How much rwHP??

[petrey10]

List of Mods:
Ported and Polished Upper Intake
" '' Lower Intake
'' ''' Heads---BV heads + .600 lift 820 flow: 244@550 lift intake, 156@550 exhaust
1.73 Roller Rockers
'' ''' Throttle Body
CAI
Cam284/224 .519 lift 110 centerline
Long Tube Headers
Off Road H-pipe
Gt style Dual Exhaust
A tune from Justin

Thats all the parts I still have to put on my stang and I was just wondering how much rwHP you think I will be pumping out?? SHould I get some underdrive pullies?? How will the transmission handle this power?? Thanks

[Monkey]

what year car? what kind of tranny (auto, manual)? what are the specs on the cam?

underdrive pulleys = no. waste of money (ESPECIALLY on a 99+)

[I_luv_HP&trq]

out of that list the p&p intakes and heads along with the exhaust will be the most benneficial imo. also depends on the cam, you may lose low end hp and trq but get it in the higher range depending on the degree.... the guy at redline performance said i could net 10rwhp with an intake package.
if you're a 99+ i'd say you could be putting down 200 rwhp or more with a bad ass tune.:dunno:

are the heads aftermarket or are they just stock that have been p&p? if you have some big ass valves then that makes a difference too. hard to estimate without knowing the little details.

[SpectorV]

35-65rwhp/tq .... lol nice wide range for ya, need more info on all of it to get closer. How well ported, cam specs, what year car, what tranny, etc etc

[petrey10]

its a 2000 V6 Automatic.....I also updated the head, cam, and rr's in my previous messege...thanks

[SpectorV]

i dont see motor builds that dont stroke their motor doing much over 225-235rwhp~ and you having an auto severly hurts your put put so you will be looking at another 6-7.5% loss in power over that~

[Monkey]

145rwhp stock 99+ auto
+ mods
= 215rwhp auto

[slvr2000stang]

Quote: Originally Posted by petrey10 Cam284/224 .519 lift 110 centerline

Are you sure about this?? 284/224 ????

[petrey10]

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a24/petrey10/bn.jpg


thats how I took it...look at it for yourself...why what is wrong with that??

[RGR]

284 is advertised duration, and 224 is the .050" duration...

Both are way big for an auto SPI car with stock runner intakes.
I assume you got your parts used???

Sell your cam to a single port guy and get a cam like Silver is getting...
If you can sell the cam I will spec you out one and you can get it direct
from Comp Cams. BV heads are usually overkill for most 3.8 builds
anyway, but you can work with them.

[GT-Eater]

Hey RGR just for grins ,I am building a 4.3 stroker 9.5 C/R having custom 8mm valves made ,the valves will be 1.55 /1.94 stainless ,dual springs ,stud mounted rockers ,with pushrod guide plates the rockers are 1.70 What cam would you recommend ? this is in the neighborhood of what I'm thinking 226/238 112 lobe sep .58 lift on the intake .60 on the exhaust .

[RGR]

Quote: Originally Posted by GT-Eater Hey RGR just for grins ,I am building a 4.3 stroker 9.5 C/R having custom 8mm valves made ,the valves will be 1.55 /1.94 stainless ,dual springs ,stud mounted rockers ,with pushrod guide plates the rockers are 1.70 What cam would you recommend ? this is in the neighborhood of what I'm thinking 226/238 112 lobe sep .58 lift on the intake .60 on the exhaust .

Sounds pretty close for a boosted application, I could not be more specific
w/o doing a cam form, and I would hope those big durations are being used
with a short runner upper like your SSX I like the lift ranges on the cam!

1 Question, why go to 8mm valves? You can get Manley race valves in those
sizes w/7mm stems, and there are also beehives available that will handle those
lifts and high RPM's also. BeeHives > Doubles, IMO.

[GT-Eater]

Quote: Originally Posted by RGR Sounds pretty close for a boosted application, I could not be more specific w/o doing a cam form, and I would hope those big durations are being used with a short runner upper like your SSX I like the lift ranges on the cam! 1 Question, why go to 8mm valves? You can get Manley race valves in those sizes w/7mm stems, and there are also beehives available that will handle those lifts and high RPM's also. BeeHives > Doubles, IMO.

Behives better ? I don't agree when you get a high
boosted application that boost is trying to push the valve open on top of the
of the high rpm that I will be turning at the trap I need a better spring rate
than beehive could provide the so I am going 8mm because that opens up a whole new world of spring choices .Plus I was told by comp I could not use 918's or 921's when using solid roller lifters.

[RGR]

Quote: Originally Posted by GT-Eater Behives better ? I don't agree when you get a high boosted application that boost is trying to push the valve open on top of the of the high rpm that I will be turning at the trap I need a better spring rate than beehive could provide the so I am going 8mm because that opens up a whole new world of spring choices .Plus I was told by comp I could not use 918's or 921's when using solid roller lifters.

There are only a couple of BH springs out there that can handle the
boost and RPM and I think you are saying that one of the ones I
thought of is the 921, so that only leaves the 1 other non-Comp spring.

I'd stick with what they say, but Keith Groves (@ COMP) indicated to me
they have solid roller-compatible beehives. That being said I'd use the
package that they are recommending. Sounds like a killer setup!

Which family of roller profiles are you using? I have a Comp catalog
and those solids are very appealing if one can use them and
apparently you can...

[GT-Eater]

Actually I am getting the dual springs from their compeditor ,the cam and lifters from comp (Billet)

[GT-Eater]

Quote: Originally Posted by RGR There are only a couple of BH springs out there that can handle the boost and RPM and I think you are saying that one of the ones I thought of is the 921, so that only leaves the 1 other non-Comp spring. I'd stick with what they say, but Keith Groves (@ COMP) indicated to me they have solid roller-compatible beehives. That being said I'd use the package that they are recommending. Sounds like a killer setup! Which family of roller profiles are you using? I have a Comp catalog and those solids are very appealing if one can use them and apparently you can...

I guess you are refering to the Nascar Springs that they use for restrictor
plate engines ,they are 7mm too.

[RGR]

Quote: Originally Posted by GT-Eater I guess you are refering to the Nascar Springs that they use for restrictor plate engines ,they are 7mm too.

I believe so, KG said they can also run those to within .030"
of spring stack (bind) and get rock-solid valvetrain motion,
but then the springs are basically totally shot after the 5-600
mile races. I have no part #'s for those (Nascar) springs but
I bet they are really expensive!

[RGR]

PS: are you using the SSX upper on this new project?

[GT-Eater]

Yeah It was on the old 3.8 .Going to run it on the new 4.3 stroker with a T-trim this time

[RGR]

Quote: Originally Posted by GT-Eater Yeah It was on the old 3.8 .Going to run it on the new 4.3 stroker with a T-trim this time

I'd love to see some NA numbers on that hog

Especially on the new 4.3!

Any chance of that?

[GT-Eater]

Quote: Originally Posted by RGR I'd love to see some NA numbers on that hog Especially on the new 4.3! Any chance of that?

No I will have the new procharger F-1 on it when I go to dyno ,but you can fiqure about 280ish .N/A

[RGR]

...if not a bit more

Or maybe a bit less due to the lower CR.
What I'm interested in is the torque curve
it generates on the bigger engines. Should
be a narrower torque "band" due to shorter
and closer lengths (between long and short)
but the blower will fix all that. You might ask
the dyno op. if there is a quick way to test it
in NA mode...

[white95v6]

well i could take off the blower belt. and do a N/A tune. but dang more work. and i am also kinda interested in N/A #s. but not that interested.

also i am kinda glad i had N/A #s from my car. and then also Turbo #s. i know i changed the intake and a few other small things.

[GT-Eater]

Yeah considering we have to start from scratch again with this new blower
I think that would be a major time consuming ordeal .

[white95v6]

well it would not kill us. just take out alot of fuel. lol and put in alot of timing. make a pull. take out more fuel. make a pull take out more fuel. lol.

put blower belt on. take out timing. add as much fuel as we can.

[petrey10]

can you guys help me with the specs of the cam I posted earlier in this discussion

[white95v6]

Quote: Originally Posted by petrey10 can you guys help me with the specs of the cam I posted earlier in this discussion

it has too much duration for such a mild combo and not enough lift.

[petrey10]

what is that going to do to my numbers??

[petrey10]

my heads are BV heads with 820 flow so there will be a lot of air flowing thru

[white95v6]

ok it will hurt some Low end tq. and make ok high rpm power. but over all its a bad cam for your set up.

and trust me your heads do not flow 820cfm.

[RGR]

Quote: Originally Posted by white95v6 ok it will hurt some Low end tq. and make ok high rpm power. but over all its a bad cam for your set up. and trust me your heads do not flow 820cfm.

I gotta go 100% w/Matt on this one, the cam is low on lift and
long on duration for most 3.8's and assuming you have a Single
Port, I'd suggest a rebuilt shortblock with higher compression
then the duration could work well. But still short on lift and the
advertised duration (284) is weak, as in too big. A 224 (@ .050")
cam with 273 to 279-ish advertised is much better, it will perform
much snappier on the bottom end. BV heads could use a 224 cam
but also need more lift since the heads continue to flow up to .600"
lift anyway. I'd like to see at least a 10:1 CR with a cam that size
and maybe more. A guy with an RPM setup similar to yours made
great HP/TQ with a 215* cam and a 10.5:1 CR using Ross forged pistons.
Matt did very well using a 218* cam pre-boost so the single port can
do well with smaller cams than a 224*. That size cam kinda calls for a
shortened runner upper, but probably not as short an SSX if you stay
NA. I'd probably use a 230* cam for that bad boy, and/or boost. It is
a very fine piece (the SSX) with the right combo of parts. Might be a
little wild for your setup.

[white95v6]

blah. that little 218 cam was soo weak. lol. it realy needed a cam like i am currently putting in. it should perform real well.

[RGR]

Quote: Originally Posted by white95v6 blah. that little 218 cam was soo weak. lol. it realy needed a cam like i am currently putting in. it should perform real well.

OK, spill it Matt! At least let us know the intake duration

[GT-Eater]

Quote: Originally Posted by RGR ...if not a bit more Or maybe a bit less due to the lower CR. What I'm interested in is the torque curve it generates on the bigger engines. Should be a narrower torque "band" due to shorter and closer lengths (between long and short) but the blower will fix all that. You might ask the dyno op. if there is a quick way to test it in NA mode...

Higher compression with this engine and much better flow with Bigger intake valves.

[GT-Eater]

Quote: Originally Posted by RGR I'd love to see some NA numbers on that hog Especially on the new 4.3! Any chance of that?

The numbers would be fun to look at ,but the numbers would also be somewhat scewed because the cam will be set up for a high CFM blower ,not N/A.