Gary Sounds like you got it together on these polys. What is your quench area? where does the intake valve close? You may find a smaller cam with less overlap would make the same power. I personally never use anything over 230 on the street, usually 223 or so. If I do I go to 260ish and advance it 5 degrees. Whats your dist. timing curve? A stocker cam is a blast on the street. Try that with a 1.6 intake rocker. Stan --- On Fri, 5/6/11, Gary Pavlovich <glpavlovich@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 232@.050" 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. > > >