Walter Phillips
Member
Looking to build a stroker minimum 500ci with about 550hp with a 440ci block. What combination of parts do I need?
500ci plus stroker, 550 hp 440 block
- Thread starter Walter Phillips
- Start date
pschlosser
Well-Known Member
you may get many varying opinions on this. I can offer:
for that much horsepower, you'll want ported heads and header exhaust. the factory manifolds and heads just wont flow enough to give you those numbers. you'll need a long-duration camshaft with rocker lift of .500 or more. 440source will have the majority of the parts, it just takes deep pockets, patience, and a steep learning curve, for some.
for that much horsepower, you'll want ported heads and header exhaust. the factory manifolds and heads just wont flow enough to give you those numbers. you'll need a long-duration camshaft with rocker lift of .500 or more. 440source will have the majority of the parts, it just takes deep pockets, patience, and a steep learning curve, for some.
Last edited:
6PKRTSE
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2010
- Messages
- 1,245
- Reaction score
- 807
For only 550 h.p. you don't need a 500+ cube stroker kit.
TIMINATOR
Well-Known Member
Heads are going to be the limiting factor! There are lots of aluminum ones out there and most don't flow much more than ported irons in their unported cast aluminum configuration. The best bang for the buck are the raised port Speedmaster heads. But like most others, their flow is not limited by valve or bowl size, but port size at the manifold flange. This is also what limits most of the MOPAR intake manifolds also. There is a reason why Mopar went to the Max Wedge intake port. You want the short answer? Take a 440 intake gasket, and compare it to a SMALL BLOCK Chebby , Ford, or Mopar, Fel pro performance gasket, they are all within a few percent of area at the port flange! Look at Speedmasters published flow numbers on their cast aluminum small block and B/RB heads and the high lift flow numbers are nearly the same! BUT the B/RB motor heads use a 2.2" intake valve as opposed to the smallblocks 2.02" valve.
I have gotten good flow gains thru the years by raising the stock iron B/RB ports as much as practical and widening them also. There isn't enough metal there to attain Max Wedge size, but enough for real gains! You also have to port the intake to match what you (or preferably a skilled porter) has done to the heads. Use Max Wedge intake gaskets and dont worry about the port being smaller. This works because intake port runners taper from the plenum to the port flange. This isn't rocket science, but by using inside calipers you can port back until you reach the size of the desired larger area. Done correctly, keep the port tapered but larger back towards the plenum. Some intakes have less extra room at the top of the port than others, but an hour or so with a Heliarc cures that. A little smoothing of the weld and stippling lightly with a needle scaler blends the welded area into the unwelded area enough that no one will notice this. I have been doing this mod since about 1987 or 8, and no one has ever noticed. Just the ET and MPH.
I am currently doing a set of Speedmaster raised runner heads for my 512 project and when finished, I will post pics and numbers.
Or just buy a set of $5000+ heads.
Around 575 HP is usually the REALISTIC HP limit on stock runner sized aluminum non race heads. ON AN ACCURATE DYNO! And cubic inches alone don't guarantee HP gains.
The same heads and cam on two different sized short blocks will make nearly the same HP, but the larger engine will attain the HP at a lower RPM. It's head flow, cam size and ramp rate, rod length to stroke ratio, and reciprocating weight that are important.
Rod/stroke ratio on the 440 is one of the reasons 440s run as well as they do. With an even longer rod, the piston is much lighter also, allowing even more HP.
A few years ago, one of my customers went from a 383 SBC to a 427 SBC shortblock with the same cam, heads, intake and carb. It's no faster in the quarter, but a lot torqueier and much harder to drive. A nice guy, and although you can ask him anything, you can't tell him nothing!
Class dismissed.
TIMINATOR
I have gotten good flow gains thru the years by raising the stock iron B/RB ports as much as practical and widening them also. There isn't enough metal there to attain Max Wedge size, but enough for real gains! You also have to port the intake to match what you (or preferably a skilled porter) has done to the heads. Use Max Wedge intake gaskets and dont worry about the port being smaller. This works because intake port runners taper from the plenum to the port flange. This isn't rocket science, but by using inside calipers you can port back until you reach the size of the desired larger area. Done correctly, keep the port tapered but larger back towards the plenum. Some intakes have less extra room at the top of the port than others, but an hour or so with a Heliarc cures that. A little smoothing of the weld and stippling lightly with a needle scaler blends the welded area into the unwelded area enough that no one will notice this. I have been doing this mod since about 1987 or 8, and no one has ever noticed. Just the ET and MPH.
I am currently doing a set of Speedmaster raised runner heads for my 512 project and when finished, I will post pics and numbers.
Or just buy a set of $5000+ heads.
Around 575 HP is usually the REALISTIC HP limit on stock runner sized aluminum non race heads. ON AN ACCURATE DYNO! And cubic inches alone don't guarantee HP gains.
The same heads and cam on two different sized short blocks will make nearly the same HP, but the larger engine will attain the HP at a lower RPM. It's head flow, cam size and ramp rate, rod length to stroke ratio, and reciprocating weight that are important.
Rod/stroke ratio on the 440 is one of the reasons 440s run as well as they do. With an even longer rod, the piston is much lighter also, allowing even more HP.
A few years ago, one of my customers went from a 383 SBC to a 427 SBC shortblock with the same cam, heads, intake and carb. It's no faster in the quarter, but a lot torqueier and much harder to drive. A nice guy, and although you can ask him anything, you can't tell him nothing!
Class dismissed.
TIMINATOR
Chryco Psycho
Well-Known Member
440 Source 512 kit , stock length rods with short lighter pistons Good heads & Cam [not Comp]
TIMINATOR
Well-Known Member
6PKRTSE
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2010
- Messages
- 1,245
- Reaction score
- 807
Nothing wrong with Comp. Yes, you hear some horror stories once in a while. You hear those horror stories about everyone's product eventually if you build enough engines. We build a couple hundred engines every year. Most with Comp Cams camshafts with no issues.
Racer Dave
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2020
- Messages
- 59
- Reaction score
- 70
Comp has grinds specifically for .904" diameter lifters in Mopar engines. Choose one of those if using Comp. If you're picking your own specs, check out Bullet Cams - they have a good selection of .904 grinds.
Last edited:
TIMINATOR
Well-Known Member
Before my well deserved but too late retirement from owning a high end machine/engine building shop, we used Comp Cams almost exclusively. I have heard that some have experienced issues with Comp products, but most related to them using old existing parts like springs, retainers, and locks with higher lift and quicker ramp rate Comp cams.
Having owned a cam analyzer for over 40 years, and analyzing every cam that came through here, some supplied by customers in their favorite brands, and also every one we supplied, I still use Comp cams in my personal builds. With their fast ramp rates all you have to do to ensure great results is simply use new recommended springs, retainers, locks, and installed heights.
TIMINATOR
Having owned a cam analyzer for over 40 years, and analyzing every cam that came through here, some supplied by customers in their favorite brands, and also every one we supplied, I still use Comp cams in my personal builds. With their fast ramp rates all you have to do to ensure great results is simply use new recommended springs, retainers, locks, and installed heights.
TIMINATOR
Chryco Psycho
Well-Known Member
Far better grinds tailored for the larger diameter Mopar lifter , Comp will cost you 30+ HP in Mopars
I used a Lot of Engle & Lunati cams , Lunati used to have a lobe selection section so you could tailor you own cam from Proven .904 lifter designs , Comp bought Lunati now unfortunately so I am not sure what is available from them anymore .
I used a TF60 /TF57 110*solid grind in a lot of street builds , friggin awesome cam basically a baby roller .
I used a Lot of Engle & Lunati cams , Lunati used to have a lobe selection section so you could tailor you own cam from Proven .904 lifter designs , Comp bought Lunati now unfortunately so I am not sure what is available from them anymore .
I used a TF60 /TF57 110*solid grind in a lot of street builds , friggin awesome cam basically a baby roller .
TIMINATOR
Well-Known Member
Comps lobe library has always had a .904 diameter lifter section and will special grind others.. Many of us racers limited to flat tappet cams have run ford or mopar lifter conversions for a lot of years. I haven't run anything but rollers in any of my street or race engines since the late 80s, and it is a rare case for me to build a non roller motor for anyone else. There's just such a larger selection of lifts, ramp rates, and areas available to accomplish whatever is wanted.
Years ago I was a major supporter of Jack Engle and ran his cams in all of the Fords, Mopars, and conversion lifter motors I built. Then I went solid rollers and then Hydraulic rollers when Crane started those.
I was in on that early Crane Hydraulic roller debacle having one of the first few they sold. They wouldn't/ couldn't offer any help and I had to figure out the solutions for myself. That entire deal/ordeal gave me a great insight into making horsepower that is still relevent.
TIMINATOR
Years ago I was a major supporter of Jack Engle and ran his cams in all of the Fords, Mopars, and conversion lifter motors I built. Then I went solid rollers and then Hydraulic rollers when Crane started those.
