What kinda power does a 494 make over a 464 with stage II heads and same intake Just starting to look ahead for my next build up :laugh:
Mike What Rods/pistons,Valve size,Head flow do you have now? I think we are learning that sometimes the extra CI are not worth enough and the money would be better spent on lightweight parts and other areas of detail. You're making pretty good power now,The faster you go the more work every hundredth costs.
PS....... There are 464's and 470's out there that pound for pound run similar to my 505,The power is in the cylinder heads and these smalller engines can rev quicker and easier thanks to the light rotating assembly's
Well right now I have light weight JE piston there 628 grams stock rods and crank heads they flow 330 250 at .600 the valve are 2.16 in 1.75 ex well right know for the winter plans i'm gona lose some weight with glass hood with stage II scoop and front and rear glass bumpers and hrparts sway bar to stop the torque twist and freshen up with new cam and valve springs I hoping with those changes put me in the 10.20's And then i was thinking of starting to build another short block 494 to try to get down to 10.00's
Gary is right on the mark with this. Bruce Kent and myself have had hours of discussion on this matter. You don't have to look very far to see where the money spent on a 494 would be better but in a smaller motor. There are 5 or 6 cars that this year that ran in the 9 second zone with legal GSM cars these cars have to weigh 7.75 pounds per cubic inch with full exhaust and stock suspension. I know for a fact that two of those cars are well over 100 pounds heavy based on cubes. And both have run well into the 9.80's. One of those cars is almost 3800 pounds and runs a 464 that dynoed over 800 HP :shock: :shock: . The other is close to that weight and has a 470 that motor has not been dynoed but has run over 1 MPH faster. Which tells me they are very close to the same HP. The 470 based on weather conditions and ET calculated to 789 HP at one race. Now these cars have all the best stuff in them 628-gram piston is actually heavy I run a tapered tool steel pin that weighs less than a hundred grams and the piston is under 400. It has aluminum rods and the crank is turned round knife edged and airplane foiled. This thing will rev like a small block Chevy. We did a motor for a customer and told him it would be different after starting it he called and all he could say was HOLY S&^T does this thing rip. But to do that its not cheap. Most guys don't want to spring for something like that because there is no actual HP gained from it for the most part. I feel if it will rev faster and makes the power you in turn will accelerate faster. We found a long time ago on the dyno that a motor that revs quicker and make the same HP it will on track run quicker. The problem with what I just said is that at the time there was no way to really measure how quick an engine revved other than seat of your pants once you dyno a lot of engines you can just tell if one is snappy or kind of sluggish in its response. Today with inertia dyno's they can measure acceleration of an engine. It would be fun to spend time with a couple three engines and just play with this then run them in the car to find out if this theory is true. I can also toss in here that we have built for one of our cars a 464 then built a 494 using the same heads, intake and cam the 494 made 6 or 8 hp more but made about 30 foot pounds more. I don't have the dyno sheets in front of me but those are better close to the numbers. All this being said there are many theorys out there on what is best and you need to decide what is going to work best for you.
494 or 464 Hey mike, ive seen you run your car at new england. well my car is lighter than yours 3275 # and ive run 9.57 @ 139 thats with iron heads that flow 277 @ 650 lift, my motor was a 469 and it had heavy eagle rods and heavy bme pistons. I know every body will think im nuts but i got about 1350 passes out of that combo before i changed the bearings without checking the clearance and it came apart.every time i pulled that motor down it looked great. ive seen some of this light weight stuff after 100 runs and it was time for new stuff. its up to you what your looking to do, i know you race with the cmdr and you make alot of passes so id stick with the 464 and get some rods @ a girdle. with your heads i now i could put together a combo that would put you in the 9sss, thats my two cents (TORQUENSOVER)
My 470ci is a .038 over standard (4.349), and crank is slightly offset ground, stroke is 3.955 (I think) and I'm running a 7 inch big block chevy rod. Runs great! in my 3600lb. 65 Convert has gone 10.33@132 on motor and 9.59@138on 200 shot on nitrous. On motor I shift at 6800, on the juice, 6600. I thought about the 494 and bigger big blocks, it just seemed better to me to stay "small". Good luck. Gary G.
As usaul Gary K. is right. I would not go the 494 again for the money. Could have used the money to lighten the car and ran much faster. Torque is through the roof, while that was the goal on a heavy car like mine(3,800 lbs.) Now I am switching things over to a Skyhawk and would rather be able to spin the motor a little higher then I do right now.
if you are going for a new shortblock a 494 is a good choice because the crank is lighter because you turn it down. the piston is shorter so it is lighter, and the bearing speed is less with the 2'' crank pin, bearings are cheaper because it is small block chev. I do agree you won't make much more power than a stock stroke but I believe the reason for this is the cross section width of the intake port not the stroke itself.the stock stroke engines reach their potential per cubic inch more so than the stroker engines do but if you can find a good deal on a 494 setup take it that is what I did, the reason I did a 494 was because I needed rods and pistons and a friend of mine had a stroker kit for sale so it made that decision easy. By the way i like your car it reminds me of mine, small tire street car 69' :beer
Yea thanks, that is my plan right know the car is all steel full int. the hood and the bumper(Hoping to pick up with the scoop right now the carb is only 2" from the stock hood)that will change the look a little next I might look in to some lighter seats but trying to keep it as simple as I can and run low 10's but I need to build another short block this one all stock no girdle And if anyone is selling they old set up to up grade to the new block let me know.... :beer
Hi Perry I was wondering what camshaft you were running in the 494 and how much power it made my engine is a 491 c.i. (4.13) stroke. it has a 508 solid in it 276 @ .050 .612 net lift 108 lobe . I think the cam is not quite right but at the time it was on my shelf so I ran it . I am thinking of doing a custom solid this winter and am kicking around some ideas.
