Race Engine Challenge II

General engine tech -- Drag Racing to Circle Track

Moderator: Team

Post Reply
Joe-71
New Member
New Member
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:46 pm
Location: SA TX

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by Joe-71 » Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:21 pm

Small block cubic inch lower limit of 320 seems fair if the horsepower per cubic inch and torque per cubic inch can be used as part of the scoring, average hp/tq, maximum hp, with the rpm tested between 3000 and 7500. Maximum SB cubic inch set at 440, and BB cubic inch limit of 550 is achievable with factory blocks and stroker crankshafts. Heads would have to be commercially available from Summit/Jegs or factory originals. If the idea is to find the most powerful combination that is possible within the same cubic inch size, then that is a goal to shoot for. Joe-71

steve316
Pro
Pro
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 10:06 pm
Location: St.Joseph,mo.

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by steve316 » Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:28 am

Just list what heads are legal to use; what block ect. Then allow each builder to make his own mods or list what is not acceptable; such as welding the runners on the intake so on so forth.

David Vizard
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1162
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:19 pm

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by David Vizard » Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:40 pm

Joe-71 wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:21 pm
Small block cubic inch lower limit of 320 seems fair if the horsepower per cubic inch and torque per cubic inch can be used as part of the scoring, average hp/tq, maximum hp, with the rpm tested between 3000 and 7500. Maximum SB cubic inch set at 440, and BB cubic inch limit of 550 is achievable with factory blocks and stroker crankshafts. Heads would have to be commercially available from Summit/Jegs or factory originals. If the idea is to find the most powerful combination that is possible within the same cubic inch size, then that is a goal to shoot for. Joe-71
Joe,

I like your small lower CID limit although I am not fixated on 320 (anywhere between 300 and 350 would suit me at present as I don't know if I am going Ford or Chevy.
I really do liked the idea of 3000 to 7500 simple because I have had extremely good results from builds needing a wide power band such as the Engine I did for Chrysler UK ( 800 - 8000 power band, 121 lbs-ft from 91 inches smog legal on regular gas)
David Vizard Small Group Performance Seminars - held about every 4 weeks. My shop or your shop. Contact seminar organizer at marvingvx@gmail.com for details.

RevTheory
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2127
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 6:45 am

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by RevTheory » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:10 pm

Do you guys feel like the lifter bores need to be left OEM size? I'm torn...

Walter R. Malik
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3415
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:15 am
Location: Roseville, Michigan (just north of Detroit)
Contact:

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by Walter R. Malik » Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:27 pm

RevTheory wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:10 pm
Do you guys feel like the lifter bores need to be left OEM size? I'm torn...
Not really ... but, I think they need to have a specific size limitation; like .904".
http://www.rmcompetition.com
Specialty engine building at its finest.

Barry_R
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1200
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:57 pm
Location: Detroit area
Contact:

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by Barry_R » Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:57 pm

A head rule that requires availability from Summit kinda hurts me - and maybe some other platforms as well - a lot of smaller and niche market manufacturers try to avoid Summit simply because they will crush the price point on your product. I think the non-race heads idea from this year's EMC was fine - maybe tune it up, but keep things rational somehow.

Iron heads only seem cheap when you first buy them. They can get pretty ridiculous expensive from there.
I like the lift limit because it intuitively puts other limits in place as far as valvetrain needs.
Pump gas and limited compression.
RPM limits of around 7000 make sense.
Small blocks should include the popular 331/347/383 stuff - - they sell/sold millions of those yet they were never in many of the rules packages.
Not sure what to do on big blocks.
OEM block rules are silly in a world of readily available replacement parts.
Flat tappet cam rules are insane considering that every single OE engine has roller cams now.
The no carb spacer rules were silly considering that Ford was using carb spacers OE in the 1960s...
If you allow unlimited welding on a cast intake Marcella will build you something out of seventy three thousand pieces cut into chips and chunks, and it will end up looking like an art museum display & running like a sheet metal part. Slippery slope. May as well leave induction wide open and have some fun.
Survival Motorsports
www.survivalmotorsports.com

WD for Comp, Manley, Blue Thunder, Diamond
Probe, Holley, Clevite, Federal-Mogul, Scat....

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3400
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by GARY C » Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:18 pm

Barry_R wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:57 pm
A head rule that requires availability from Summit kinda hurts me - and maybe some other platforms as well - a lot of smaller and niche market manufacturers try to avoid Summit simply because they will crush the price point on your product. I think the non-race heads idea from this year's EMC was fine - maybe tune it up, but keep things rational somehow.

