Brought to you in part by:
Ninth Year!

...

Fifteenth Year!
.


Your best source for

High Performance Parts!

Click here to see a list of our Supporters.

To Register onto our web site and join our discussions, just click Here.

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    long island,ny
    Posts
    14

    Default stock 351c 4v quench heads vs ported

    does anyone have flow and /or dyno numbers comparing stock 351cleveland 4v quench heads to a ported version of same heads? i'm in the pre-planning stage of rebuilding a spare 1970 cleveland with these heads for my 71 pantera. i want to run a hydrolic roller cam that would complement the holley strip dominator, 11:1 trw's, holley 750dbl pumper w/mech secondaries that i already have. i'm hoping to make 425hp at the flywheel. my pantera is 3000lbs. running a 4:22 rear w/overdrive in 4th and 5th gears. what cam should i run in this engine? thanks for the advice. joe c

  2. #2

    Default

    Other guys on here more experienced me, but stock 4V heads will flow somewhere around 260-270 intake and 160 on the exhaust.

    I had a set of heads I did myself with intake "spoons" (cross-section made smaller) that flowed 325 intake, and mildly ported exhaust flowed 200. A good experienced porter can get as much as 360cfm or more. An excellent max-ported exhaust might go 230 but I'm guessing. With exhaust plates exhaust can get up in the 260 range.

    A stock set of 4V heads should easily support your target 425hp.
    68 Mustang coupe NMCA Mean Street
    347 NA @3100lbs
    best so far: 10.52@125 with 1.43 60' on goodrich 275-15 drag radials looking for 10.20's!
    67 mustang 11-teens with 351W/C9OE heads and rusted out floor pan
    69 torino gt 351C 4sp
    78 F150 460 running low 14's
    02 powerstroke

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    I agree with rustang,the only thing those heads need is a good valve job, high quality valves and a stable valvetrain.425 hp should not be a problem.
    VIN 1F05M139343
    71 Mach 1 Ram-Air
    351C C4 trans
    Hans Olsson

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Default

    > stock 351c 4v quench heads vs ported

    Here's what Glen's 4V heads pulled:

    lift int exh
    .050 33.6 27.1
    .100 64.7 55.9
    .200 123.0 100.1
    .300 188.5 138.9
    .400 246.4 166.4
    .500 294.5 182.7
    .600 322.1 186.5
    .700 333.3 185.2

    Flowed at 10" and converted to 28", 2.19"/1.71" diameter valves, no intake
    manifold or exhaust pipe. Before porting the heads, Dave spoke with Jon
    Kaase who told him the best return for the effort on these heads was the
    short side radius. The only headwork done was the shortside radius,
    and a good valve job with a 30 degree back cut on the intake valves only.
    Dave did a second set later but the numbers weren't quite as good because
    there was less to work with (heads had several previous valve jobs).

    > does anyone have flow and /or dyno numbers comparing stock 351 cleveland
    > 4v quench heads to a ported version of same heads?

    Not yet but that is one of the tests planned for the list/forum/club 351C
    dyno program. BTW, I went to Fed-Ex yesterday and picked up the CHI 3V
    heads and Scott Cook intake for the dyno test. So I now have all the heads
    in hand. Still have one intake that I need to procure. Weather is supposed
    to be in the 50's Sunday so I'll strip the cast iron parts for paint then.

    > i'm in the pre-planning stage of rebuilding a spare 1970 cleveland with
    > these heads for my 71 pantera. i want to run a hydrolic roller cam that
    > would complement the holley strip dominator, 11:1 trw's, holley 750dbl
    > pumper w/mech secondaries that i already have. i'm hoping to make 425hp
    > at the flywheel. my pantera is 3000lbs. running a 4:22 rear w/overdrive
    > in 4th and 5th gears. what cam should i run in this engine? thanks for
    > the advice. joe c

    Joe, did you see my post on the dyno test we did on a 408 Cleveland stroker?
    That engine used a hydraulic roller cam and the best intake tested was the
    Strip Dominator. The cam specs were:

    Crane Cams grind number (custom): HR-232/352-2S-8
    Intake 232 deg duration @ 0.050" tappet lift
    294 deg duration @ 0.004" tappet lift.
    0.609" lift with 1.73:1 rocker ratio
    Exhaust 236 deg duration @ 0.050" tappet lift
    298 deg duration @ 0.004" tappet lift.
    0.621" lift with 1.73:1 rocker ratio
    108 degrees lobe separation, intake centerline 103 ATDC
    degreed in at 102.25 intake centerline with new chain
    (should lose about .5 to 1 degree once timing chain loosens up)

    In the 408C, that cam peak at 5600 RPM with the Strip Dominator and made
    about 50 HP more than your goal through mufflers on pump gas. In a 351C,
    you should peak at a higher RPM. Headers were Pantera GTS tri-y's (really
    4-into-1 with 2 1/4" tri-y collector). We lost 50 HP through the GTS
    mufflers but Magnaflows got nearly all of it back.

