Mission: You Wanna What? [LOL]
Printed From: CorrectCraftFan.com
Category: General Correct Craft Discussion
Forum Name: General Discussion
Forum Discription: Anything Correct Craft
URL: http://www.CorrectCraftFan.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28781
Printed Date: May-04-2024 at 5:33pm
Topic: Mission: You Wanna What? [LOL]
Posted By: Tonali_III
Subject: Mission: You Wanna What? [LOL]
Date Posted: January-18-2013 at 9:37pm
|
The Mission: Build a 500cid engine making 500hp using a Chrysler 440 as a starting point. The engine must produce 500hp reliably and at at a usable RPM AND require minimum to moderate maintenance to maintain tune while maintaining C.O.O.L. factor. Equipment: Chrysler M440B block; 440 Source 500cid Stroker Kit; 440 Source Stealth bare cylinder heads; CH-28 Intake + Carter AFB carbs; or Hilborn Mechanical Fuel Injection Procedure: Performance Arcing Engines in Bethalto, IL will machine M440B block to accept Stroker kit. Additionally, Stealth heads will be port matched to Glenwood Aluminum Exhaust logs and Edelbrock CH-28 or Hilborn Mechanical Fuel Injection; camshaft will be custom ground per performance Racing Specs Budget: What's that? Installation: 1974 Correct Craft Southwind 20 Purpose: to determine if it can be done as specified. As always hould you or any of your I.M. Force be caught or killed, the secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions. This message will self-destruct (?) in five seconds. Good Luck! ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Replies:
Posted By: kapla
Date Posted: January-19-2013 at 12:07am
  ------------- <a href="">1992 ski nautique |
Posted By: 74Wind
Date Posted: January-19-2013 at 12:10am
|
Go Chrysler! My 75 Century MKII has a Chrysler 360 and my friend has a 440 in his 72 Century Coronado. Unstoppable engines, do it up! ------------- 1974 Southwind 18 1975 Century Mark II |
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: January-19-2013 at 12:27am
|
Righty or lefty? ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-19-2013 at 12:28am
|
Oh the raw material is here. I just need to sell off a few extra pieces that I don't need. Then we are a go! ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-19-2013 at 12:29am
|
For the sake of ease of building...lefty. Not my first choice, but it does simplify the build. ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: January-19-2013 at 2:20pm
|
You're talking about a 500hp $$$$ build and you're not considering going roller? I'd question that logic. Do it for reliability alone, if not for performance (though you'd get both). I'd go roller and I'd go RH to preserve proper handling, especially if the cost difference isn't huge. (I actually did just that with our 454 and the cost difference was substantial). Dont forget about all the other components youd be changing if you switch rotation. The v-hulls handle hp pretty well. A vintage 440 stroker sounds pretty cool. ------------- |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: January-19-2013 at 2:30pm
|
I like you!!! 440 Source makes some nice stroker kits! I'm not sure about the heads. Indy is usually the clear winner in the Big Block Chrysler world as far as heads go. I agree totally with Tim on the roller for power and reliability. Plus you said budget?? What is that??? What is your target peak output RPM? Mopar boats rock.... ------------- |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: January-19-2013 at 2:34pm
Put a cross ram on it. Paint it orange and put Ramcharger 426 decals on the valve covers ;). Making 500 ponies in a big block stock CID Iron head motor is pretty easy let alone a stroker with better heads. Max wedge guys do it all day long with stock exhaust manifolds. With a good flowing aftermarket head and induction setup you should be able to achieve those numbers at pretty conservative RPM and and conservative camshaft.  ------------- |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: January-19-2013 at 2:46pm
|
http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php?topic=64073.0%20" rel="nofollow - 440 Build Just as a reference. Check out the guys tow rig for that Daytona at the bottom. I have seen it lots of times at the Mopar shows. ------------- |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-19-2013 at 4:03pm
Forgive my neglect, Gordon at Performance Engines had mentioned that we would be using a Roller Hydraulic cam in this application. As for going RH, the cost id immense. The cam alone would be custom manufactured by LSM Engineering and would be approximately $2,000.00. I am looking at rotating the front pump to go LH (I have the Paragon Transmission from the engine and I am looking into do a performance rebuild on it.) And I will need a LH prop at about 13X14 or so. We will definitely be playing with propellers once we get it dialed in on a dyno. ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
TRBenj wrote:Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-19-2013 at 4:05pm
I am figuring RPM around 6,500 or so. I don't want to get too crazy or else I would sacrifice too much low end torque and I won't be able to get the boat on top of the water from a dead stop. I considered Indy heads, but the Stealth are more cost effective and the numbers look as good as Indy...at least on paper. ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: peter1234
Date Posted: January-19-2013 at 4:10pm
|
the only downside i see is that keer reer reer sound it will make starting ------------- former skylark owner now a formula but I cant let this place go |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-19-2013 at 4:10pm