I was in on that early Crane Hydraulic roller debacle having one of the first few they sold. They wouldn't/ couldn't offer any help and I had to figure out the solutions for myself. That entire deal/ordeal gave me a great insight into making horsepower that is still relevent.
TIMINATOR
Xcudame
Well-Known Member
With a 440 source stroker kit and only wanting around 550 HP, you could get away with running a set of their ported Stealth heads and if you painted them, it would look like a stock 440. With Lunati being bought out (I snagged about ten of their bigger hydraulic flat tappet cams before they disappeared) by Comp Cams, I think I'd just call Racer Brown, tell him what your building, plus transmission, rear axle gears, and your goal for the car and get a custom regrind. Been in business since 1962 for a reason. Keeping under 600 HP, you would need to many expensive parts with a 500 ci stroker 440.
Remember, max wedge sized heads with their bigger ports put your maximum torque at a higher rpm by about 1100 rpm. Stock sized ports figure max torque will be reached around 4100 rpm and max horse power at 5600 rpm. With the bigger max wedge sized ports max torque is 5200 rpm and max horse power is above 6500 rpm. Going over 6000 rpm will require a lot more work, parts and money.
Remember, max wedge sized heads with their bigger ports put your maximum torque at a higher rpm by about 1100 rpm. Stock sized ports figure max torque will be reached around 4100 rpm and max horse power at 5600 rpm. With the bigger max wedge sized ports max torque is 5200 rpm and max horse power is above 6500 rpm. Going over 6000 rpm will require a lot more work, parts and money.
Chryco Psycho
Well-Known Member
I have been using the Ultradyne cams for decades , Lunati bought Ultradyne & Harold went with them , Holley bought Lunati & Harold created the Voodoo series as well as keeping the Ultradyne grinds , Why Holley sold I have no clue .
The specs on 2-3 points on the lobe don't tell the whole story , nothing Comp made came close to the vacuum & performance of Harolds Ultradyne cams in my experience .
Everything has upsides & downsides , Hyd lifters can not take the spring pressures & Ramp speeds & risk lifter collapse
Solids work great , flat tappets require SJ oils , Solid rollers are much more expensive .
No free lunch !
The specs on 2-3 points on the lobe don't tell the whole story , nothing Comp made came close to the vacuum & performance of Harolds Ultradyne cams in my experience .
Everything has upsides & downsides , Hyd lifters can not take the spring pressures & Ramp speeds & risk lifter collapse
Solids work great , flat tappets require SJ oils , Solid rollers are much more expensive .
No free lunch !
TIMINATOR
Well-Known Member
Nothings free
Solid rollers for me!
Buy once
Cry once!
Works for me!
And happy forever!
No SJ oil
No flat lobes
Wide power band
Lotsa HP!
Been doin it that way for 50 years with no regrets. My way is not for everybody.
It's America, make you're own choices!
Try everything until you find your own way.
No compromises
Build your car your way.
I have never regretted building too much HP.
Leave the regrets for others....
TIMINATOR
Solid rollers for me!
Buy once
Cry once!
Works for me!
And happy forever!
No SJ oil
No flat lobes
Wide power band
Lotsa HP!
Been doin it that way for 50 years with no regrets. My way is not for everybody.
It's America, make you're own choices!
Try everything until you find your own way.
No compromises
Build your car your way.
I have never regretted building too much HP.
Leave the regrets for others....
TIMINATOR
SomeCarGuy
New Member
I agree with much of what has been said, except for rod ratio. That used to be a thing that was a common concern, but data has shown it doesn’t matter. See engine masters and ihra mountain motors. Choose your piston and crank, then get something to connect it.
Xcudame
Well-Known Member
I have to respectively disagree. A larger Rod ratio does have two important advantages. First, the piston will dwell at top dead center longer which will help promote burning of the fuel/air mixture equaling more horsepower. Second, having a longer rod will reduce piston tilt inside the cylinder block greatly reducing cylinder wear. The Mopar Engineers gave our engines longer rods for good reason.
SomeCarGuy
New Member
Except you dont see a power difference on the dyno of two engines with the only difference being rod ratio. Also some guy in the b body site keeps posting a cam catalog that has an asterisk warning about a poor rod ratio in either 383s or BBM in general(can’t recall which off top of my head) and that you have to be careful on cam choice,. We know that isn’t a problem of course and is a relic of the days of rod ratio worry.
TIMINATOR
Well-Known Member
It has been said that peak cylinder pressure should occur at around 15° past TDC for optimum power. This number depends on rod/stroke ratio. The more efficient burn chamber and longer rod ratio both allow less timing. Less timing means less "negative work" against the piston on the compression stroke, resulting on more power.
There is 180° between TDC and BDC.
Look where the piston is at at 40° BDC, where the older slower burn headed motors needed to run for peak power and the more modern chamber only requiring 30° or so timing.
A tighter quench increases the speed of the "jetted" air/fuel mixture past the spark plug gap, igniting more fuel/air in a streak, requiring less timing also.
If you look at a big block chebbie and big block Mopar cylinder heads, the bb chebbies are much superior in flow, but how did the Mopars run anywhere near them? Longer rods and longer intake runners because of Mopars taller decks.
Lots of magazine articles have been done, mostly about chebbies, comparing 5.565", 5.7", and 6" rods. In an "apples" to "apples" test, the longer rod always makes more H.P.
Look for articles by Jim McFarland and David Vizard, they are among the best, most meticulous writers ever
On my dyno, I have done several such tests of rod ratios, but I am even more "anal" than most. I.E: same brand custom pistons of the same weight, and small end rod weight to eliminate as many variables as possible.
I always run the longest rod that I can stuff in my competition engines.
According to Jane Combs, an ex engineer at Ross Pistons, I was the first to run the top of the oil ring above the top of the pin hole to allow for a longer rod.
She also claimed that I was the first she heard of to mill the top quench area of Mopar open chamber heads to the same depth and order step cut pistons to maximize (tighten) the quench so I could run about .025" to the head at street compression ratios.
These tests were run my dyno, my experiences, and my opinions, your results may vary depending upon how your tests are conducted.
You may notice that UEM has been marketing Mopar "step type" pistons a few years after I did it. I don't believe they copied my idea, I believe intelligent minds, when left to their own devices usually come up with similar or the same conclusions to the same problems.
"TO EACH HIS OWN THING!"
TIMINATOR
There is 180° between TDC and BDC.
Look where the piston is at at 40° BDC, where the older slower burn headed motors needed to run for peak power and the more modern chamber only requiring 30° or so timing.
A tighter quench increases the speed of the "jetted" air/fuel mixture past the spark plug gap, igniting more fuel/air in a streak, requiring less timing also.
If you look at a big block chebbie and big block Mopar cylinder heads, the bb chebbies are much superior in flow, but how did the Mopars run anywhere near them? Longer rods and longer intake runners because of Mopars taller decks.
Lots of magazine articles have been done, mostly about chebbies, comparing 5.565", 5.7", and 6" rods. In an "apples" to "apples" test, the longer rod always makes more H.P.
Look for articles by Jim McFarland and David Vizard, they are among the best, most meticulous writers ever
On my dyno, I have done several such tests of rod ratios, but I am even more "anal" than most. I.E: same brand custom pistons of the same weight, and small end rod weight to eliminate as many variables as possible.
I always run the longest rod that I can stuff in my competition engines.
According to Jane Combs, an ex engineer at Ross Pistons, I was the first to run the top of the oil ring above the top of the pin hole to allow for a longer rod.
She also claimed that I was the first she heard of to mill the top quench area of Mopar open chamber heads to the same depth and order step cut pistons to maximize (tighten) the quench so I could run about .025" to the head at street compression ratios.
These tests were run my dyno, my experiences, and my opinions, your results may vary depending upon how your tests are conducted.
You may notice that UEM has been marketing Mopar "step type" pistons a few years after I did it. I don't believe they copied my idea, I believe intelligent minds, when left to their own devices usually come up with similar or the same conclusions to the same problems.
"TO EACH HIS OWN THING!"
TIMINATOR
Spyder
Well-Known Member
I built what is really a pretty mild 512 stroker this time last year, with a lot of help from the folks here on this forum who know way more than me. Read through that thread and it'll give you some ideas.
I did not dyno it, wish I had, but a lot of folks say it is likely right around that power level with a whole lot of torque down low. It drives great and gets reasonable fuel mileage for what it is.
I did not dyno it, wish I had, but a lot of folks say it is likely right around that power level with a whole lot of torque down low. It drives great and gets reasonable fuel mileage for what it is.
pschlosser
Well-Known Member
the best I ever got from a factory 440-6 was 14 MPG at 55MPH. it drops to 11 MPG at 65 MPH. Back in the 1980s, I made several road trips between northern & southern california (800 miles) and made an effort to get the best mileage I could. no matter what I tried, it took 3 fuel stops each way. but less than 4 tanks full.
Similar threads
- Locked