    Dan Jones

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Central NC
    Posts
    8,470

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 71PANTERA1042 View Post
    does anyone have flow and /or dyno numbers comparing stock 351cleveland 4v quench heads to a ported version of same heads?
    One set of CC 4v heads I did some work on, (all my numbers here wont be "exact" since I am going by memory and I'm not real sure where I placed the folder with all the real numbers in it) flowed around 275 stock, and after some mild bowl work, flowed right at 300 cfm on the intake side. I'm sure there was more available, but since I am a firm believer in being conservative to keep from messing it up, I kept the work to a minimum and did very very little to the short turn also.

    I cant remember what the exhuast did stock, but after the same mild bowl work they flowed around 185 cfm. After some serious work, I got 228 cfm out of them. The set of heads I got that Keith Craft worked on, flowed 360 cfm on the intake (epoxy in the port), and 249 on the exhuast (no high port plate.) I really think the exhuast was checked with a flow tube attached though.
    Rob Hetzler
    M&M member since Oct 2000, #773
    Roxboro Dragway 2011 Top ET champion

    My Photo Page

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    long island,ny
    Posts
    14

    Default flow and /or dyno numbers stock 351 cleveland heads

    thanks to rustang, big mach, Danial Jones, & kid vishus for your info.
    dan i did look up your dyno test on the 408 Cleveland stroker - impressive. now you got me thinking of building a stroker! id like to take advantage of those huge intake ports/valves with more cubic inches. if i wanted the peak hp at 6000 rpm, what changes to the cam shaft grind would you suggest? [if i ran a stroker 408ci] thanks again. joe caputo.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Eastern Iowa
    Posts
    1,288

    Default

    KV would remember better than I can , but it seemed to me he unshrouded the intake valves in the chamber a bit on at least one set of heads he worked on.
    Testing the limits of acceptable behavior

    For exercise I stumble and fall into a coma - Oscar Levant

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    I found some flow numbers from a few years back.

    0.100 82/45
    0.200 160/65
    0.300 232/92
    0.400 271/145
    0.500 294/176

    The dyno showed 430 hp at the flywheel.
    Last edited by Big Mach; 08-31-2009 at 02:42 PM.
    VIN 1F05M139343
    71 Mach 1 Ram-Air
    351C C4 trans
    Hans Olsson

  9. #9

    Default 4v heads

    We found that a bowl blend and short turn work did just fine
    .4 lift 268
    .5 lift 305
    .6 lift 310
    .7 lift 312

    The exhaust did need alittle more attention to get over 200 cfm
    at .500 lift, didnt get much over that 217 @.7 lift

    Mike

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Renton, Washington
    Posts
    4,892

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Jones View Post
    > stock 351c 4v quench heads vs ported

    Here's what Glen's 4V heads pulled:

    lift int exh
    .050 33.6 27.1
    .100 64.7 55.9
    .200 123.0 100.1
    .300 188.5 138.9
    .400 246.4 166.4
    .500 294.5 182.7
    .600 322.1 186.5
    .700 333.3 185.2

    Flowed at 10" and converted to 28", 2.19"/1.71" diameter valves, no intake
    manifold or exhaust pipe. Before porting the heads, Dave spoke with Jon
    Kaase who told him the best return for the effort on these heads was the
    short side radius. The only headwork done was the shortside radius,
    and a good valve job with a 30 degree back cut on the intake valves only.
    Dave did a second set later but the numbers weren't quite as good because
    there was less to work with (heads had several previous valve jobs).

    > does anyone have flow and /or dyno numbers comparing stock 351 cleveland
    > 4v quench heads to a ported version of same heads?

    Not yet but that is one of the tests planned for the list/forum/club 351C
    dyno program. BTW, I went to Fed-Ex yesterday and picked up the CHI 3V
    heads and Scott Cook intake for the dyno test. So I now have all the heads
    in hand. Still have one intake that I need to procure. Weather is supposed
    to be in the 50's Sunday so I'll strip the cast iron parts for paint then.

    > i'm in the pre-planning stage of rebuilding a spare 1970 cleveland with
    > these heads for my 71 pantera. i want to run a hydrolic roller cam that
    > would complement the holley strip dominator, 11:1 trw's, holley 750dbl
    > pumper w/mech secondaries that i already have. i'm hoping to make 425hp
    > at the flywheel. my pantera is 3000lbs. running a 4:22 rear w/overdrive
    > in 4th and 5th gears. what cam should i run in this engine? thanks for
    > the advice. joe c

    Joe, did you see my post on the dyno test we did on a 408 Cleveland stroker?
    That engine used a hydraulic roller cam and the best intake tested was the
    Strip Dominator. The cam specs were:

    Crane Cams grind number (custom): HR-232/352-2S-8
    Intake 232 deg duration @ 0.050" tappet lift
    294 deg duration @ 0.004" tappet lift.
    0.609" lift with 1.73:1 rocker ratio
    Exhaust 236 deg duration @ 0.050" tappet lift
    298 deg duration @ 0.004" tappet lift.
    0.621" lift with 1.73:1 rocker ratio
    108 degrees lobe separation, intake centerline 103 ATDC
    degreed in at 102.25 intake centerline with new chain
    (should lose about .5 to 1 degree once timing chain loosens up)

    In the 408C, that cam peak at 5600 RPM with the Strip Dominator and made
    about 50 HP more than your goal through mufflers on pump gas. In a 351C,
    you should peak at a higher RPM. Headers were Pantera GTS tri-y's (really
    4-into-1 with 2 1/4" tri-y collector). We lost 50 HP through the GTS
    mufflers but Magnaflows got nearly all of it back.

    Dan Jones

    Dan what intake you need?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Default

    > now you got me thinking of building a stroker! id like to take advantage
    > of those huge intake ports/valves with more cubic inches.

    The SCAT cast crank 408C kit is a pretty good deal.

    > if i wanted the peak hp at 6000 rpm, what changes to the cam shaft grind
    > would you suggest? [if i ran a stroker 408ci]

    Just add a bit of duration and better springs or perhaps just a set of Alex's
    Sherman roller lifters would do the trick. Glen's 5600 RPM peak means
    shifting at around 6100 RPM. The cam in my 407 should peak in the 6100+
    RPM range. It's a custom Crane hydraulic roller cam with specs of
    238/242 @ 0.050" (300/304 advertised), 0.621"/0.595" lift (with 1.7/1.6
    rockers), 110 LSA (went 110 due to EFI).

    > Dan what intake you need?

    We've got a pretty good selection of intakes now but I could use a Boss/HO
    351C intake (either spreadbore or Holley flange) to use as a baseline. Also
    any of the Australian intakes (Redline, TFC, Active, Torque Power) would be
    nice. I've got a couple of Funnelwebs (2V and 4V) and CHI 3V intakes (CHI
    single plane and Scott Cook 3V).

    Thanks,
    Dan Jones

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    North Olmsted, Ohio
    Posts
    625

    Default

    Dan, in the 408C with the .609/.621 lift, were there any valve clearance problems? What compression pistons were in that engine?

    I am planning on building a 393C with the Crane 529801 cam (.597/.609, 228*/232*@.050", LSA 112* I believe) and Blue Thunder dual plane intake for a street engine with 4V heads. This same set up and ported heads and STOCK 4V intake in a 383 magazine engine build was putting down near 500 numbers in both torque and HP at the flywheel. Of course with the shorter duration peak power came in sooner, and I believe the dual plane intake helps with flattening the torque curve as well. I am expecting the Blue Thunder dual plane to boost power and torque to the 500 numbers and maybe even just a little beyond (510ish). Would the SCAT cast crank be good for this on the street with trips to the track once or twice a year for fun?

    I am a Toolmaker with 11 years experience. Should bowl blending and a little shortside radius work be something I can handle myself with die grinder and abrasive rolls? Sounds simple enough and I've seen cut-a-ways of the Cleveland heads for water jacket location. I've been into cars and mechanics for 26 years, built a few engines, but haven't ported heads yet. If it's just cleaning up and blending I think I can handle that. I'm not building a race engine.


    Here's a place I usually use for reference for head flow...

    http://users.erols.com/srweiss/tablehdc.htm

    I don't know how accurate it is though.



    Speaking of Cleveland aftermarket intakes, have you seen the ProComp pathetic rip-off of the Parker Funnel Web intake on ebay yet? My god, even if you don't have an issue with ripping off someone else's work and copying and pasting what it says on their website into your ebay auction, at least put out something that looks like it will work! What a piece of crap. My daughter could make a better casting.


    Steve

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Default

    > Dan, in the 408C with the .609/.621 lift, were there any valve clearance
    > problems? What compression pistons were in that engine?

    Compression was 10:1. I don't believe Dave had to clearance the pistons for
    valve clearance but, if you don't already have the roller rockers, I would
    use 1.65:1 on the exhaust and 1.73:1 on the intake. That lift isn't needed
    on the exhaust side and it'll help the valve springs last. Compression was
    right around 10:1. Surprisingly, best timing was only 28 degrees.

    > I am planning on building a 393C with the Crane 529801 cam (.597/.609,
    > 228*/232*@.050", LSA 112* I believe) and Blue Thunder dual plane intake for
    > a street engine with 4V heads. This same set up and ported heads and STOCK 4V
    > intake in a 383 magazine engine build was putting down near 500 numbers in
    > both torque and HP at the flywheel.
    > Of course with the shorter duration peak power came in sooner

    If that engine had a similar compression ratio to ours, I don't believe it.
    Less cubic inches, less cam overlap, worse intake, worse lobe separation angle
    and lower RPM at HP peak does not equate to more power. No matter how well the
    heads were ported, the stock 4V intake will kill the induction flow. We pulled
    322 CFM at 0.6" lift on the heads but with the unported Ford intake bolted on,
    half the runners were down to 250 CFM. Porting the intake to bring the worst
    runners up to match the best made a big difference on the dyno. The ported
    Ford intake beat the unported Blue Thunder by 31 HP. The Blue Thunder made 437
    horsepower and 463 ft-lbs torque, at 5500 and 3900 RPM respectively. Adding a
    1" open spacer to the Blue Thunder helped the torque about 6 ft-lbs but
    horsepower stayed the same. The ported Ford intake made 468 HP at 5500 RPM
    and 486 lbs/ft at 4500 RPM. Both numbers were through the mufflers on 93
    octane premium from the local Mobil station. We also used Pantera headers
    which were not optimal (short primaries and small collector), though we did
    test a set of Hooker Comp Mustang headers and the Pantera headers were pretty
    close. Also, we limited spacer height to 1" for hood clearance reasons but
    still the magazine numbers don't add up. There are many ways to fudge the
    dyno results and magazines have been known to outright lie. Was the HP SAE
    corrected? How was the dyno calibrated? Did they test wath a carb bellmouth
    and electric water pump, etc.?

    Are you, perhaps, referring to the engine tested in the November 2004 issue of
    Muscle Mustangs And Fast Fords ("Thunder from Down Under")? That engine was a
    383 and they tested 4V heads with a stock cast iron 4V dual plane intake, along
    with a set of CHI 3V heads and matching single plane race intake. Engine build
    details were 4.030" bore, 3.75" stroke crank, Comp XE284 hydraulic flat tappet
    cam (240/246, 0.584"/0.588", 110 LSA), Holley 830HP carb, Hooker 1 7/8" long
    tube headers and Meziere electric water pump. 10:1 compression was claimed
    with the 64cc heads but I suspect the compression was higher. The photos show
    a flat top piston with a single large valve relief. With a 1/4 more stroke,
    the compression would have been higher. Despite having more cam duration, a
    higher peak RPM, electric waterpump, open headers etc. the 4V head and stock
    intake version of that engine made less power than we did (438 HP at 6000 RPM
    and 450 ft-lbs of torque at 4000 RPM). With CHI heads and intake, along with
    better valve springs they did top 500 HP (524 @ 6000 RPM).

    > and I believe the dual plane intake helps with flattening the torque curve
    > as well. I am expecting the Blue Thunder dual plane to boost power
    > and torque to the 500 numbers and maybe even just a little beyond (510ish).