I considered a Cross Ram. However, the Cross Ram intake only fit Max Wedge heads. Also, there are flow problems with Cross Ram intakes that are inherent with the design. With a cross ram you are trying to get tunnel ram effect while keeping everything a secret under the hood. I have checked out the numbers on the old Edelbrock STR series. They are pretty, but troublesome. That is why Edelbrock dropped the STR series. But they do look cool though. ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-19-2013 at 4:11pm
Yeah, it will remind me of the old '69 Charger I had when I was a kid. ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: January-19-2013 at 7:47pm
|
They will fit any bb Chrysler head.. ------------- |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-20-2013 at 12:47am
MMM, I don't know. According to the Mopar catalog: http://www.mopar.com/assets/pdf/performance/catalog/Big_Block.pdf" rel="nofollow - Mopar Performance Catalog (see P. 56) These Cross Ram Intakes require the use of Max Wedge Cylinder Heads. And still the very nature of an underhood tunnel ram, the RPM numbers (3,500 - 7,500) don't fit a marine pleasure boat profile well as it it designed for the Super Stock Drag Racing world. Also, there are fixes for the system: http://www.forbbodiesonly.com/moparforum/showthread.php?15952-STR-14-Edelbrock-Direct-Connection-Modifications" rel="nofollow - STR 14 Box Flow Dam Fixes The STR 14-6 looks way COOL, but it has its own little problems: http://www.forbbodiesonly.com/moparforum/showthread.php?42637-Edelbrock-STR14-6-installation-or" rel="nofollow - Str 14-6 In the end, the headache of a Cross Ram in a marine application introduces too many variables that are easily avoided and handled by going dual quad high rise or Hilborn Injection. And I am not sure about Hilborn Injection. I still have a call in to them about my application. ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-20-2013 at 12:55am
Just checked out your YouTube videos. Impressive boat, Pete. ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-20-2013 at 1:01am
Impressive build Zach. Are part of the MidAmerica guys I used to see at the St. Louis Boat Show a few years back? I remember showing up wearing my N.O.A. T-shirt and hat and received the Royal treatment. They knew I was serious. ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-20-2013 at 1:06am
|
Zach, Boy I need to stay informed more. I just found that the Angola store was sold off to N3 where you work. The CC "old school" dealers are really starting to go away. Shame!  I lot of good talent is disappearing into the night. ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: January-20-2013 at 1:09am
|
The only difference in max wedge heads were the closed combustion chamber like the 1967 440 hp heads only availiable on the gtx and rt. ports remained unchanged. The crossram will produce power. You could produce 500 with that stroker kit below 6000 rpm.. ------------- |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: January-20-2013 at 1:10am
|
I'm trying to stay old school !!!! ------------- |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-20-2013 at 1:14am
I thought the intake mounts were a little different and the ports didn't quite match up. What about width? Will a Cross Ram fit under a CC doghouse lid? I can custom fab a doghouse if I need to (I will need to if I go Hilborn.). Would you go Mopar Performance Cross Ram or Edelbrock STR14? ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: January-20-2013 at 10:27am
|
If you're thinking of that eddy manifold why not go with a traditional 6 pack set up. That is a dual plane intake that makes wonderful low end power and pulls hard to 6500. You'll also have more than enough cfm coming at 1350. Plus you can putt around on the middle mechanical carb and when it's go time the outter vacuum carbs will come in to play. ------------- |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: January-20-2013 at 11:00am
|
Tony, Listen to Zach's suggestions. He has been around the Mopar's for a long time. He is the #1 member on site with the Mopar knowledge. ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: January-20-2013 at 11:17am
Zach, What marine rated 2 barrels would you recommend? ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: January-20-2013 at 11:27am
|
Thanks Pete!! Tony I also think you are a little to scared of the cross ram power producing rpm. They aren't quite as high strung as you might think. Keep in mind the super stock cars in stock configuration were being shifted around 5800-6000. And going through the traps. At 6500 depending on factory gears. The earlier engines had as much as 13.5 to 1 comp. the factory camshaft was very conservative. The factory max wedge exhaust manifolds were like headers in that they had longer tubes and were designed to scavenge cylinders. With an aggressive camshaft swap they took full advantage of the header like manifolds and power output would go up drastically. With your big inch stroker and good head flow I think it will be easily possible to more than eclipse your 500 number well before the 6000 rpm mark. I also think that the proven 6 bbl application would be your best choice. But a big block with a cross ram would be soooo cool. Can you get flow bench data from 440 source on those heads to aid in camshaft selection?? http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=wbVmRnpA0Ho&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DwbVmRnpA0Ho" rel="nofollow - 440 cross ram Pete, that's another thing I was going mention is I'm not sure there is a marine rated 6 bbl carburetion that would work. The cross ram would probably be easier to tune. 6 pack cars are quirky so most people just but bran new carbs instead of rebuilding. ------------- |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: January-20-2013 at 11:54am
|
http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php?topic=43911.0" rel="nofollow - Read this build Basically the same heads and stroker kit you are wanting to use. That motor is a serious low rpm power producer. ------------- |
Posted By: Riley
