1980 Malibu vs. 2008 Mustang
- Thread starter patmckinneyracing
- Start date
- Status
Pat I think you are way off on your "peak torque" looking at the above dyno results for your cam in a 355 with 9.5 compression and Vortec heads (yours should be close if your heads have been "tweaked) and a 750cfm carb. From Lunati's site you are using the correct stall, but peak torque will be alot farther up the RPM range. It looks like your torque should be starting its climb where you stated. Also from what I have seen in the past the Desktop Dynos are usually WAY off from what an engine actually makes (on the high side). What my engine builder always says is "how often have you seen someone jump in and drive a desktop dyno". And your current cam will not make power as you stated the old one did at 7-8K rpms -- It falls flat on its face at about 6200 - look at the above chart.
I doubt my old cam was making more power but the car was still going faster lol. The old cam was a Summit k-1103 cam and I realized after I took my heads apart my dampener springs were in pieces from the camshaft before that. The original first cam this motor came with was an unknown Isky mega cam that was donated and put in without knowing any specs of it. Never do that again.
More information on this kids mustang. He showed up today where I work. I work at an O'reilly auto parts and he was telling one of the guys I know a bunch of info on the car. From the sound of his exhaust he has not done a cam swap, supposedly has a set of heads on it, and has a 100 shot of nitrous. He's claiming that he is making over 400hp at the flywheel and is probably putting 380 to the ground. Then he goes a step further by saying that this 100 shot of nitrous allows his motor to make 580hp. I also overheard him saying how he doesn't lay on the juice till about 30-40mph, which is why he has been trying to get me to race from a roll, because he knows that he has shitty gears and tires and if he tries to spray out of the hole, its not gonna do a thing for him.
This kid is definately the type that seems to exaggerate what he's got going on, not claiming that I haven't done the same before. But figure a 5.4 with supposed, but stock appearing, heads, stock camshaft, and a 100 shot of spray is not going to make 580hp. Only real thing he has going on is the fancy intake that has the tuneport look to it and probably has bigger injectors. But overall, it appears he has put more focus on the motor itself and has neglected the rest of the drivetrain and figuring out how to put the power to the ground.
So do any of you guys recommend going with a larger carb? I'm gonna try out my eddy 600 for a bit and see how it responds. Then I may try out the carter 750 or barry grant 750. Only issue with the barry grant is I'm missing that one piece that connects the primary flaps to the secondarys so they open simultaneously.
More information on this kids mustang. He showed up today where I work. I work at an O'reilly auto parts and he was telling one of the guys I know a bunch of info on the car. From the sound of his exhaust he has not done a cam swap, supposedly has a set of heads on it, and has a 100 shot of nitrous. He's claiming that he is making over 400hp at the flywheel and is probably putting 380 to the ground. Then he goes a step further by saying that this 100 shot of nitrous allows his motor to make 580hp. I also overheard him saying how he doesn't lay on the juice till about 30-40mph, which is why he has been trying to get me to race from a roll, because he knows that he has shitty gears and tires and if he tries to spray out of the hole, its not gonna do a thing for him.
This kid is definately the type that seems to exaggerate what he's got going on, not claiming that I haven't done the same before. But figure a 5.4 with supposed, but stock appearing, heads, stock camshaft, and a 100 shot of spray is not going to make 580hp. Only real thing he has going on is the fancy intake that has the tuneport look to it and probably has bigger injectors. But overall, it appears he has put more focus on the motor itself and has neglected the rest of the drivetrain and figuring out how to put the power to the ground.
So do any of you guys recommend going with a larger carb? I'm gonna try out my eddy 600 for a bit and see how it responds. Then I may try out the carter 750 or barry grant 750. Only issue with the barry grant is I'm missing that one piece that connects the primary flaps to the secondarys so they open simultaneously.
patmckinneyracing said:
Sounds more like an absolute minimum to me. Certainly not optimal IMO. I'd get a second opinion, but it should be OK ( but more would be better ).
Yes, with work, almost anything can be made to perform better. There are of course, much better alternatives, but since you did some work to them, I'm sure they're adaquate, though certainly not the best.
Making noise does not mean making power....
