Race Engine Advice Please! - Page 2

Sandy · 05-24-06, 05:33 PM

Jack -

Thanks for the good info. The one motor had Canfield Heads and is currently using the Felpro SVO with 4.030" bore, the 4.125" bore motor is using Cometic gasket and Edelbrock Victor heads, and I didn't do the assemble on the second so hopefully its ok

Sandy

[Edited]
The Felpro's Part number were FP1021, and support upto a 4.100" bore

Paul Thompson 'Hooligan' · 05-24-06, 06:26 PM

Hi there -

In case it's of use - we used Felpro FPP 1022 (LHS) and Felpro FPP 1023 (RHS) gaskets on Roy's GTD.

Gasket is detailed as being 0.041" compressed and good for up to 4.150" and fire rings were not circular but shaped to suit large inlet valves.

We used them on an Alloy (Joe Fontana) 302 bored 4.125" and stroked 3.25" with modified TFS heads - Gave no problems in use. Heads also had 'additional' holes (6 off per head) between bores for water passage.

Not cheap gaskets (£30UK each+p&p) - but they work! (or did for us).....

Hammer · 02-14-07, 03:50 PM

I don't know what the 185's combustion chamber looks like, but I bet it's almost identical to the old 289 neads w/ the real small chamber, a fast burn chamber is you will. I put that build above from the first post on my dyno program, and came up w/ ~450tq @ 4,500, and 500hp @ 6,000
That sounds like a good motor.....I ran the program w/ the flow numbers from a set of stock AFR 185's.....and a similar cam profile, but it was a solid cam, a single plane intake, and a 750 Carb.

And don't forget that static compression doesn't have everything to do w/ detonation. It's you dynamic compression, and w/ a cam w/ lots of duration, you can get away w/ higher static compression. Aluminum heads will be able to handle another full point of compression all other things the same, just becuase of better heat dissipation. You do however lose some power, because it is lost in that better heat dissipation of the alum. heads. (not enough to care about though) And of course a fast burn chamber well help resist detonation much better than a more open chamber.

Jac Mac · 02-14-07, 05:19 PM

Hope your not a Betting man Hammer, The 185 chamber is a lot more open than the early 289, has to be to unshroud the valves.

Jac Mac

chuck smith · 02-14-07, 06:45 PM

I realize this is an old thread, but I have serious doubts about the HP and torque figures that were quoted on the original 347 motor in this thread.

Sandy · 02-14-07, 07:27 PM

I was just reading the beginning on the thread too and thinking the same thing, running AFR185 would be a stretch anywhere close to those HP numbers. Would have to be ported until you could see though the thin walls of the ports and run the motor at 9800 rpm

chuck smith · 02-14-07, 08:01 PM

the numbers just dont add up,in fact I doubt it would make the hp he was shooting for in the first place. I would guess 425-450 tops,with torque way less than 600

Ron Earp · 02-14-07, 08:11 PM

I think you are right, it'd need more cam and more RPM for those numbers. I know mine won't do that and has more cam and a free intake, maybe 475 tops on a great day if you hold your mouth right. Even then it might not last the distance, don't know.

Sandy · 02-15-07, 12:15 AM

Maybe it's quoted in 'Metric Hp'