Date Posted: January-20-2013 at 12:03pm
| How many vintage engines actually have marine carbs? |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-20-2013 at 12:22pm
Thanks, Zach. Actually a 6 pack was the first candidate. I was at the Marine Engine site and found that the 6 pack marine carbs were a rather...RARE animal. And converting a standard street 6 carb was way more liability than a shop wanted to accept. Tha's why I decided on dual quads. Tell me more about this Cross Ram to Wedge Head setup. I have always been told that it was a mismatch. Contrary to the unspoken comments, I am very interested in learning as much as possible about this. I do a lot of research before I plunge into a project, and continue that research as the project progresses. And, yes, I can be trained. I have a few past flight instructors that all agree. ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-20-2013 at 12:25pm
Anyone who has not had a fire yet. AND is willing to risk having one. ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-20-2013 at 12:33pm
|
Zach, My experience with an Edelbrock STR series is with the STR 10. We were looking for an intake for our small block (L84, 365hp, 327cid) modified door slammer drag car. We started with a 1973 Chevy Nova, put it on an acetylene diet, and built a 1964(?) L84. My partner was tempted with the STR 10 during a visit to our local speed shop (Platzbecker Speed Shop). He knew his wife was going to kill him. He bought it. We spent the next few months trying to get this thing dialed in. (We did not have access to a dyno back then.) No matter what we did, we could not get that STR 10 to perform as well as a single four barrel. After I moved to St Louis, I discovered my partner finally got the car into the low 11's. But not after a lot of work, research, and cussing(if i know Mike, ALOT of cussing )Unfortunately, I have a jaded attitude toward the Cross Ram intake. ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-20-2013 at 12:38pm
Jeez, she sounds Swwweeeeet! Can't get enough of that sound! ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-20-2013 at 12:53pm
Perfect!!! This is exactly the starting point I needed!!! Thanks, Zach!!! Thanks! Thanks! Thanks! You just made the "Must Consult" List with Woody and Art Cozier. ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: oldcuda
Date Posted: January-20-2013 at 3:03pm
| I was curious if a Hurth reversing trans would help/solve the handling issues with a lefty.Plus with the down angle you can get more under the hood.Tim is right roller all the way I think.The money you save on a reg roller for a 440 would buy most of trans.I am still kicking around putting dual quads on my 511 BBC just love multi carbs and the budget is totally out the window why stop now. |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: January-20-2013 at 3:37pm
Bruce, Yes, I don't think it wasn't until the early 70's when I seem to remember the carbs being marine rated. ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: January-20-2013 at 3:44pm
|
I have a bunch of 1.23 transmissions at the shop. Don't know if you could mate one up to the 440. Press your own j tubes into the Holley 2 bbl. demon makes six pack set ups. Might check if they offer those in uscga. I love the speed demon on my car. ------------- |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: January-20-2013 at 3:47pm
This may get complicated due to having to swing a larger diameter prop. Strut? Log? Shaft? Same goes for the ZF. ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: January-20-2013 at 3:56pm
|
You'll shoot your eye out... It will be interesting to see how those 440 source heads work, they are at a price point where I would find them preferable to putting any money into stock heads for an upcoming RB build I have planned. I would tend towards the dual quad setup as that was a common chyrsler marine offering on the RB's. Left vs Right certainly effects resale and cool factor, but does also increase the degree of difficulty somewhat. What transmission is on there now? Is it really a paragon? I would expect a borg warner 72 series back there, which would of course be usable after rotating the pump. As for handling on that barge.. don't know that I would bother switching just for handling purposes, maybe a little less lean but it would be a stretch to be too worried about it. I dont think the pcm trans would be worth the effort either, it would likely survive but the gear reduction combined with the torque the engine could produce would be pushing the limits of a 1 inch drive shaft.. so you just start throwing money at the thing and youll find your prop choices arent that plentiful either. Roller cam is a no brainer.. remove any ideas or worry about getting it out of the water because you have a "top end" engine/cam/intake. Trying for a stump puller is the road to wasted money. Its a boat, by its very nature it takes less torque to move through the water at lower speeds than higher speeds, combine that with it being a big block stroker and there is no chance your are going to end up with a hole shot that is anything less than spectacularly improved over what it is now. What are your thoughts for ignition? ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: oldcuda
Date Posted: January-20-2013 at 5:01pm
| Had a stock 440 in a 56 Chris Continental 23 ft with a 16x16 3 blade and it would effertlessly jump right on plane even with six aboard.72c 1:1 thought it was going to be too much prop but the 440 had plenty of low end power.That drive line ended up in a 1927 22ft Chris tripple(sorry purists)owner was tired of putting head gaskets on original Chrysler Crown.Boat had a 3/4in epoxy bottom and was reinforced still there today as far as I know 20 years later. |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: January-20-2013 at 6:52pm
|