    We tested Ford aluminum and Blue Thunder dual planes and Edelbrock Torker
    and Holley Strip Dominator single planes. Only the Ford intake was ported.
    The rest were unported. All were tried with 1" open and 4 hole spacers.
    The Holley Strip Dominator had a very flat torque curve and made the best
    peak power. The ported Ford dual plane had a couple of dips/peaks in it's
    torque curve which we think is due to the longer, more equal length, runners
    going into and out of resonance. All intakes made peak power within 100 RPM
    of each other. The Blue Thunder was the worst intake tested. Some time on
    the flow bench revealed why. Like the unported Ford intake, it had 4 bad
    runners and 4 good. We subsequently ported the Blue Thunder and it pulled
    better numbers on the flow bench than the ported Ford intake but we didn't
    get a chance to dyno test it. We will correct that on the next round of dyno
    testing.

    > Would the SCAT cast crank be good for this on the street with trips to the
    > track once or twice a year for fun?

    I would think it would be fine.

    > I am a Toolmaker with 11 years experience. Should bowl blending and a little
    > shortside radius work be something I can handle myself with die grinder and
    > abrasive rolls? Sounds simple enough and I've seen cut-a-ways of the Cleveland
    > heads for water jacket location. I've been into cars and mechanics for 26
    > years, built a few engines, but haven't ported heads yet. If it's just
    > cleaning up and blending I think I can handle that. I'm not building a race
    > engine.

    Dave McLain did the porting. I believe he only charged something like $150
    to port the heads and a similar amount for the intake so not a lot of time
    was involved. However he had the benefit of a flow bench to tell him where
    to spend the time. The trick was to make the short side turn as gentle (large
    a radius) as possible. The flow bench was particularly important on the intake
    manifold where the four runners that looked best were actually the worst
    flowing.

    > Speaking of Cleveland aftermarket intakes, have you seen the ProComp pathetic
    > rip-off of the Parker Funnel Web intake on ebay yet? My god, even if you don't
    > have an issue with ripping off someone else's work and copying and pasting
    > what it says on their website into your ebay auction, at least put out
    > something that looks like it will work! What a piece of crap. My daughter
    > could make a better casting.

    No I haven't seen one of those.

    Dan Jones

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Allen, TX
    Posts
    90

    Default Dyno, flow numbers

    I have some flow numbers from Kid Vishus, stock and my ported heads. My heads picked up another 20cfm at 0.700 (intake) and about 6 cfm (exhaust) after finish out porting at Keith Craft.
    Scroll to the bottom and click on the links:http://home.roadrunner.com/~flowmotion/

    As far as stock vs ported, the original motor used the Crane F246 cam and it made around 440HP at 6800 RPM with a Weiand intake.

    The new engine died at 7300 but made 553 HP @ 7300 with KV's Strip Dominator , a DaVinci 750, and a nasty Crower solid flat tappet (260/267 @ 0.050"), .670" lift IIRC.

    Other engine combos with stock heads are on my website as well.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    North Olmsted, Ohio
    Posts
    625

    Default

    Dan, thanks for all your insight.

    The first book I typed here got lost because the site was "too busy" it claims so I am typing this all over again. I need to bust something.


    I was right on the cam LSA, it is 112*. It is also a retro-fit roller. The 383 engine in the article I am referencing is not the same as the one you mentioned. I don't know when this one was done but it was done by Richard Holdener. The dyno was a DTS dyno. The carb was supposed to be a 750 but turned out to be a 950, which would raise the RPM for peak power and torque. They used a 1" spacer on the factory intake for clearance issues.

    Factory 4V heads, unported:
    432HP @ 5,700
    439TQ @ 4,000

    Boss 302 heads, ported (its what they had) 325/234 cfm
    486HP @ 5,900
    463TQ @ 4,800

    The above was with the factory intake. Compression was 10.1:1 static with 6" rods. Headers had 1 3/4" primaries. With a tunnel ram it made 523HP and 476TQ.


    At the Pantera Place website, in the article on intakes that you did you mention that the Blue Thunder was the best all around intake. Was this prior to the dyno testing or is that still your feeling. My 393 engine will be a street driver (not daily) with 4 speed manual, built for maximum fun on the roads, and I'm not building a race engine so I don't want to rev it over 6,000 for longevity. Should I be looking at a Holley Strip Dominator instead? I was hoping the dual plane of the Blue Thunder would be the ticket for me for a wide, flat torque curve. Your research seems to blur the line between the two though.

