Author Topic: 74 Challenger driver  (Read 23354 times)

Offline femtnmax

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 997
Re: 74 Challenger driver
« Reply #30 on: March 17, 2009 - 10:09:41 PM »
I added 2 posts in the Engine Go Fast section on cylinder head pushrod pinch E-tool and intake port short side radius check gauge.
Update today includes verified quench clearance, degreed cam, and checked combustion chamber shape match to cylinder.
Quench includes Felpro #8553 PT head gasket with 0.043 compressed thickness, and piston 0.005 above block deck for quench 043-005=0.038 inch.   Setting cam at 106.5 intake centerline, then with loss of 1 degree for chain stretch will have 107.5.   I'm using 1.71 rocker arm ratio, which reading says should have a slightly reduced intake centerline.
Combustion chamber shape closely matches cylinder so no blending of top of cylinder bore is required near intake or exhaust valves.
Next is working on cylinder head pushrod geometry thru ported intake port.  Using LA block and magnum heads, the flat tappet cam lifters are shorter than roller lifters, so pushrod does not line up perfectly thru holes in heads, plus I'm adding brass tubes to intake ports to open up the pushrod pinch.
Phil




Offline femtnmax

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 997
Re: 74 Challenger driver
« Reply #31 on: March 22, 2009 - 10:49:13 PM »
Worked on rocker arm geometry.  Used Comp checking pushrod #7702, 6.8-7.8 inches long.   For LA block, magnum heads, and flat tappet hyd cam, ended up with 7.65 pushrod length for Comp magnum roller tip rocker 1.6 ratio.  I've decided for now to use the magnum rockers on the exhaust, and Crower 1.8 full roller rocker on the intake because...
I always knew the mopars had a 59 degree lifter angle, didn't mean much until today.  So I'm checking cam lobe lift, valve lift, etc and seemed like I had the wrong cam, the valve lift was not there.  I checked the cam lobes, its the right cam.   Well, that 59 degree tappet angle means the lifters are moving sideways as they move "up".  The result is a loss of lift to the tune of 5-6.25% in my case.
What this means is the .547 exhaust lift I thought I'd get with 1.6 rocker turned out to be .514 lift.  (6.25 % loss)   That's pathetic.
Part of the reasoning behind today's roller cams is "the most lift for the least duration".   The measely 514 lift is not "the most" in my book.
ONe benefit of the magnum cylinder heads is all these rocker ratios are available for small block chevy.  If I use a 1.8 rocker on the intake, then subtract the 5% loss of lift that I measured for that rocker, the end result is a 1.71 rocker ratio.  Just a little less than used OEM on a 1965 Ford 352 truck engine.
One way to beat the opponent is to study what they are doing.  Obviously the ramchargers and mopar weren't looking.
So in the end I'll have 0.563 intake lift using 1.8 rocker, and 0.514 exhaust lift using 1.6 rocker.  I'd like a little more exhaust lift, but the budget $$ can do only so much.  I'm going with the Crower's because they have a good reputation, and I don't want roller needle bearings floating around from a busted cheap rocker.   From what I've read, current thinking is the sky is the limit on intake lift, where as the exhaust need duration to expell the fumes.
The old super stock drag racers back in the 70's knew about flow "Dwell time".  Even if the port stops flowing at 0.50 lift, don't just put in a cam with that lift, because that lift is only seen for an instant.   Instead, put in say a .525 lift or much more, so the port 'sees' that peak flow for a bunch of crank degrees rotation, not just for an instant.

So I did a quick check on another cam I have,  happened to be a small block mopar Comp 268AH-10.   The rated lift assumes your getting ALL of the rocker lift, no loss due to 59 angle.  So in the end, the "extra lift" (0.464) of this particular Comp cam is used up by the reduced rocker ratio.  The 1.5 ratio, minus 5% equals 1.425 ratio, so the lift at the valve is about 0.441 which is real close to old 340 auto cam specs. 
So the lift stated on some (or all??) the cam cards is NOT the actual lift the valve will see for a mopar V8.