What joe said. I'd be surprised if the rh roller was $500 more than a lh roller conversion, especially once you consider all of the other components that would need to change on your current rh engine. ------------- |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-20-2013 at 6:56pm
Zach, I talked to a Holley TEch guy and he told that the 2300 series marine carb is a different animal. Not just the 'J' tubes and jetting, but the passages internally are different. He would sell me rebuild kits for the marine carbs(if I could come up with numbers...I did ), but as for setting an automotive 2300 up for marine, he recommended against it.So, are there REALLY any differences internally between these carbs, besides the centermount and the front/rear mount? ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-20-2013 at 7:03pm
Tim, The problem is with the blank. I ordered a cam from Lunati a while back and slipped in my RH 440. The oil drive gear is cut on a different bias and if you set the cams side by side, it's like they're in a mirror. Unfortunately, there are no rh blanks available. ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: January-20-2013 at 7:12pm
|
I realize that, it's a common problem. Rh rollers did not exist for any of the vintage engines. Roller conversions can run $1500-2000 once you consider the new lifters, valve springs, etc. A rh cam itself (custom blank ground to your specs) should only be in the $750 range, at least that's what it cost for our 454- and that's what I've seen quoted for a 351w as well. An off the shelf lh roller would be ~500 less. The other costs are the same whether rh or lh. Starter, distributor, prop, etc, if required to swap rotations, will erode that $500 savings. ------------- |
Posted By: peter1234
Date Posted: January-20-2013 at 7:28pm
|
dont forget on any tri power conversions you need to change base plates or plug all idle passages in them . you dont use air screws on anything but the middle carb. also throttle plates are different on tri power front and rear. ------------- former skylark owner now a formula but I cant let this place go |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: January-20-2013 at 7:33pm
|
I'm sure the marine carbs probably wouldn't perform anywhere near that of the 2300 on the big block 6 pack cars. I didn't see in the original post you were considering a dual quad inline setup. I'm sure it will be 100 times easier to find some marine square bore carbs for performance applications that will better suit your needs and probably be more reliable. I wonder if the marine dual quad set up ran progressive throttle linkage like most other Chrysler dual quad set ups. Plus you can paint it Chrysler teal and it will look more correct. Can't wait to hear it scream across the water. ------------- |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-21-2013 at 1:15am
Tim, do you know of anyone other than LSM that can custom whittle a camshaft? ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-21-2013 at 1:18am
Pete, The front/rear tripower carbs are aa unique animal. That's why when people try to use a conventional 2300 series carb for these locations, they don't work. Even the shape of the carb bodies is different. If Zach's data is accurate(and I have no reason to think otherwise), then a Cross Ram would match the COOL factor of a six pack. ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-21-2013 at 1:20am
Project will be in a slight holding pattern for a while. I seem to be suffering from flu symptoms.  ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: January-21-2013 at 9:15am
|
Edit: double post ------------- |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: January-21-2013 at 10:19am
|
Check with racer brown. They have done custom mopar cams since the 60s. I'm not sure how big into roller set ups they are. It's been a while since I've put a mopar together with ell these Chevy and ford boat motors haha. Hope you get better!!! Ask 440 source if their heads are comparable with a cross ram. I think what you might have heard over the years is that a cross ram will not fit a 383. There was never a factory cross ram for the b block just for the rb blocks ie 413, 426,440. ------------- |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: January-21-2013 at 12:17pm
FYI, the ability to do a "custom cam" usually means they can take a blank and grind one to your specs. Being able to build a custom blank (for a reverse rotation engine) is a completely different ballgame. Only a few games in town for that sort of thing. ------------- |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: January-21-2013 at 12:21pm
|
Yeah, I know the roller reverse blanks are few and far between especially for a older engine like a 440 but it's worth a inquiry call. ------------- |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: January-21-2013 at 12:31pm
|
Not few and far between... non existant. They dont even exist for motors that were made 10 years ago (Ford 302/351w). Luckily there are some outfits that are capable of making custom blanks for any purpose, including reverse rotation rollers. Just costs a bit more than a lefty! ------------- |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: January-21-2013 at 12:45pm
|
Gotcha, glad im not building a HI-PO Righty! I am a man with a roller dream on a flat tappet budget ;). ------------- |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-21-2013 at 3:09pm
You may be right, Tim. Al I remember hearing was the $2000 and I don't think I remember anything after that.  Also, I just got off the phone with Gordon and his dyno won't take a reverse rotation engine. So we are back to a lefty. I will need to inspect this tranny. It's out of a Century and I am not sure what it is. I have not dug into it yet. (haven't been able to get that far away from a bathroom, yet )------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-21-2013 at 3:12pm