Perry does some cam design on his own he has built some real stout cams for guys out there that run GSM. I have one in a 464 that runs low 10.20's in a 3800-pound car. I know that Tim haffner has run 10.01 with one in his GSM car. He might be able to really set you up with a nice piece. I have a custom stick from Scott Brown in my 470 that works great also It has run low 9.80's at 136 at 3755#'s. That stick works everywhere on the track I feel it has no shortcomings at all. The specs look really goofy but seem to do the number I love it. You can call ether one and get a nice stick to run .
HI Bob thanks for the reply those numbers your car ran are just incredible!when you say the cam specs sound goofy do you mean real wide lobe sep. by the way how much power does that 470 of yours make? :Brow:
Adam I can't tell you the cam specs custom piece and I run H/U and don't wish to tell. The horse power is alot but I can tell you that the thing is in the high 700's . There's more there I just need to get the sixty foots down. One of these days I will rebuild and we will see what I can do :Brow: . I don;'t know if perry got his car to sixty like Tom Rix or not but those guy's have the sixty figured out. The MPH in my car tells me it should run quicker. This site has a good HP calculator seems to be close with et to weight http://www.gofastzone.com/carmath/default.asp Give it a try the sixty foot MPH is cool My car has gone 1.36 off the foot break and that is 60.13 MPH. Just cool to tell people that my car could 0 to 60 in 1.36 seconds.
Hey Bobb, That site you posted is very interesting. I compared it to my Moroso power Speed Calculator and the results are pretty close. It showed that my car needed 826 RWHP to go 8.77 at 2825 lbs. :3gears: Also... a little birdie told me you may be headed back to work soon. Thats great news!!! Perry, It took me a while to understand that if you want to go fast then you must twist these engines to 7400-7500 rpms. I tried twisting the 464 to 7200 with the old style cams and the thing just would not MPH. I wish I would have hit you up for a cam when I was running the small engine. Then maybe I would have been able to run quicker with the small engine like you guys!!!! Later
John Looks like after the first of the year I'm back in the working world. Amy says she sick of bringing in all the money. I kind of liked it I'm never home always on the go visiting people. I spend a couple days a week at a doctors office somewhere but they are slowly kicking me out. Perry Funny how time progresses all the classes no matter what you race. There is a big to-do on the NSCA board in American Muscle car over tubular a arms. I changed the GSE stuff to look like GSM for the most part didn't make sense to have them so far apart in rules. Technology has change in converters to I have a 10-inch converter in my car that flashes to 5400 and slips very little. In fact the converter that I had in the car at Salem was locking up tight about 40 feet out and would drag the car down. No torque multiplication is what they were telling me we loosened it up 4 or 5 % and the picked up over a MPH and brought the rpms down under 7000. I would have never thought that you could get a 10-inch to stall to 5400 before. The thing looks huge compared to my 9 inch.
I was also looking to do a 494 next year but you guys may have swayed me in a different direction. Maybe I should go with some lighter internals. How well do aluminum rods hold up on a "weekend" street car? I've heard you could and I've heard you can't o No: .
Hey Dom, I am still not sold on the fact that a 494 will make the same HP and TQ as a 464. My bet is the extra stroke is worth some HP and TQ over the 464. But I will say that however you build the engine think LIGHTWEIGHT components. If your going to put a power adder on the engine then make sure your components will be strong enough for the power adder of choice. The biggest problem with a 494 is the 2.000 rod journal compared to the stock 2.250. This modification has to weaken the crank a bit but there are quite a few guys making it work. Again.. the lightweight components will help out this situation and reduce the stresses on the block and crank. I would NOT go to a 494 with heavy internal parts. I think that is a recipe for disaster. If your going to use a steel rod them maybe look into going from the stock 3.90 stroke to a 4.00 which will give you a 2.100 rod journal. I dont know how to answer your question about aluminum rods and the weekend driving. Years ago the thought was an aluminum rod was only good for a certain amount of heat cycles. From what I have heard the biggest problem with aluminum rods are ultra high RPM. GRP told me that at 7400 rpms my connecting rods will last a LONG time. So my suggestion is to call GRP. Bobb, What benefit is there going to a 10" converter over a 9" converter in a 3800 lb car? You should be able to acheive a 5-7% converter slippage with both converters so it would seem silly to spin the EXTRA weight of the 10"? Carl, At the bottom of the GoFastZone page is says.... If you don't know your rear wheel horsepower, multiple your flywheel horesepower by .80 or .85 to estimate the rear wheel horsepower number. Again these are general rules of thumb calculations. Later
