From: Gary Pavlovich <glpavlovich@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Need a new Toy?
To: 1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxx
Date: Friday, May 6, 2011, 5:28 AM
Stan,
I am asking you questions to see what information your
comments/opinions were based on.
The 318 Poly engine will respond like any LA engine to
traditional HP modifications and "if" a Tunnel Ram worked on
an LA then it will work on a Poly...however, you cannot toss
a Tunnel Ram onto any "small" engine and have it
perform. The compatibility of the proper parts and
machining is what makes any engine perform.
I could say that a Max Wedge has too large of ports to
produce bottom end or "streetability" but we all know what
we must do to compensate and "Maximize" to reach the goal we
are aiming at.
You wrote that "if the heads (Poly) are any good someone
would be expanding on their design." Check out the
modern Mopar 4.7 engine head design and your question is
partially answered.
The Polyshperical combustion chamber provides superior BMEP
over the Wedge head and is just below the BMEP for a HEMI;
"... the poly engine had one absolutely unique feature: its
volumetric efficiency. If the Mopar figures as found in the
Plymouth factory manual are to be believed, torque of the
poly 318 was 345 lb.ft. Now, take torque and divide it by
cubes, then multiply this by 151, and you get brake mean
effective pressure (bmep). Try it for your self: bmep for
the poly 318 is 164 psi. (Again, that's the figure Plymouth
give). That is near to the theoretical limit for an
unsupercharged engine (and that's with the old log-type
exhaust manifolds too) and is very close to the 426 hemi's
bmep of 173psi, which had all those performance-designed
components. The bmep figure purely reflects breathing
efficiency (proportional use of the charge coming into the
engine), and is a product of the head, as opposed to the
block, which just needs to suck/blow as rapidly as possible
without flying into little pieces..."
The Poly head does not stall, unlike other head
designs. A bone-stock/unported Poly head will continue
to increase in cfm flow well past the realistic/usable lift
of .700." However, we easily made our HP & Torque
goals with a modest amount of flow and less dollar input.
Our last Poly build made a peak of 412HP & 438Torque
but in reality the Poly engine has such a high & flat HP
& Torque curve that in quoting "peak" numbers associated
with LA powerplants and Big Blocks is misleading; it has far
more average HP and torque.
For example;
a modest 208cfm @.500" lift on the intake side
9.5 compression
1.94/1.60" valves
small [email protected]" dur. and 292/.482" 110LC Hyd Poly Cam
cast iron 1957 dual quad w/500cfm Edelbrocks
Homemade headers...
Goal reached for the street:
From 3400-5400RPM (2000rpm spread) we AVERAGED 428ft.lbs.
" 3600-5600RMP (
" "
" ) " AVERAGED
375HP
Not bad for a throw-away motor. Core
charge is "free." We will leave your
non-streetable super stock max wedge engines on the track
where they shine best.
The Poly 318 doesn't have to stay "small" with the advent
of aftermarket Stroker cranks, although some people prefer
the 318 or 360 Poly to the 390, 402, or larger Stroker.
It is hard to beat the low cost outlay of "building" the
indigenous powerplant in the 62-65 Mopars; again, no fabbing
or modificaton needed to swap enigne/trans or beef-up the
suspension or other necessary fixes when transplanting a Big
Block or such into the chassis. No cost of buying the
440 or HEMI core engine and trans...
Of course it depends on your goals for the car/engine but I
wanted to address some of your comments/opinions as I do not
believe you had the information or facts to proffer an
informed comment or opinion.
Gary Pavlovich
----- Original Message ----- From: "Stan Kafouse" <skafouse@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 6:14 AM
Subject: Re: Need a new Toy?
They are pretty short Im sure, there also small, keeps
velocity up. Combined with small carb bores you'd get good
thottle response.
Neat engine to play with, but if the heads were any good
someone would be expanding on there design. Dont get upset,
this is just MY OPINION.
Ive built stock and super stock max wedge engines and
worked on a cup team as a machinst. I dont see how a tunnel
ram on a small engine will have any streetability. Again
just my opinion.
--- On Thu, 5/5/11, Gary Pavlovich <glpavlovich@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
> From: Gary Pavlovich <glpavlovich@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Need a new Toy?
> To: 1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Thursday, May 5, 2011, 5:23 AM
>
> Stan,
>
> How long are the runners in a stock Poly dual quad
intake
> or the Weiand
> single four Poly intake?
>
> Gary P.
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stan Kafouse"
<skafouse@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 3:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Need a new Toy?
>
>
> So... how tall is this "tunnel ram"? Carb
> and air cleaner will take what
> eight inches themselves? Plus clearance so engine can
> torque over and not
> hit hood. Is it an individual runner or common
plenum?
> Those short runners
> will have no bottom end, and if manifold is any good
at all
> will flow more
> than any poly head ever did. Got a cam and convertor
to
> match intake? Sounds
> neat, dont think it will work, cept for some wow
factor.
>
> --- On Wed, 5/4/11, Gary Pavlovich <glpavlovich@xxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Gary Pavlovich <glpavlovich@xxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: Need a new Toy?