Virtual dynos mean virtually nothing. Your torque peak cannot be 2500 rpm unless you advanced the crap out of the cam and/or it's not optimally tuned for best performance.
What will you use to gauge this? What I see happening alot is, if your car is pretty quick ( even though it may not be tuned to peak perfection ), then one usually thinks everything's 100% fine. What they don't realize is they're leaving alot of power on the table. I'll bet even with the 600 carb, your car will be fast, but how do you know it won't be fastER with a bigger carb?
Correct....if you have a very mild build. You have an engine built for performance and to make it run hard you're gonna be winding it out. This requires good flow through the carb. The formula to determin best CFM works out to be a little over 600 CFM, and that assumes 100% VE and that formula has been proven many times to be VERY stingy.
Anyway, those are just my views.
I spoke with the designer of the Voodoo Series and some other of Lunati's cam. Spoke with him over on teamchevelleforum (UDHarold) and had several discussions with him over my setup. He said that the absolute minimum compression for this cam would be 9.0 with maximum recommended would be 9.5.
I said nothing about making noise meaning making power. I was referring to how easy it is to reach higher rpms with a steep gear and a 3 speed automatic. The car was continuing to accelerate, therefore it was still putting power to the ground.
As for figuring out the right carb, I suggested my method being trial and error. Try out the 600 and later try the 750 to see (rather feel) the differences between the carbs. The 882 heads I bought for $400 off ebay 5 years ago with all the work done and with the larger valves. I haven't put anymore money into them except to match up the valvetrain to the cam.
I really don't want to dump anymore money into this car because I'm preparing to start the stock restoration on my 71' roadrunner.
I said nothing about making noise meaning making power. I was referring to how easy it is to reach higher rpms with a steep gear and a 3 speed automatic. The car was continuing to accelerate, therefore it was still putting power to the ground.
As for figuring out the right carb, I suggested my method being trial and error. Try out the 600 and later try the 750 to see (rather feel) the differences between the carbs. The 882 heads I bought for $400 off ebay 5 years ago with all the work done and with the larger valves. I haven't put anymore money into them except to match up the valvetrain to the cam.
I really don't want to dump anymore money into this car because I'm preparing to start the stock restoration on my 71' roadrunner.
patmckinneyracing said:
I tried contacting Harold a while back but I never got through to him. I think I had an old email address. Do you have his current email address?
You said "I have pushed this motor, with a more mild cam and the same carb, to 7500-8000 rpm on the highway (easy to do with 3.73's and a th350) and the motor was still make power." When people say that, they are usually implying their car was still pulling hard at that RPM, not that they could just simply attain that RPM. Within reason, a car will always continue to accelerate, it's just that the level of acceleration drops off significantly after a certain time. So it sounded to me like you were saying your car was still 'pulling hard' at 8000 rpm, when it was obvious that couldn't have been the case.
Yeah it definately wasn't pulling hard at all. At the same time I forgot I had a cast crank, thought I had forged lol. Looked at my old crank when I took the motor apart and the front journal had about .020 or more worth of damage.
But now its got a forged crank so that problem is solved.
And sorry I don't have Harold's email address. I always posted my cam questions on teamchevelle.com with Harold's name in the title so it gets his attention.
But now its got a forged crank so that problem is solved.
And sorry I don't have Harold's email address. I always posted my cam questions on teamchevelle.com with Harold's name in the title so it gets his attention.
Is there any proof that the engine is even a 5.4L :?: Will he let people look under the hood :?: A 5.4L is an OHC engine, is his single or Dual OHC :?:
My bet is that he has a 4.6L with an aftermarket intake and the 100hp shot. He probably has the stock injectors and throttle body. I am not too sure how cam swaps work with OHC engines. I would assume they are simple, since they would be under the valve covers. If he has 400hp at the crank, he isn't putting 380hp to the rear wheels :?
My bet is that he has a 4.6L with an aftermarket intake and the 100hp shot. He probably has the stock injectors and throttle body. I am not too sure how cam swaps work with OHC engines. I would assume they are simple, since they would be under the valve covers. If he has 400hp at the crank, he isn't putting 380hp to the rear wheels :?
- Status
Similar threads
