Gas Small Block with C Heads BTR Build
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,991
From: Vancouver BC
Gas Small Block with C Heads BTR Build
BTR build using Mark's 4" stroke crank and C heads.
Gas block ,victor intake, 4.125 bore
This was posted on Facebook
Last edited by Bernhard; Oct 8, 2022 at 06:47 AM.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,991
From: Vancouver BC
I thought the numbers were quite good given the mildly ported cast iron C heads and small camshaft. Very nice street engine with those TQ numbers.
Last edited by Bernhard; Oct 7, 2022 at 07:53 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,883
From: Mt.Ary, MD
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 8,496
From: Central Fl
Lol!!
A post was done earlier about a guy (Peter) that used one of my Stroker kits. His Dyno sheet showed 552hp and 592tq corrected.
The combination was a 434, 10.5:1, 227/233@.050 cam, ported small block irons, RPM Intake and an 830 carb. I argued that based on my own experience his numbers were unrealistic. A couple of people said no.
A post was done earlier about a guy (Peter) that used one of my Stroker kits. His Dyno sheet showed 552hp and 592tq corrected.
The combination was a 434, 10.5:1, 227/233@.050 cam, ported small block irons, RPM Intake and an 830 carb. I argued that based on my own experience his numbers were unrealistic. A couple of people said no.
Last edited by cutlassefi; Oct 8, 2022 at 04:29 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 8,496
From: Central Fl
BUT I don’t know where he degreed the cam etc. and it looked like Bill took a fair amount of material out of the flange area of the intake. That COULD effect low end tq.
Bottom line is his customer is happy and that’s all that matters.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,991
From: Vancouver BC
I agree. It’s just that I personally haven’t had one make less than 500tq with any of the half dozen configurations I’ve done.
BUT I don’t know where he degreed the cam etc. and it looked like Bill took a fair amount of material out of the flange area of the intake. That COULD effect low end tq.
Bottom line is his customer is happy and that’s all that matters.
BUT I don’t know where he degreed the cam etc. and it looked like Bill took a fair amount of material out of the flange area of the intake. That COULD effect low end tq.
Bottom line is his customer is happy and that’s all that matters.
Mark have you built any using the factory small or big block cast iron head?
Last edited by Bernhard; Oct 8, 2022 at 07:07 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 8,496
From: Central Fl
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,991
From: Vancouver BC
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 8,496
From: Central Fl
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 8,496
From: Central Fl
I’ll bet it’s not..You ALWAYS throw out the first and last numbers. Always.
I’d say max tq was 489, Notice how that number is predominant after the start of the pull. That’s most likely your peak, especially with peak hp coming in at 6500..
I’d say max tq was 489, Notice how that number is predominant after the start of the pull. That’s most likely your peak, especially with peak hp coming in at 6500..
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 8,496
From: Central Fl
And when he didn’t comply, and/or mentions that his customer isn’t going to race it either, you’d settle for that? There are many on here, including me, that don’t believe that for one second.
Last edited by cutlassefi; Oct 9, 2022 at 05:04 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,878
From: Thousand Oaks Ca
Either he will post the whole dyno test or he won't. And feel free to forward my questions to where ever this test is posted.
1. RPM at which HP peak is derived at. Why is it much higher than yours with the same crank and big cam?
2. Why is it using only 194 lbs of fuel at peak HP?
The HP in this test seems very reasonable, the RPM at which power is derived at leads me to ask more questions.
1. RPM at which HP peak is derived at. Why is it much higher than yours with the same crank and big cam?
2. Why is it using only 194 lbs of fuel at peak HP?
The HP in this test seems very reasonable, the RPM at which power is derived at leads me to ask more questions.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 8,496
From: Central Fl
You seem to critique a lot of these. Why don’t you build some of these same combinations yourself instead of just sitting on the sidelines and throwing stones? Or better yet, just move on.
Last edited by cutlassefi; Oct 9, 2022 at 08:51 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,934
Im not seeing it here
Last edited by CANADIANOLDS; Oct 9, 2022 at 02:56 PM.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,991
From: Vancouver BC
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,991
From: Vancouver BC
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,934
I agree. It’s just that I personally haven’t had one make less than 500tq with any of the half dozen configurations I’ve done.
BUT I don’t know where he degreed the cam etc. and it looked like Bill took a fair amount of material out of the flange area of the intake. That COULD effect low end tq.
Bottom line is his customer is happy and that’s all that matters.
BUT I don’t know where he degreed the cam etc. and it looked like Bill took a fair amount of material out of the flange area of the intake. That COULD effect low end tq.
Bottom line is his customer is happy and that’s all that matters.
Let’s see….one will do
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,878
From: Thousand Oaks Ca
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 8,496
From: Central Fl
Quite frankly I thought it would be at least a bit more, especially due to the fairly high compression ratio. But I also mentioned that I didn’t know where the cam was degreed as well as the amount of material removed from the intake flange area. But that’s why we do different builds right, to see what the results will be?
Note; I also asked about the peak numbers going from 509 to 507 to 511, just curious. Scotty G’s response was;
“The dyno is cantankerous like it’s operator 😳”
Thanks.
Last edited by cutlassefi; Oct 10, 2022 at 07:22 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,934
im not talking about how accurate the numbers …I’m talking about the facts of life
Last edited by CANADIANOLDS; Oct 10, 2022 at 08:21 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,934
Nope, you?
Quite frankly I thought it would be at least a bit more, especially due to the fairly high compression ratio. But I also mentioned that I didn’t know where the cam was degreed as well as the amount of material removed from the intake flange area. But that’s why we do different builds right, to see what the results will be?
Note; I also asked about the peak numbers going from 509 to 507 to 511, just curious. Scotty G’s response was;
“The dyno is cantankerous like it’s operator 😳”
Thanks.
Quite frankly I thought it would be at least a bit more, especially due to the fairly high compression ratio. But I also mentioned that I didn’t know where the cam was degreed as well as the amount of material removed from the intake flange area. But that’s why we do different builds right, to see what the results will be?
Note; I also asked about the peak numbers going from 509 to 507 to 511, just curious. Scotty G’s response was;
“The dyno is cantankerous like it’s operator 😳”
Thanks.
comparing low end TQ of a dual plane to a Victor isn’t similar either then is it?
and yes, I have done builds with irons and a Victor, both small blocks and big blocks