I mocked up a brass pushrod tube for the intake ports, pressed it flat against the port wall.  Looks good, pushrod clears, and won't have that big choke in the flow.    So I"m told, the port flow should NOT have rapid changes in velocity, which is exactly what  the pushrod pinch does especially on the magnum heads intake ports.
First photo shows the 90 degree cylinder banks, second pic the brass pipe is the lifter angle ( not parallel to the cylinder),  Theres an exhaust rocker full open, and pushrod clearance with valve closed  (not much clearance, but its there).  Pushrods move toward the rocker stud as the valve opens, so plenty of clearance when valve is open.   I aligned the pushrod guide plate with the intake pushrod, but photo shows the exhaust pushrod is OFF so rocker does not align with valve, need to cut and weld the guide plates to correct this.  Last pic is the brass tube flattened to intake port wall.  I'll epoxy the tubes in place when they go in for real.

« Last Edit: March 22, 2009 - 11:05:10 PM by femtnmax »
Phil

Offline Stacked440

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1026
Re: 74 Challenger driver
« Reply #32 on: March 23, 2009 - 12:04:48 AM »
Lookin' mighty fine!  The frame connectors look very well done, quality work  :thumbsup:
-Kyle-
1971 Challenger R/T clone 440/5-spd
1973 Duster - 5.7L Hemi swap project

Offline femtnmax

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 997
Re: 74 Challenger driver
« Reply #33 on: March 28, 2009 - 04:44:49 PM »
Lookin' mighty fine!  The frame connectors look very well done, quality work  :thumbsup:
Thank you Stacked440.
Waiting for rocker arms to show up, so worked on R/T hood scoops.   Theres a discussion in the body shop section as to whether the scoops could be made functional, including if the boundary layer would inhibit too much flow.  I suggested someone do a knitting yarn test for boundary layer thickness at the scoops in real driving conditions.   I think they will work, not like a Super Stock Cuda or Dart scoop, but still work better than a dual snorkel air cleaner.
Here is some area match info.
Carb:  850 cfm thermoquad, total throttle plate area=11.48 sq.inches
340 air cleaner (single snorkel)  snorkel area=3.19 sq.inches.  So dual snorkel would have area=6.38 sq.inches which is still alot less than the carb needs.
R/T scoop opening, unported stock, for 2 scoops area=10.4 sq.inches.
Approx Super Stock scoop opening at 24 wide X 6 tall, area=144 sq.inches. So the SS scoop has over 10 times the flow area required by the carb, which must work well at speeds of about 100 mph.
I ported my R/T scoops.  Ended up with 14.8 sq.inch total area for 2 scoops, thats 42% increase over unported scoops.  Now compare to carb throttle plate area gives  14.8-11.5=3.3 sq. inches.   So the ported scoops now have 29% more area than the carb throttle plates.  Thats much better than unported where the scoops had 10% less area than the throttle plates. 
So I think I'll make an air cleaner box that seals to the underside of the hood.  I'll have more air flow than a dual snorkel air cleaner, and the flow will be COLD, not heated like under the hood.
The ported scoop is the lower one in the photo, and I only worked the lower edge of the scoop as shown in the photo so when standing beside the car you won't see the port work.

Phil

Offline femtnmax

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 997
Re: 74 Challenger driver
« Reply #34 on: April 14, 2009 - 10:34:10 PM »
All new panels are on the car.  I posted comments in the body shop section for the Goodmark RT hood, Goodmark and AMD rear quarters, AMD roof skin and drip edges, outer wheelwells,trunk, and AMD bumpers.
Still waiting for Crower roller rocker arms so I can continue cylinder head work.   I'll break the engine in with 1.6 rocker ratio, then switch to 1.75 on the intakes.  If the Lunati voodoo hyd flat tappet cam won't work with the aggressive rocker ratio I'll change to a solid flat tappet cam.
Had extra metal welded to Edel RPM air gap intake, so I can attach thermoquad carb without adapter.  The weld shop did a great job on all the welds except for the back two bolt holes, then the welds turned to birdcrap.  I'll put some time in to bring it back to quality finish and post the results.  I've started a 3 month night class for arc-mig welding, then want to follow it up with mig aluminum weld class.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2009 - 10:36:41 PM by femtnmax »
Phil