Iron heads only seem cheap when you first buy them. They can get pretty ridiculous expensive from there.
I like the lift limit because it intuitively puts other limits in place as far as valvetrain needs.
Pump gas and limited compression.
RPM limits of around 7000 make sense.
Small blocks should include the popular 331/347/383 stuff - - they sell/sold millions of those yet they were never in many of the rules packages.
Not sure what to do on big blocks.
OEM block rules are silly in a world of readily available replacement parts.
Flat tappet cam rules are insane considering that every single OE engine has roller cams now.
The no carb spacer rules were silly considering that Ford was using carb spacers OE in the 1960s...
If you allow unlimited welding on a cast intake Marcella will build you something out of seventy three thousand pieces cut into chips and chunks, and it will end up looking like an art museum display & running like a sheet metal part. Slippery slope. May as well leave induction wide open and have some fun.
I agree on the heads and the block unless it's a nostalgia class where thats all some have available.
The last sentence is just freaken priceless! =D>

Gregory
Member
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:01 am
Location: Charlotte

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by Gregory » Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:17 am

It's been suggested that there be a limit on the distance from the deck to the bottom of the intake port. Go ahead and throw out some numbers
and/or some 2V heads that you know of that would be over the top.
Greg Finnican
Charlotte, NC
704 408-7356

Walter R. Malik
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3415
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:15 am
Location: Roseville, Michigan (just north of Detroit)
Contact:

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by Walter R. Malik » Fri Oct 20, 2017 4:49 pm

Gregory wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:17 am
It's been suggested that there be a limit on the distance from the deck to the bottom of the intake port. Go ahead and throw out some numbers
and/or some 2V heads that you know of that would be over the top.
Greg Finnican
Charlotte, NC
704 408-7356
That leaves the roof to be unlimited so, I would limit the ROOF height or use a "middle of the port height" center-line figure.

Under 2 1/4" from the deck to the port center seems pretty normal for a raised runner, street type head on the ones I've measured ...somewhere around there would probably be good for a center-line measurement or under 3 1/2" for a roof limitation.
http://www.rmcompetition.com
Specialty engine building at its finest.

Walter R. Malik
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3415
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:15 am
Location: Roseville, Michigan (just north of Detroit)
Contact:

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by Walter R. Malik » Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:02 pm

Walter R. Malik wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 4:49 pm
Gregory wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:17 am
It's been suggested that there be a limit on the distance from the deck to the bottom of the intake port. Go ahead and throw out some numbers
and/or some 2V heads that you know of that would be over the top.
Greg Finnican
Charlotte, NC
704 408-7356
That leaves the roof to be unlimited so, I would limit the ROOF height or use a "middle of the port height" center-line figure.

Under 2 1/4" from the deck to the port center seems pretty normal for a raised runner, street type head on the ones I've measured ...somewhere around there would probably be good for a center-line measurement or under 3 1/2" for a roof limitation.
That group would include:
18 degree Chevrolet small Block
Yates type Ford small block
A460 type Ford big block
Most Chevrolet Big Block
Raised runner Buicks
Every small block Mopar other than the all out race stuff
Some Ford Clevelands
Some raised runner Pontiacs and Oldsmobiles
AMC's
AND ... a lot more ...

Only the all out race heads would be eliminated.
http://www.rmcompetition.com
Specialty engine building at its finest.

plovett
Expert
Expert
Posts: 585
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 3:49 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by plovett » Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Walter R. Malik wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:14 pm
plovett wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:46 pm
How about limiting open valve spring pressure? Be it flat tappet or roller. It wouldn't be too hard to check that afterwards.


That wouldn't be difficult to police however, it would be a bear for the engine builder to control from his first test run at home to say run 40 at the contest.

Personally, I think a realistic "0" lash valve lift limit where flat tappet solid lifter camshafts are able to reach with under a 1.8/1 rocker arm ratio to still almost compete against solid roller lifter camshafts, which do have the ability to get a lot more lobe lift, could lessen that particular roller cam advantage somewhat however, certainly not completely make them even ... but, close.
The valve springs could be changed so they were fresh for the money pull. They'd still have to be under the limit for that pull. You could even check them before they were installed to ensure they are in spec. I don't think they will gain spring pressure after a few pulls. Just a thought

JMO,

paulie

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3400
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by GARY C » Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:27 pm

I wondered if going hyd roller but not allowing minimum travel or setting them at the bottom might help limit over the top valve train? No hollow stem or titanium valves?

WeingartnerRacing
Expert
Expert
Posts: 561
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 8:37 pm
Location: Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Contact:

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by WeingartnerRacing » Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:13 am

A true race engine does not have hydraulic rollers.
Eric Weingartner
Weingartner Racing LLC
918-520-3480
www.wengines.com

User avatar
RAMM
Expert
Expert
Posts: 509
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 2:33 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by RAMM » Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:59 pm

WeingartnerRacing wrote:
Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:13 am
A true race engine does not have hydraulic rollers.
This is so so true. Solid post<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<See what I did there? J.Rob
New and improved website under construction.Check the blog for relevant info
http://skmfxengines.blogspot.com/

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3400
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by GARY C » Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:11 pm

WeingartnerRacing wrote:
Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:13 am
A true race engine does not have hydraulic rollers.
True race engines also are not allowed in EMC and most of what I have seen discussed here would not be considered a true race engine either.
Although that would simplify the rules...Set a cubic inch limit and may the best man win!
Just not sure how many would enter.

Post Reply