> > To: 1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxx
> > Date: Wednesday, May 4, 2011, 9:38 PM
> >
> > Yes, I don't think any modern intake can beat a
Tunnel
> Ram
> > for Max HP & Torque, even the "old school"
> Weiands...of
> > course a tunnel is not a user-friendly manifold
for
> the
> > average Hot-Rodder due to height (for one) which
> requires no
> > hood or a cut-out for clearance.
> >
> > I will be running a Tunnel Ram on my Poly but I
> designed
> > the manifold to fit under the hood...of course I
have
> more
> > hood clearance than most people (approx. 16" from
top
> of
> > block face) so I can get away with a "tall
enough"
> > tunnel ram to make it effective and still have
the
> stealth
> > factor.
> >
> > Gary Pavlovich
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim
Altemose"
> <jaltemoose@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 8:51 AM
> > Subject: Re: Need a new Toy?
> >
> >
> > Indy refers to it as an "In-Line Cross Ram".
> >
> > Below is a comparison of the manifolds. Looks
like
> > the Tunnel Ram won out.
> > http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/techarticles/engine/mopp_0911_intake_manifold_tests/index.html
> >
> > - Jim
> > Jim Altemose, Long Island, NY
> > '63 Polara 500 (Max Wedge)
> > '63 Polara 500 (383)
> > '65 Belvedere I (Street Wedge)
> > '71 Bronco
> >
> > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Roger Pettigrew
> <dodger7998@xxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Ok,,,,,will take your word for it,, would
have to
> see
> > the intake it self to
> > > understand,,,,,,, sure looks like an inline
set
> up to
> > me
> > >
> > >
> > > In a message dated 5/3/2011 11:14:58 A.M.
> Central
> > Daylight Time,
> > > mcreglow@xxxxxxxxx
> > writes:
> > >
> > > actually that is a cross ram. that is the
indy
> > cylinder head x-ram,
> > > and is the hot ticket for nostalgia super
stock
> > racing.
> > > http://www.usaperform.com/indy-chrysler-cross-manifolds-p-231.html
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Roger
Pettigrew
> <dodger7998@xxxxxxx>
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Nice toy,,,,,,,makes me wonder what the
real
> story
> > is on cars that are
> > >> obviously misdescribed in their
> description,,,,,,,
> > that is definitely
> > > not a
> > >> crossram on it, so makes me wonder what
else
> is
> > not being seen
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> In a message dated 5/1/2011 4:03:10
P.M.
> Central
> > Daylight Time,
> > >> shelby_nut@xxxxxxxxx
> > writes:
> > >>
> > >>
> > > http://ontario.kijiji.ca/c-cars-vehicles-classic-cars-1963-plymouth-savoy-W0
> > >> QQAdIdZ279189587
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> [Non-text portions of this message have
been
> > removed]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ----
> > >> Please address private mail -- mail of
> interest to
> > only one person --
> > > directly to that person. I.e., send
parts/car
> > transactions and negotiations
> > > as well as other personal messages only to
the
> > intended recipient, not to
> > > the Clubhouse public address. This practice
will
> > protect your privacy,
> > > reduce the total volume of mail and fine
tune
> the
> > content signal to Mopar topic.
> > > Thanks!
> > >>
> > >> 1962 to 1965 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion
> > Guidelines:
> > >> http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html and
> > > http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.com/general_disclaimer.html.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > --
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have
been
> removed]
> > >
> > >
> > > ----
> > > Please address private mail -- mail of
interest
> to
> > only one person -- directly to that person.
I.e.,
> send
> > parts/car transactions and negotiations as well
as
> other
> > personal messages only to the intended recipient,
not
> to the
> > Clubhouse public address. This practice will
protect
> your
> > privacy, reduce the total volume of mail and fine
tune
> the
> > content signal to Mopar topic. Thanks!
> > >
> > > 1962 to 1965 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion
> Guidelines:
> > > http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html and
> > http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.com/general_disclaimer.html.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----
> > Please address private mail -- mail of interest
to
> only one
> > person -- directly to that person. I.e., send
> > parts/car transactions and negotiations as well
as
> other
> > personal messages only to the intended recipient,
not
> to the
> > Clubhouse public address. This practice will
protect
> your
> > privacy, reduce the total volume of mail and fine
tune
> the
> > content signal to Mopar topic. Thanks!
> >
> > 1962 to 1965 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion
Guidelines:
> > http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html and
> > http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.com/general_disclaimer.html.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ----
> Please address private mail -- mail of interest to
only one
> person -- directly to that person. I.e., send
> parts/car transactions and negotiations as well as
other
> personal messages only to the intended recipient, not
to the
> Clubhouse public address. This practice will protect
your
> privacy, reduce the total volume of mail and fine tune
the
> content signal to Mopar topic. Thanks!
>
> 1962 to 1965 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion Guidelines:
> http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html and
> http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.com/general_disclaimer.html.
>
>
>
>
----
Please address private mail -- mail of interest to only one
person -- directly to that person. I.e., send
parts/car transactions and negotiations as well as other
personal messages only to the intended recipient, not to the
Clubhouse public address. This practice will protect your
privacy, reduce the total volume of mail and fine tune the
content signal to Mopar topic. Thanks!
1962 to 1965 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion Guidelines:
http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html and
http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.com/general_disclaimer.html.
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network