    I didn't realize porting was that reasonable. No need to bother doing it myself then. There's a local guy with 30 years experience and a great reputation as well as some records and awards, like the 2007 Car Craft Cleveland Dyno Challenge, among others over the years. He also has his own flow bench. I'm just not used to trusting others to execute my plans.


    I'd like to have over 450 in HP and/or torque. Close to 500 would be nice. The above results with the ported heads would be great. This is the last car I am building for myself, ever.


    Thanks again for all your insight.

    Steve

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Default

    > I was right on the cam LSA, it is 112*. It is also a retro-fit roller.

    I'd appreciate a copy of that article to study. I think Holdener wrote
    the article I referenced too.

    > The dyno was a DTS dyno.

    The dyno we used was thought to be 4% conservative based upon Dave's experience
    on the Engine Masters dynos. The data was SAE corrected.

    > The carb was supposed to be a 750 but turned out to be a 950, which would
    > raise the RPM for peak power and torque.

    The dyno carb we used was a Holley 950HP and we tested a 750DP.

    > The above was with the factory intake.

    They must have used a much better factory intake than we did. Our heads were
    322 CFM @ 0.6" but that flow simply wasn't available with the stock intake in
    place.

    > At the Pantera Place website, in the article on intakes that you did you
    > mention that the Blue Thunder was the best all around intake. Was this
    > prior to the dyno testing or is that still your feeling. My 393 engine
    > will be a street driver (not daily) with 4 speed manual, built for maximum
    > fun on the roads, and I'm not building a race engine so I don't want to rev
    > it over 6,000 for longevity. Should I be looking at a Holley Strip Dominator
    > instead? I was hoping the dual plane of the Blue Thunder would be the ticket
    > for me for a wide, flat torque curve. Your research seems to blur the line
    > between the two though.

    That was based upon the reputation among the Pantera crowd but the dyno
    testing did not agree. I imagine the extra 50 cubic inches makes a
    difference in the way the intakes behave. The Strip Dominator bested the
    unported Blue Thunder by 46 HP. Based upon the flow bench results, I'd
    expect the ported Blue Thunder would be a close match for the Strip
    Dominator.

    > I didn't realize porting was that reasonable.

    Usually, it is not. A full port job is much more expensive. This was a
    best bang-for-the-bucks approach. McLain discussed the build with Kaase
    who told him his experience was the biggest payoff on 351C-4V heads was
    from working the short side radius so the effor was limited to that
    area plus a good valve job (which was another $150 or so).

    Dan Jones

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    North Olmsted, Ohio
    Posts
    625

    Default

    You can see the copy of the article I am looking at if you are a member of the "351ClevelandsRock302C351C351BossHO400" group. It's in the files section. Let me know if you are not a member. I'll email it to you.


    I wasn't remembering the 50 cubes difference in the comparison of the Blue Thunder and Strip Dominator intakes. That could obviously produce a different result between a single and dual plane intake. 46 HP in stock form over the BT intake is amazing. Though it is a single plane, the Dominator does well for torque on the street with the larger stroker engines? I want to avoid a peaky power curve.


    If I had the money for CHI's I would get them, but due to the nature of my project car they don't fit into the budget.


    Of course for the street I'll be using a 750 DP.




    Steve

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Default

    > You can see the copy of the article I am looking at if you are a member of the
    > "351ClevelandsRock302C351C351BossHO400" group. It's in the files section. Let
    > me know if you are not a member. I'll email it to you.

    I wasn't aware of that group. I joined and downloaded the article, thanks!
    Looks like a low volume list but someone has put some time into uploading
    articles, links and tips.

    > Though it is a single plane, the Dominator does well for torque on the street
    > with the larger stroker engines? I want to avoid a peaky power curve.

    On the 408C, it had a smooth torque curve that should work well on the street.

    > Of course for the street I'll be using a 750 DP.

    Be prepared to do some tuning and run a spacer if you have room.

    Dan Jones

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    North Olmsted, Ohio
    Posts
    625

    Default

    There are some really sharp and experience/researched guys there. Dan Lee has done a lot of experimenting and even fabricated his own EFI on an intake designed for a carb. Lots of resources.


    Would you use a different size carb for a 393C for the street, or is the spacer just an additional fine tweak?


    Steve

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts