500 HP Edelbrock B4B? What Happens to Low End?

Discussion in 'Street/strip 400/430/455' started by Dan Gerber, Feb 18, 2017.

  1. Jim Weise

    Jim Weise EFI/DIS 482

    Dan,

    Here's the heads on that motor.. my standard Level 2 street/strip port, which focuses on chamber work, short turn and transitions. No major enlargements.. This is the best value in TA head work, and the basis for nearly every motor that I have built from scratch for street/strip duty, on motors that don't have a block girdle.

    I sell these for $2995.00 complete.. this particular set was also vibratory polished externally for appearance and stain resistance.

    [​IMG]


    Here's the deal with Alum heads, street/strip motors and your wallet:

    The heads above will support pump gas 600 HP (with this motor that just an intake/carb change) and you don't need any more head flow, unless your going to do one of two things..

    1, Strengthen the engine with a block girdle

    2. Use a smaller cam shaft. Some guys want a clean idle, to cruise at 1900 rpm in OD and get reasonable mileage with their 600 HP engine.. others want nice cam lope, and don't hardly ever drive on the highway.. so they want the bigger cam.

    Failure to accept that too much past 600 HP with no girdle is like putting an expiration date on your engine, and not a wise move. Like all rules, you will find someone that has built one or two motors and got away with it, and claims to have "all the answers" but as a guy who builds dozens of these things, I can tell you that the law of averages will catch up with everyone. For every one motor that has lived beyond 625HP with no girdle, I can tell you about 4 that have not.

    Most of my customers don't want to incur the extra cost of the girdle installation, as well as the extra $400 in port work, to go to the Level 3 porting, that will get the heads into the mid 320 range.. simple because in a street car, your talking about a well over a thousand dollars of increased cost, for what?...

    Just how hard to you need to spin the tires?

    I can attest that 600 HP, in a 3900 lbs car, on street tires, can get away from you pretty quick, and is plenty fast... break the tires loose at 60mph fast on the freeway when you drop it to second and nail it...

    But as I mentioned, if you want 600 ponies, I can do that for you with a 230 duration roller, just have to step up for he more head work. That motor barely has a lope to it. And honestly, I have built copies of what is Larry's motor now three times... two with the 112* LC that Larry had, and one with a 114*LC.. power is similar, but the 114 motors have virtually no cam lope..


    Anson,

    Truth be told this motor was a bit experimental when it came to rockers... that pull was with TA roller rockers on it, we wanted to see the power difference.

    I had it suggested to me, by someone I trust, that we could use the 70-71 stock rockers, with HD shafts, with these milder Hyd roller cams. Here is test fitting those rockers on the stand..

    [​IMG]

    HD shafts, roller rocker hold downs/stud kit, rebuilt 70-71 aluminum rockers.

    Tried this twice, on this motor, and on a iron head stock appearing motor, with a mild roller, and both times, side loading of the rockers breaks a nylon button in short order.. within 200 miles on both engines. So we have switched now to the 68-9 rockers, and those are currently being proven on that stock appearing motor. Trying to get away from the $900 rocker arms... but this motor ended up with exactly that.

    This is the pull with the stock rockers in place..

    [​IMG]

    As always, there is a few more ponies from the rollers, but that is never the reason to invest in them.. durability is. Ask me this time next year on how the long term 68-9 rocker experiment went.. I will know by then.

    JW
     
  2. Jim Weise

    Jim Weise EFI/DIS 482

    Not that I am aware of... because there really is no need.. someone would just want to have to play around with it that mopar performer rpm intake, for curiousity sake.

    It's not like we can't build enough HP with the current crop of dual/single plane Buick manifolds.

    Mopar manifolds and adapters are all about serious race motors that need to breath from 6500 rpm to 7000 plus on the drag strip or a cutting edge FI manifold.

    Doing one of those right now on a 560 Tomahawk for a board member, will be on the dyno soon, I am going to be interested in how it works.. Looking for some BIG torque numbers, with what is essentially a tunnel ram manifold. I don't have any illusions about big top end HP with this NA combo, the manifold is not that big internally, but you never know what velocity can do for you.. so we test..

    And the "cool factor"...

    [​IMG]

    JW
     
  3. Mike Phillips

    Mike Phillips Silver Level contributor

    Just to voice the same as Jim on this subject, This is a "Stealth" engine I did a few years back.
    Stage 1 SE heads with SS port work 315/220 , hydraulic roller, Performer intake match ported to heads, 800 QJ, same pistons as Jim's that we collaborated on that ended up at 10.6 compression 1.6 T/A rockers.
    His engine was Stage 2. B4B, with a slightly larger cam which made more HP where mine made more torque. I think in both cases a cam in the middle would have been nice.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Feb 20, 2017
  4. 87GN_70GS

    87GN_70GS Well-Known Member

    Looks a tad lean at upper RPM.

    What was the lobe sep and where was the intake installed at?
     
  5. 87GN_70GS

    87GN_70GS Well-Known Member

    Great results!

    Why the large exh bias with Stage 2 heads?
     
  6. Jim Weise

    Jim Weise EFI/DIS 482

    It's not a STG 2 specific cam... works equally well in the STG 1 stuff.

    I have run everything from straight pattern to 2 4 6 8 and 10 degree splits in STG 2's now, and I am convinced it simply does not hurt it to have a bit more exhaust duration than it may need.

    Much, much more important is to have a "lobe you know" to be stable.

    And I know both the lobes on this cam. One of my best grinds.

    JW
     
  7. Mike Phillips

    Mike Phillips Silver Level contributor

    It made more power there.
    With pump gas you can never tell what an engine likes till you ask it.
    Besides it will fatten up some after the air cleaner in installed.
    112 @108
     
  8. Bad Buick

    Bad Buick Foe Fiddy Five

    Jim, How would something like this do with a roller version of the TA 290H cam ground with a slightly wider Lobe Center? Say a 113 or 114 or maybe even 115 LC? And 1.6 roller rockers?

    TA 290H specs- 238/238 @ .050/ .525 .525 w 1.6 RR.

    As good as the S2 exhaust flow it seems they would do fine with a straight pattern cam.

    Interesting the OE engineers had the LC puzzle figured out nearly almost 50 years ago..that the BBB likes wider lobe centers..assuming the TA S1 specs are correct it was ground on a 113 LC..210/224 @ .050..very mild cam overall.
     
  9. Jim Weise

    Jim Weise EFI/DIS 482

    Would be very similar to what you see here..

    I have built that motor with a flat tappet 290H, but never a roller.

    Like I said, the extra exhaust does not hurt it, and the intake duration is within a degree or two.

    JW
     
  10. Bad Buick

    Bad Buick Foe Fiddy Five

    Jim, you did a 470 w/ the Diamond pistons and a TA FT 290H? Was it with the 1.6 roller rockers?

    Do you have any of the dyno numbers?

    Thanks Jim.
     
  11. LARRY70GS

    LARRY70GS a.k.a. "THE WIZARD" Staff Member

    Jim, didn't you test my motor 1 with a 290H roller? That's the dyno test that revealed the #4 bearing problem on that block, so the numbers wouldn't be representative of anything. What ever happened to that cam?
     
  12. Jim Weise

    Jim Weise EFI/DIS 482

    Could be Larry, I think I sold that cam on the board here... I have no record or dyno info for a motor with a 290 roller.

    Although I really don't recall going bigger on the cam on yours.. was pretty sure we went the other way.

    Honestly, I don't recall, your motor is serial number 1053... I just stamped 1099 on Friday.. so nearly 50 motor combos have went thru my hands since then..

    You would recall better than me.

    =======

    Here is that flat tappet 290 testing..

    This was a 470 with STG 2 heads, Performer intake, tested with both a Q-jet and a 1000 HP Holley. TA 290H cam, flat tappet

    With Q-jet

    [​IMG]

    we noticed it was pulling a vacuum with the 800 Q-jet, so we dropped on a 1000 HP Holley, with 1" spacer under it..

    [​IMG]
     
  13. TexasT

    TexasT Texas, where are you from

    I'm kinda Leary of the cast aluminum rockers. I had one break, could have been a fluke. Are the stamped steel worse? I like the idea of not spending upwards of a grand on roller rockers that don't net much extra power. I'd rather spend it one a third of the ported heads and get something for the money. I like the idea of a smooth power engine I can cruise in forth gear with 3.42 rear gears. Will probably be a 3.08 set and a th400 to start off until the money can be saved for a nifty 2004r.

    This is a great thread, thanks for all who are contributing.
     
  14. Jim Weise

    Jim Weise EFI/DIS 482

    Side loading that is inherent in the Buick valve train broke a plastic rocker retainer button on two different motors, with two different, mild hydraulic rollers. One is a fluke.. two is a pattern. Both happened in the first couple hundred miles of driving.

    So the cast alum/stamped steel rockers are off the table here at TSP. Most likely you would push the pushrod thru the stamped steel rocker, had that happen on more aggressive flat tappet engines.

    One motor was converted to 68-9 430 rockers, the other went to TA roller rockers.

    We will see how the 68-9 rockers work out, but initial testing has been encouraging.
     
  15. Gary Bohannon

    Gary Bohannon Well-Known Member

    How much difference with a 1.55 vs 1.59 rocker at about 500-550HP?
     
  16. Jim Weise

    Jim Weise EFI/DIS 482

    I would guess less than 5, certainly no more than 10.. most of the power between roller rockers and stock stuff probably comes from the roller tip, and the lack of deflection in the valvetrain with an easier opening valve, rolling instead of scuffing.., we never really have seen much power from 1.6 to 1.65 roller swaps.

    I did it once years ago, because we were having hyd lifter failure with the 1.65's on a customer motor on the dyno..Had a set of 1.6's with me and we swapped them out.. could not really tell HP, because with the hyd lifter failure gone at high rpm, the motor actually made more power with the 1.6 ratio.. but when we looked at the torque peak, long before the lifter issues came up, there were only 3 or 4 numbers different.. nothing big.


    JW
     
  17. 87GN_70GS

    87GN_70GS Well-Known Member

    So, if needing a cam for my configuration (12 more cubes, QJ or TQ, S1 SE, B4B with center divider milled some and port match, 2" headers) and wanting a cam between the AMP and TSP builds (would like hp peak rpm between the 2 maxes), how well would a 237/243 HR on 113 LSA, 108 ICL, .575" lift work?
     
  18. Stevem

    Stevem Well-Known Member

    I got to say that the water temp on that dyno pull was unrealistically low!
     
  19. 65Larkin

    65Larkin Well-Known Member

    Very interesting and relevant to my build. When swapping to the spacer and Holley carb was it an open spacer? How much difference do you think it would have made dropping the centre divider some on the performer and tuning the Qjet to suit?
     
  20. Bad Buick

    Bad Buick Foe Fiddy Five

    Jim, How are the 68-9 rockers holding up?
     
    B-rock likes this.

Share This Page