I concur. I checked with Shane Puchon with Lunati in Memphis. Shane remembers doing reverse rotation cams. The guys in his shop remember doing them also. He just doesn't have any blanks left and can't get any anymore. Everyone in the marine world has been forced to go to a lefty or pay the price. Ford isn't building a marine engine anymore, I believe GM is the only marine engine out there now. ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: January-21-2013 at 3:21pm
|
Nope, no dyno will work with a Righty unless you get creative. Most shops wont do it. While it would be nice for tuning (knowing exactly where your hp peak occurs, etc) I dont understand why the inability to dyno it would be a deal breaker. All your part selection, etc is already done at that point. You can tune just fine on the water. Roller conversions can be expensive. RH roller conversions just a little more so because the blank needs to be custom made. Youre still talking $1k-1500 for a LH roller conversion. Cam+lifters+springs would be the bare necessities. Its probably true that that v-hulls would be more tolerant of a LH powertrain than a flat bottomed CC... but the handling difference will still be there. That and the "cool factor" of a period correct RH engine in that boat would be more than enough to tip the scales, IMHO. ------------- |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: January-21-2013 at 3:27pm
I was specifically talking RH roller cams, which Im sure never existed for big block Chryslers. RH flat tappets were obviously around (theres one in your engine right now), though those blanks are getting very hard to come by in general (if you were willing to go flat tappet on a performance RH build). They may also be NLA. That seems to be the general theme with RH stuff. The advent of outdrives that can reverse the direction of engine rotation (for twin screw boats) really made the market for RH stuff shrink. ------------- |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: January-21-2013 at 5:08pm
|
The Wedge Cross ram will bolt up to standard 440 ports but the max wedge ports were in fact larger. Shoot my Mopar foot! I just got off the phone with Tony and I think we may have found a Cross Ram that will work for his application. ------------- |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-21-2013 at 6:07pm
just got off the phone with Mopar Performance. The P5007330 Cross Ram will definitely NOT work with standard Wedge heads. The ports on the Max Wedge are significantly taller than standard Wedge heads. However, he did put me onto A & A Transmissions who supposedly build a Cross Ram that bolts up to the standard Wedge heads and Zach told me about Anthony Keats out of Canada, who just love Mopar Marine. ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: January-21-2013 at 6:23pm
|
Tony you beat me to it!!!!! I was just looking on A&A's website! ------------- |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-21-2013 at 6:30pm
|
Calling all Mopar Big Block Fans! A & A transmission has a MAX Wedge Cross Ram Intake that fits standard 440 Wedge heads!!!!! Call Rick at (317) 831-3066 He was the original designer of the Cross Ram for Chrysler and made it work! He can make it work for you too!! ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: January-21-2013 at 6:34pm
|
Is he in Indy with the 317 number? Never knew that. Learn info every day! ------------- |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-22-2013 at 12:29am
Ummm...okay. Starting a new thread on my boat. Since the diaries section is a little limited. ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: January-22-2013 at 10:36am
|
Tony, im asking if A&A transmissions is in Indy because he has a 317 area code..... ------------- |
Posted By: Behl
Date Posted: January-22-2013 at 12:22pm
|
Zach A & A may be in Camby on the South side, if I looked at the correct web ------------- Steve in Indy http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1702&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1976&yrend=1980" rel="nofollow - Redone 1977 Ski Tique |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-22-2013 at 12:35pm
Here's a link to the Google Map: https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=A+%26+A+Transmission+indiana&fb=1&gl=us&hq=A+%26+A+Transmission&hnear=0x886b50bcd9f81b1d:0x7e102fcecb32ec72,Indiana&cid=0,0,16560071098591673964&ei=WaP-UO7PNoOs9ATI6IHoDA&ved=0CJEBEPwSMAA" rel="nofollow - A & A Transmission ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: January-22-2013 at 1:12pm
|
Thanks dudes, Just interesting being from here I never knew that. I don't believe there is any A&A presence at the Mopar shows I attend. Maybe I just walk by that stuff because I can't afford Max Wedge parts haha. Or big block for that matter. ------------- |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-23-2013 at 1:07am
Joe, Zach told me to contact you. Can I reverse rotation inside the transmission? Output righty, input lefty? Zach suggested a 1.23. N3 apparently has a whole warehouse full of these old trannies and if it can be done without a lot of pain, it would solve a lot of problems come installation. ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: January-23-2013 at 8:24am
Tony, Yes, a reduction trans does reverse the rotation however, I would not use the PCM trans on the 440 especially a built up one. I don't feel the PCM would handle it. Go back in the thread and look at the ZF Hurth suggestion. However as I commented, I feel that install would create problems as well. A reduction trans swings larger props so mods to the drive line would be needed. Read the thread again!! You have been thinking engine build too much! ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: January-23-2013 at 11:12am
|
I was just curious if you could actually bolt up a 1.23 to a 440. Has Joe had any transmission problems with that 1.23 behind the hot Ford? ------------- |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: January-23-2013 at 12:55pm
|
Remember that PCM has bolted the Power Plus trannies up to some serious hp- everything from the current 6.0L (409-450hp), as well as some big blocks (496/502 Pythons). Presumably its bolted to the 550hp supercharged 6.2L they offer now as well. I know Jody runs the 1:1 version on his go fast drag/flat bottom v-drive and has had good things to say. Note: v-drives and big blocks came with 1-1/8" (or larger) shafts, but the direct drive small blocks (6.0L included) use 1". Pete, just a correction- not all reduction trannies reverse the engine rotation. The BW's do not, so far as I know. Some ZF's can spin full power both ways, but they sound kinda funny. Also not sure how much hp they can handle. Id probably opt for the 1.23 if going down that path. Gotta check to see if you have the room to fit it though- the reduction portion of the box makes it several inches longer than a PCM/BW 1:1. Space is pretty tight in our BFN- Im not sure we could fit it. SW should be the same. Prop choices for a 1" shaft with a 1.23 reduction for a big block would be extremely limited (13x18 range). There are a number of RH wheels in the right size, but theyre all for 1-1/8" shafts. Making that conversion would require a new packing assembly, strut and shaft at a minimum (prop too, of course), if not the log itself. It would be a pretty big project, and not cheap. The best way to keep a RH prop on a high hp big block build is something I mulled over extensively. Keeping the engine reverse rotation and sticking with the 72C Velvet Drive was the easiest and most cost effective. Only one high dollar item to address: the cam. Been there, done that! ------------- |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: January-23-2013 at 1:35pm
|
Tim, Tony and I were talking if the 1.23 bolts up to the same pattern as the BW then all else would have to be the same as far as shaft penetration into the bell housing and all that to make it a direct bolt in replacement for the bw. I dont know why PCM would have spent all that extra time and money developing it differently. Only variable I see if it bolts up properly is a different shaft size or spline pattern for the spring plate. Tony said he thought he would have enough room to compensate for the length of the 1.23. The swap to a larger shaft (if possible) might not be a bad thing because I know Joe kept breaking the 1" shafts and this BB stroker will for sure have more torque than Joes 408. I would like to see a Mopar boat eclipse the 60mph mark  Tim you might be scared the Mopar boat will whoop up on your Chebby Barefooter ;). And a side note the 550 G boats are turning a 1 1/4" Shaft  No wonder all the ladies like the G boats haha. ------------- |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: January-23-2013 at 1:48pm
|
The PCM absolutely does use a different spline pattern (and thus damper) than the BW. Not sure on the bellhousing, you may want to check and see what your part catalog says? Im sure Joe would know for sure, it could very well be the same. On the length, Id be surprised if it fits, to be honest. The 1.23 is about 3" longer IIRC, which is consistent with the difference in shaft length between the '82-88 SN (54") vs. the '89-96 SN (51"). ------------- |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: January-23-2013 at 2:00pm
|
Edit: Said he kept twisting shafts so he had to go with a higher strength shaft and let it spin more RPM. I had a phone conversation with Joe when he picked up that pretty blue cover. I didn't have a BW in the shop to take a look at the splines. I will check what they list between bell housings on the stuff. I wonder if it would be difficult to find a damper plate that would sport that spline and bolt up to the Chrysler flywheel. I know they make the multi pattern ones. Thats whats in my boat. Could CC have moved the engine rearward in the BFN as opposed to the SW maybe for a speed standpoint? Purely conjecture at this point. We will just let Tony measure it and see what type of clearence he has. ------------- |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: January-23-2013 at 2:26pm
I promise that the spline is different BW vs. PCM... thats the reason they require different dampers when bolting up to the same (Ford 351w, for example) flywheel. Im sure you could make the universal PCM damper work on a 440 if you want. If the holes dont exist currently, Im sure they could be added. Im not convinced thats a path you want to go down either way, but the damper wouldnt be the deal breaker. ------------- |
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: January-23-2013 at 2:39pm
|
Eddie twisted a few with the Python bfns, I twisted the stock cut down one that I tried to use to try the custom 4 blade oj monster prop when I buggered up my are shaft due to using a stainless nut. Eric Johnson was actually hesitant to make that prop for a 1 inch shaft for that very reason. The prop determines the torque load, not the engine. They don't break they twist and then bend enough to vibrate bad. The PCM trans will bolt to a bw 71 bell housing but we have actually confirmed what tony has -- that why I asked a while back- or I tried anyway. Tim has the lengths right - the output spline is different don't know if there is a damper that would bolt up to an rb flywheel - might have both lying around to check though. Take pictures of the current setup and we can comment more intelligently on what will or won't work. But I wouldn't want to be multiplying the torque of a big block stroked engine with a gear reduction trans if it was me. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: January-23-2013 at 3:05pm
|
Gotcha Joe, I thought you said you had twisted something. Tim I believed you on the spline I was just saying I didn't have anything to compare visually at the given moment and I've never had to compare the two. This will all be very interesting if it infact works out into a build haha. so a 71 bw and 72 bw have a different bolt pattern? ------------- |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: January-23-2013 at 3:08pm
No, I believe theyre the same. As is the 1.23 per Joe above. The question is what Tony actually has in his boat... he claims to have a Paragon, which would be beyond strange. Most likely a 72C if he's mistaken. ------------- |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: January-23-2013 at 3:19pm
|
Ahh, gotcha I thought the 71 and 72 were basically the same externally. I think I gathered Tony has 2 transmissions. One from the current 68 motor in the boat and one from the 74 motor for the build. ------------- |
Posted By: Riley
Date Posted: January-23-2013 at 3:55pm
| The Paragon may bolt up to the same bell housing as a VD. Chris Craft FE block engines often had Paragons and we are using a Chris Craft bell housing on our FE with a 71C bolted to it. |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: January-23-2013 at 8:58pm
Tim, Yes, the higher reductions use dual reduction gear sets so rotation in and out is the same. I should have expounded on that but didn't since anything past the 1.23 would be too much for Tony's boat. BTW, I'm all for keeping that 440 a righty! ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-23-2013 at 8:58pm
Okay, let me clear a few things up. My SW is presently equipped with a M440B making a little over 300hp thanks to a few good friends in the machine industry. The engine is a 1968 440 because it is equipped with '906' heads - factory. I also have a BW 72 bolted up to it. The engine I picked up to use as a starting point for my "Dream Engine" build is a 1977 casting M440B that was removed from Century. I am unsure what model. I 'believe' (emphasize "believe") that this transmission attached to it is a Paragon. I have not had a chance to tear this engine down since I returned from NC with it, so I cannot say for sure. My machine shop that is assisting with the build highly recommends keeping the engine a lefty. This will simplify the building of the hydraulic roller cam that he is recommending. Also, since this engine is to be tuned on a dyno before installation, his dyno will not accept a RH rotation engine. Zach suggested that a 1.23 might work, but to consult with Joe in NY because of possible issues with mating the transmission to the 440 bellhousing. Zach made this suggestion because he has several of these laying around the shop in various stages of condition. I intend to keep the 1" shaft unless it simply does not work out and turn a 13X14RH (minimum) propeller. The pitch will be determined by what the dyno readouts come in at. If I am unable to spin the prop in a RH direction, I will seek out a 13X14LH (minimum) propeller and if necessary increase the number of blades in order to facilitate the absorbtion of the horsepower created. Now the speculation is over, the facts all in. Let's put together a engine/tranny combo for this 500cid, 500hp "Dream Engine". ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: January-23-2013 at 9:11pm
And how many RH marine engines have they done? How many boats have they driven with hulls designed with hook for RH engines? ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: January-23-2013 at 9:14pm
|
A good cam designer should not need dyno time to approximate where peak hp will occur, given all the parts used in the build. Other than knowing where that peak occurs, maybe Im lost as to what the dyno buys you. Jetting or timing changes based on A/F readouts maybe? All of your components are purchased and installed at that point, right? While a multi-carb set up may be more complex than average, remember that there are several of us here who have tuned these engines to a decent degree without the benefit of a dyno. FYI, I wouldnt have thought it possible to spin a dyno backwards, but it CAN be done on some set ups. UT just did this for the RH 302 build in his Tique. ------------- |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-23-2013 at 9:20pm
I don't have any firm numbers, Pete. I shared a link to his web site. You could call and ask. Then is also the matter of a right hand rotation hydraulic roller cam. While I can have LSM or someone make a blank for me and whittle out a cam, the cost isn't worth it when I can simply spin it the other way and everything works fine. A little help here, please. Someone explain to me precisely what the BFD is about keeping this thing a righty. Is it an issue of control? Torque loads on the hull? torque loads on the mounts? On the strut and cutlass bearing? It isn't "original". Okay! I get it! But this whole setup isn't original nor is it intended to be. And besides, the numbers matching original engine and setup is being "put up" to be re-installed after I get bored with the "oohh's and ahhh's" when folks lay their eyes on a Cross Ram topped 500hp BB Mopar in a SW. Nuff said. ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-23-2013 at 9:31pm
The benefit I am getting with dyno is the ability to dial the engine in without spending a bunch of time at the lake. While this would be a blast, the benefit of having some expert engine tuners working with me when fiddlin' with this thing would be nice. And it's nice to know when I set it in place, it will light right off and work as expected...theoretically. Gordon said his dyno won't spin backwards. I may have found a guy on the Missouri side that thinks his may spin backwards. That would solve the dyno tune issue. Which brings us back to the cam. Obtaining a right hand roller hydraulic IS expensive. I still need to find the place that you (or whomever it was) mentioned. And I have been too busy at work and at home to go back a re-read what was said. Perhaps, tonite. I think you mentioned the cam guy...I don't remember. We shall work it out...all of us...together.  ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-23-2013 at 9:33pm