Offline femtnmax

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 997
Re: 74 Challenger driver
« Reply #35 on: April 27, 2009 - 06:09:34 PM »
Repairing 1970 headlight bucket backer plates before welding them to the front fenders.  I always liked the 70 grill better than the newer style.   Ended up buying a 74 model year just because the price was right, car had not been in major frame bending accident, not too far from home, did not have to miss work to pick the car up, etc.
So anyway, I'm swapping over to the older grill style.  Photos show the headlight backers in work.
Also modified the Edelbrock RPM air gap to attach a spread bore thermoquad carb to the intake without needing an adapter.  Some folks say you need the extra plenum volume that the adapter has to help top end power, but what I've read it only adds single digit increases so I'm not going to worry about it.
Sent the Edelbrock magnum cylinder heads back to the machine shop to have the pushrod holes enlarged/offset toward the intake manifold gasket surface.  When they are done I'll be epoxying 9/16 diameter brass tubes in the pushrod holes to complete the intake port mods at the pushrod pinch.
Phil

Offline 70burntorangeT/A

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1303
Re: 74 Challenger driver
« Reply #36 on: April 27, 2009 - 08:36:50 PM »
Looking good, did you ever decide what color you wanted to paint yours??
66 f-100 black  240 straight 6  3 on the tree.....currently blown up :(
70 challenger burnt orange 440 727 3:23-weekend cruizer

Offline The Cuda Guy

  • Support Our Troops
  • Resident
  • ****
  • Posts: 3899
  • Pearl Harbor, HI
    • C-C.com
Re: 74 Challenger driver
« Reply #37 on: April 27, 2009 - 10:29:12 PM »
Man looking good bro!  Keep us posted.  I bet this thing will be a screamer.

Don
The Cuda Guy Project is on going!

Member Since January 14, 2002

Offline femtnmax

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 997
Re: 74 Challenger driver
« Reply #38 on: April 28, 2009 - 12:09:26 PM »
Looking good, did you ever decide what color you wanted to paint yours??
Many years ago I remember sitting in my GTX at the drive in watching the movie Vanishing Point.   The GTX was dark green metallic, before that my 440 4 speed charger was blue, a few cars later the 340 duster was super yellow.  So the Challenger is going to be painted Alpine White.  The body shop is working to get the body seams all even, since what I've been told the seams stand out more on a white car.
Phil

Offline femtnmax

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 997
Re: 74 Challenger driver
« Reply #39 on: May 22, 2009 - 08:59:31 PM »
Fitting 1970 grill to 74 sheet metal.   Welded head light backing pieces to front fenders.  Purchased 1970 center radiator support, but 74 support could have been easily modified to work.  Head light surround grill pieces need angled attachment, so vertical flange on front of fenders will be modified to match angled flange on 1970 fenders.
Moved the hood bumpers from in front of the radiator support to behind it, and plugged the old holes.  The brace that supports the forward location  has to be removed to fit the 70 grill in place.
All grill pieces matched up without much hassle.  Buying 1970 fenders would have saved restoring the head light backers, and saved weld/fitup time.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2009 - 09:02:14 PM by femtnmax »
Phil

Offline Chlngrcrzy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1410
Re: 74 Challenger driver
« Reply #40 on: May 23, 2009 - 02:15:35 PM »
wow, great job. I have a 73 that i might or might not convert. But i am partial to the 71 style myself. did you convertr the side marker lights? I have the rear ones converted but still working on the front ones. :2thumbs:

Offline femtnmax

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 997
Re: 74 Challenger driver
« Reply #41 on: May 23, 2009 - 10:55:16 PM »
wow, great job. I have a 73 that i might or might not convert. But i am partial to the 71 style myself. did you convertr the side marker lights? I have the rear ones converted but still working on the front ones. :2thumbs:
No I did not, but with all the sheet metal I replaced I probably should have.  I have all 4 corners marker light sheet metal cut out of OEM fenders/quarters to do the conversion, but I found such good deals on 73-74 style marker lights I decided to just use them.
Years ago I had a 73 340 duster with the "newer" style marker lights, so I guess I'm used to the look, though the older ones are much smoother looking for sure.
Phil

Offline 71ChallengerSE

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 726
Re: 74 Challenger driver
« Reply #42 on: May 24, 2009 - 12:42:34 AM »
No I did not, but with all the sheet metal I replaced I probably should have.  I have all 4 corners marker light sheet metal cut out of OEM fenders/quarters to do the conversion, but I found such good deals on 73-74 style marker lights I decided to just use them.
Years ago I had a 73 340 duster with the "newer" style marker lights, so I guess I'm used to the look, though the older ones are much smoother looking for sure.
Personally I would go ahead and change the side markers. You have done so much work already to achieve that 70 look. And if you are going to paint it white I would think that the 72-74 style would stick out. If it were me I would change 'em, but its your car so do what you like.

Offline Super Blue 72

  • Permanent Resident
  • *******
  • Posts: 12711
  • "Big 'n Little" Member since 8/9/05
    • Phil's Super Blue '72
Re: 74 Challenger driver
« Reply #43 on: May 24, 2009 - 11:06:06 AM »
Progress looks great!  :thumbsup:

Some people that have gone with the '72-'74 style side markers made tem flush to the fenders/quarters and it makes them look very clean appearing.  They don't stick out so much and look less obtrusive.
1972 Dodge Challenger Rallye 340, AT, Code TB3=Super Blue, SBD=8/17/1971.  Yes, a Rallye without the fender louvers from the factory because of the body side molding option.

Pic #2 and 3 of my ARII 1/24 scale model car 

Phil in New England-Massachusetts  Always thank God for what you have!

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/456046/1972-dodge-challenger

Offline femtnmax

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 997
Re: 74 Challenger driver
« Reply #44 on: May 31, 2009 - 07:54:42 PM »
Working on the cylinder heads and valve train.  Has taken awhile to sort out what parts work the best.  One big lesson learned is the pushrod/rocker arm/valve tip geometry has more affect on valve lift than I realized, maybe because this is the first time I've tried to optimize everything for a non-OEM parts combination.  Almost there so here is where I'm at.
I had initially expected to use 1.6 rocker arm ratio as a minimum, and hoped to use an even higher rocker ratio on the intake valve, but I have found out this only works for solid lifter cams.  There is a limit as to how fast hydraulic lifters can be actuated, and you must pay attention to this if your running a hydraulic lifter cam (either flat tappet or roller lifter), especially if included with mopar 904 cam lobe profiles.

Several articles over the past couple years in Engine Masters magazine helped to show what rocker ratios worked with hydraulic lifter cams (flat tappet or roller is all the same) and what did not.   On older OEM mopar heads, 3/8 valve stem diameters were used which results in heavy valve weights.  When the heavy valves were combined with todays mopar specific cam lobe profiles, the valve train was operating at the maximum ability when combined with 1.5 rocker arm ratio.
A later E.M. article used the newer Edelbrock magnum cylinder heads which have smaller diameter (5/16?) valve stems and smaller valve head thickness resulting in lighter weight valves.  Then a 1.6 rocker arm ratio was able to be used with mopar specific cam lobe profiles.   One E.M. article did use 1.65 rocker ratio, but it was combined with a "chevy" style cam lobe profile which is 7 % less fast than mopar specific lobes.
So in conclusion, a 1.6 rocker ratio is the fastest that can be used when combined with hydraulic lifter Mopar cam lobe profiles and light weight "budget" valve parts.

