 80's.
However, IMO,
it is incorrect as a "general" Blanket statement, to believe the .904" Lifter Cams are "better" as a general rule, as the .904" advantage lies within a very "narrow" application window, that most Street Engine combinations simply cannot utilize.

Yep..Lunati makes .904" Mopar specific lobes, great ones too !
So does CompCams, Crane, and many others.
CompCams alone R & D 'd over 200 .904" Mopar specific profiles between 1993 & 1996, and they were LATE !
The fact remains,
In short Rod Ratio Engines(Ford and Chev), the Pistons accelerate much quicker AWAY from TDC that the High ratio Mopar engines, creating a low pressure area quicker(suction) sooner.
My point being twofold;
1.) Whats the point in being able to open the Valve "quicker" with a dedicated .904" Mopar Grind, when most cannot create "suction" earlier to take advantage of the quicker Lobe ?

This is why so many Cam manufacturers continue to grind "regular"(chev/ford) lobe profiles onto supposedly Mopar Cams ?
Is it because they are Dumb ? Stupid ? lazy ?? in the marketplace ?
I don't think so anyways ?

I do know, It is certainly NOT because they can't...but I think anyways, because for other than very narrow application criterion...they simply provide no advantage ?
Dynomometer testing has confirmed for me ?
IMO,
most .904" Cams are a gimmic...especially street/smaller stuff where next to no Flow data, and little if any rpm Ram effect co-efficient can be utilized with Stock type ports.

This is NOT to say that "some" .904" Cams don't make excellent, and EXTRA power in some combinations..THEY CERTAINLY DO !
But it is not ALL applications, in ALL combinations from what we've tried.

All I am saying is this, IMO,
stick with actual "Combinations" DYNO proven to work better with .904" Cams.
Not heresay, NOT because so and so said so ?

Anybody wanna see an actual 440 Mopar DYNO SHEET comparison between a Lunati 60305 Cam, then swapped in a CompCams xe284H ?
same, same, EVERYTHING, Engine had the cam swap done right on the Dyno !
I can also provide flow sheets on the ported performer rpm heads, C.R., you name it.
Why did the CompCam blow the Lunati by 12 H.P. and 32lbs torque !
Why did the supposedly "old" & "decrepid" design .509" Mopar we tried next, although not BEST either of the above for peaks, it had the BEST "useable" power area under the curve than both !

Some food for thought;
* Maximum Piston speed reached in the Bore, is a product of stroke.
* How fast it REACHES that max speed, is a factor of Rod length divided by Stroke, or "Rod Ratio" , the lower ratio being FASTER accel & decel from TDC(ferd & cheb), the Higher being slow to accel & decel from TDC realtively.