|
Tim, What kind of control issues are you describing? Torque steer? Is thing going to try to do a slow roll every time it leaves a breaker? Not trying to a smart arse, just trying to get a clear picture. ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: January-23-2013 at 9:56pm
|
A boat with a LH prop is going to lean more to starboard under all conditions. More so under heavy throttle (acceleration, etc). The RH prop counteracts the weight of the driver, a LH will exaggerate it. Im not sure if other ski boat manufacturers (who use LH props extensively) design their hulls with the LH prop rotation in mind, but CC sure did build some boats with the RH prop in mind. The v-hulls may or may not have fallen into this category, and the SW is a fairly large boat (and thus less affected by prop rotation), but I still wouldnt take that gamble. The boats Ive driven with unoriginal LH props on them did some weird things when accelerating and turning. Things that made me nervous... and not many things when piloting these boats make me nervous (ask around!). ------------- |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: January-23-2013 at 10:40pm
|
I've heard rumor that Timmy might get a little wild behind the wheel ;). Haha ------------- |
Posted By: Riley
Date Posted: January-23-2013 at 10:44pm
|
Tim, what did the Classic do? They tend to plow in the turns unless you accelerate. They don't handle anything like a Barracuda. Caution should be used on all these boats that are over powered. Chine lock is extremely dangerous. And if you have old type of controls like a gas pedal or console controls, they're even more dangerous. How's Tony? Is he going to be riding around in Todd's Tique next summer? |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-23-2013 at 11:08pm
Todd's Tique? I don't get the reference. I have never heard of "chine lock". Describe this condition, please. In a turn, my SW has a tendency to want to drop off plane unless you add power. Used to drive my ex-wife crazy.  She hated inboards. Said they didn't handle right. Her only boat ownership experience consisted of a 17 foot stern drive. Know what a stern drive is? An outboard that wants to be an inboard. ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: January-23-2013 at 11:10pm
|
I am willing to bet she didn't like inboards because they only back up one way haha. ------------- |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-23-2013 at 11:18pm
Thanks for the advice, Tim. I appreciated, really I do. As for using the dyno, I have never used one before and was looking forward to it. That and maybe I have watched too much "Horsepower TV". When I was a kid, we did it old school with a '64 L84 365hp, 327cid out of a '64 Vette. We went for a T/A 302 Cross Ram combo and switched to the STR 10. All done...trail and error. Spent a lot of late nights and long phone calls scratching our heads trying to make that thing work and NOT get frustrated. Back then (1970's), a dyno simply wasn't around anywhere close by. We lived in Decatur, Illinois - the soybean capital of the world! I just got off the phone with Zach. Zach says that even if I decide to remain hydraulic flat tappet, 500hp out of a 500cid Chrysler shouldn't be a problem. And I get that sweet flat tappet music to boot. ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-23-2013 at 11:20pm
Can I quote you? I will have her call you and you can tell her yourself! ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: January-23-2013 at 11:47pm
|
Like Tim I would still be interested to see the cost difference between a custom flat tappet reverse cam vs a custom roller reverse cam. You can quote me to her ! Haha. ------------- |
Posted By: Tonali_III
Date Posted: January-23-2013 at 11:49pm
We don't talk. And all I ever did was listen. I may ask LSM and Cam (Ummm whomever) and see. ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=553&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1974 Southwind 20 <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: January-24-2013 at 12:40am
You better go back and read this whole thread too! I'm quite certain I didn't recommend a wild rh flat tappet. Yes they can make power but I'd go roller for reliability alone in a build like this. The extra power the steeper ramp rates can give you would be a bonus.Tony, your comment on chine lock... Keep reading! There are pitfalls to making a correct craft go fast and you should understand what you're up against. I think the v-hulls are particularly benign in terms of high speed handling (particularly chine lock) but they can still nose plant (different props will make this happen at varying speeds) and they do teeter a bit on the keel. ------------- |
Posted By: JMurph
Date Posted: January-24-2013 at 9:28am
|
Just a point of clarity for folks like me reading this thread: Tony continues to speak of the 1977 as currently being a lefty, although Tim continues to state that converting it to a lefty would add an additional cost for all of the ancillary parts, eating up the cam shaft savings? Tony, I know you said that you're not really sure which direction is spins, because you haven't torn it apart yet? Is there an easier way to find out? Do you have a setup where you can crank it over? Tim, What if his 1977 is a lefty? Would it be better for him to start with his 1968 as the base motor and get the cam ground for that? Will many of the parts you listed need to be replaced anyway, therefore nulifying any savings or extra expenditures? It seems to me that if you are grinding a new cam and putting all of this time and money into a special project, then maybe you would want to replace many of the other parts anyway? |