My initial "best fit" for rocker arm roller contact on valve stem had the roller sweeping across the center of the valve stem with a contact pattern about 0.100-0.125 inch wide.  Not too bad, the only problem was the roller went from the intake side of the valve stem to the exhaust side, which is how many sources say is the way to set it up; but there is a better way to do it.
I ran across the mid-lift principles on the speedtalk forum where I asked which brands of roller rocker arms held up best for street use.   Over a few weeks I finally received a nice range of replies and experience.   
The mid-lift principle which defines how a rocker arm should contact the tip of the valve stem makes the most sense because it minimizes the scrubbing of the rocker arm across the valve stem while also maximizing valve lift.   For a performance engine, the current thinking is to maximize valve lift for the least duration which is what I'm trying to do.
Some key points:
Pushrod length is responsible for the width of the contact pattern on the valve stem tip, but not responsible for the location of the contact pattern.
Strive for a maximum of +/_ 0.080 wear pattern on the valve tip which = 0.160 inch total pattern width.
If rocker arm contact pattern is not centered on the valve stem tip, this is no big deal-- as long as the movement of the rocker arm tip is as perpendicular to the valve stem as possible.
5/16 diameter pushrods are OK...but be sure to buy the strongest pushrods you can afford to minimize deflection (lost valve motion and lift).

I was able to achieve the mid-lift contact pattern on Edel magnum cylinder heads combined with older LA engine block, hydraulic flat tappet cam, and Comp Cam pro-magnum full roller rocker arms.  The rocker arm contact pattern is NOT perfectly centered on the valve stem (as said no big deal).  Crower offers rocker arms that have a built in 0.05-0.09 backset to the rocker arm trunion which looks like it would correct all of the geometry offset that I measured.
Final pushrod length was found using Comp Cam pushrod length checker #7703 (7.8-8.8 length).  Length was 3 turns of the checker from minimum length which is 7.8 + 0.15 + 0.05 = 8.00 inch total length.  The last 0.05 is extra length to account for valve train deflection and hydraulic lifter preload.
Rocker arm roller contact pattern on valve stem is 0.075-0.080 inch total width which is real good.  Roller contact with valve closed is near center of valve stem, then pattern travels toward exhaust side of stem, then back toward center of stem at full valve lift.  So roller contact on valve stem at valve closed and valve full open are very close to same location which is exactly what the mid-lift principle is striving for.   Pushrod rotation within rocker arm cup is not optimized, so Comp Cam did not do their homework (the founder of the mid-lift principle says as much).  But the final geometry looks totally acceptable to me, not perfect on the pushrod contact, but close to perfect on the roller to valve stem contact.

Valve lift was showinig a much smaller loss than I measured before due to 59 degree lifter angle.  Previous loss was as much as 6.5%.  Loss using mid-lift principle is now only 1.8%.  Thats a real good improvement, well worth the effort in my opinion.

My final parts combination is:
LA 360 engine block, decked for pistons 0.006 inch above deck
Edel fully assembled magnum cylinder heads for small block mopar, milled 0.010 inch
Felpro head gasket, about 0.042 thick compressed
ARP rocker studs #334-7204,   7/16 diameter
Comp Cam Pro Magnum full roller rocker arms  #1305-16,   1.6 ratio
Comp Cam Hi-Tech pushrods #7995-16,  8.00 inch long.

I had installed with epoxy some of the brass tubes in one cylinder head, but optimizing the pushrod geometry has the pushrods contacting the cylinder head even after drilling the pushrod holes to a larger diameter.  So I'll be drilling out the brass tubes and installing larger diameter tubes.

First photo shows mid-lift principle, second pic you can just make out the rocker arm contact pattern on the masking tape (felt tip marker did not work).  Then pics of rocker arm contact full open, closed, and valve lift for exhaust valve.  Cam spec said exhaust lift should be 0.547 inch, I measured 0.537 inch for a 0.01 inch loss due to lifter angle.
Last pic shows optimized rocker stud length.  I maximized rocker stud unthreaded length for best rocker trunion support.  Note that polylock is threaded down to near base of rocker stud threads, and note polylock hex-head lock nut is fully engaged (down a few threads into polylock).


I
« Last Edit: June 01, 2009 - 06:26:59 PM by femtnmax »
Phil