Mission: You Wanna What? [LOL] |
Post Reply | Page <12345 7> |
Author | ||
Tonali_III
Senior Member Joined: August-30-2004 Location: St. Louis, MO Status: Offline Points: 412 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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. |
||
1974 Southwind 20
<a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
||
phatsat67
Grand Poobah Joined: March-13-2006 Location: Indiana Status: Offline Points: 6150 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Tony you beat me to it!!!!! I was just looking on A&A's website!
|
||
Tonali_III
Senior Member Joined: August-30-2004 Location: St. Louis, MO Status: Offline Points: 412 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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!! |
||
1974 Southwind 20
<a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
||
phatsat67
Grand Poobah Joined: March-13-2006 Location: Indiana Status: Offline Points: 6150 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Is he in Indy with the 317 number? Never knew that. Learn info every day!
|
||
Tonali_III
Senior Member Joined: August-30-2004 Location: St. Louis, MO Status: Offline Points: 412 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Ummm...okay. Starting a new thread on my boat. Since the diaries section is a little limited. |
||
1974 Southwind 20
<a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
||
phatsat67
Grand Poobah Joined: March-13-2006 Location: Indiana Status: Offline Points: 6150 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Tony, im asking if A&A transmissions is in Indy because he has a 317 area code.....
|
||
Behl
Senior Member Joined: December-05-2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 404 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Zach
A & A may be in Camby on the South side, if I looked at the correct web |
||
Tonali_III
Senior Member Joined: August-30-2004 Location: St. Louis, MO Status: Offline Points: 412 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Here's a link to the Google Map: A & A Transmission |
||
1974 Southwind 20
<a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
||
phatsat67
Grand Poobah Joined: March-13-2006 Location: Indiana Status: Offline Points: 6150 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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.
|
||
Tonali_III
Senior Member Joined: August-30-2004 Location: St. Louis, MO Status: Offline Points: 412 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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. |
||
1974 Southwind 20
<a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
||
8122pbrainard
Grand Poobah Joined: September-14-2006 Location: Three Lakes Wi. Status: Offline Points: 41045 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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! |
||
phatsat67
Grand Poobah Joined: March-13-2006 Location: Indiana Status: Offline Points: 6150 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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?
|
||
TRBenj
Grand Poobah Joined: June-29-2005 Location: NWCT Status: Offline Points: 21169 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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! |
||
phatsat67
Grand Poobah Joined: March-13-2006 Location: Indiana Status: Offline Points: 6150 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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. |
||
TRBenj
Grand Poobah Joined: June-29-2005 Location: NWCT Status: Offline Points: 21169 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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"). |
||
phatsat67
Grand Poobah Joined: March-13-2006 Location: Indiana Status: Offline Points: 6150 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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. |
||
TRBenj
Grand Poobah Joined: June-29-2005 Location: NWCT Status: Offline Points: 21169 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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. |
||
JoeinNY
Grand Poobah Joined: October-19-2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5698 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
|
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. |
||
phatsat67
Grand Poobah Joined: March-13-2006 Location: Indiana Status: Offline Points: 6150 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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? |
||
TRBenj
Grand Poobah Joined: June-29-2005 Location: NWCT Status: Offline Points: 21169 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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. |
||
phatsat67
Grand Poobah Joined: March-13-2006 Location: Indiana Status: Offline Points: 6150 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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.
|
||
Riley
Grand Poobah Joined: January-19-2004 Location: Portland, ME Status: Offline Points: 7953 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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.
|
||
8122pbrainard
Grand Poobah Joined: September-14-2006 Location: Three Lakes Wi. Status: Offline Points: 41045 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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! |
||
Tonali_III
Senior Member Joined: August-30-2004 Location: St. Louis, MO Status: Offline Points: 412 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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". |
||
1974 Southwind 20
<a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
||
8122pbrainard
Grand Poobah Joined: September-14-2006 Location: Three Lakes Wi. Status: Offline Points: 41045 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
And how many RH marine engines have they done? How many boats have they driven with hulls designed with hook for RH engines? |
||
TRBenj
Grand Poobah Joined: June-29-2005 Location: NWCT Status: Offline Points: 21169 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
|
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. |
||
Tonali_III
Senior Member Joined: August-30-2004 Location: St. Louis, MO Status: Offline Points: 412 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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. |
||
1974 Southwind 20
<a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
||
Tonali_III
Senior Member Joined: August-30-2004 Location: St. Louis, MO Status: Offline Points: 412 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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. |
||
1974 Southwind 20
<a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
||
Tonali_III
Senior Member Joined: August-30-2004 Location: St. Louis, MO Status: Offline Points: 412 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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. |
||
1974 Southwind 20
<a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6752" rel="nofollow">1972 Mustan |
||
TRBenj
Grand Poobah Joined: June-29-2005 Location: NWCT Status: Offline Points: 21169 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
|
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!).
|
||
Post Reply | Page <12345 7> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |