EMC 2017 353ci SBC

[Walter R. Malik]

Personally, if any combination has not been tested ... it ain't worth speculating.


Nice and safe within your little box.

i don't build engine for dyno contests. It has no purpose for me. Just saying.

My box is large enough and put out there for everyone to see.
You don't build and dyno TEST any engine or parts for any of your speculative ideas here.

I don't say stupid things like "much better of" with another combination when it is simply an unsubstantiated theory.
How do you know ... never mind an answer; we all understand you must be just that smart. We all also know who stays within their own "little box".

[Frankshaft]

Curious on the pan, is it the milidon nova pan that has the big cutout in the front? Did you guys try any other pans?

[GARY C]

Fbird shoulda entered the blower class this year.

Randy

No ... he just likes to kibitz.
In my opinion, his world is mainly make believe and hasn't got the where-with-all to enter ANY kind of engine competition; no matter what the class. That would require ACTUALLY performing the things mentioned.

I witness a lot of customers with the same thought process.

A contest like the Engine Masters' or building any engine to fit some class is a hell of a lot of work and expense and most people who have not done that don't really understand. This engine looks like an excellent effort to me and is clearly the result of hard work and trying a bunch of stuff to find out what worked best within the framework of the rules.

Not to mention the limited time you have once the rules are released.

[Rick360]

Curious on the pan, is it the milidon nova pan that has the big cutout in the front? Did you guys try any other pans?

The rules stated:
"Oil pan must be passenger car chassis style. Stamped steel / welded construction
only. Oil pan must be manufactured and cataloged to fit a specific passenger car
application OEM equipped with the engine type claimed. Manufacturer’s part number
must be stamped into the oil pan."

Joe had a pan like this ... 30900


I thought this one for old Chevy 2 would be best ... 31065
Nice and deep.


Randy thought this one for later Nova would be best ... 31167
Nice kickout but shallow in front half.


We started with Joe's pan (30900) for initial testing then during final tuning we tested each back to back.

When we switched to the Chevy 2 pan (31065) we picked up 3 or 4avg hp from the 30900.

When we switched to the kickout pan (31167) for the later Nova it tested exactly the same avg TQ and avg HP in our scoring rpm range as the 31065.

Rick

[67RS502]

Great and informative thread.
I run the 31167, I think its the best pan for the $ with that passenger kickout.

[67RS502]

Rick
Pic 898 shows a tall short turn on the EMC
Is that as cast from Profiler?
Also how tall is the short turn floor from the deck?
I love the EMC port shape for a small cube deal.

[randy331]

Great #s. So much for tight LSA giving 'peaky' torque!

There are lots of myths like that, that don't hold true in the real world. But, "narrow" is a relative term.
Flat TQ curves involve way more than a cam.

What was the rod length?

5.7" for 353 cube.

Randy

[rustbucket79]

The effort put forward to compete in any of these competitions (untold hours/theorizing/$$$/testing) puts these people at another level in this industry as far as I’m concerned.

I use the Milodon 31167 pan on my 406, good to know it works as well as a full length pan, without the oil pressure issues in the shut down. That would be a good test/comparison with the larger stroke, as well as a higher test RPM.

[A HotRod]

Congratulations to the entire Team!
I'm so excited to see a 350 inch engine make such excellant broad torque and power in this day when everyone seems to push stroker engines.

Hypothetically ... if your were not limited to cam lift, do you think equal or even better results could have been seen with the correct custom hydraulic roller camshaft?
And if so, do you have an idea of what that profile would look like?

[67RS502]

EMC always has me thinkin...

Raise the rpm to say 7200-7500
Bit more head work
1 3/4" headers with small merge collectors
Good solid or HR lobes, no lift rule.
Would like to see how a Holley intake would match up.
intake spacers

I believe it would make 600hp just with more rpm
Would 625hp be doable?

[CGT]

Congratulations to the entire Team!
I'm so excited to see a 350 inch engine make such excellant broad torque and power in this day when everyone seems to push stroker engines.

Hypothetically ... if your were not limited to cam lift, do you think equal or even better results could have been seen with the correct custom hydraulic roller camshaft?
And if so, do you have an idea of what that profile would look like?

I'm sure all of us would have differing opinions on what the hydraulic profile would look like. But I feel like a mean hydraulic roller lobe, even within the .600 lift limit would really shine, after peak torque at least. It is very area limited at and around bdc due to the flat tappet and .842 lifter diameter.

I have a 236° 247° 109 camshaft that I didn't get to try in my special needs project. I would really like to see it in their.

[randy331]

EMC always has me thinkin...

Raise the rpm to say 7200-7500
Bit more head work
1 3/4" headers with small merge collectors
Good solid or HR lobes, no lift rule.
Would like to see how a Holley intake would match up.
intake spacers

I believe it would make 600hp just with more rpm
Would 625hp be doable?

Our emc engine made 460 LBs of TQ at peak HP rpm (6500 rpm), so if you could raise the TQ curve 500 rpm to 7000 rpm, and not loose any TQ doing it, it would make 613 HP.

A solid roller and no lift limit would go a long way towards that goal. A solid flat tappet @ .842" diameter and stock small block journal are very short on area compared to a roller.

If the rules had allowed solid rollers, no lift limit, carb spacers, and the scoring rpm was 4500-7500 I'd say our engine would have been in the 600-625 HP range.

Little more open carb rule maybe too.

But the rules were intended to resemble a street engine. How many build a street engine with TK lobes and 1.7-1.8 rockers and titanium valves ?

Randy

[randy331]

Methinks the SN heads would make more HP per cfm on a smaller cube engine, but may not have the flowz of the EMC heads

The sn heads actually have more flowz than the emc heads. They are a few cc larger with a little larger av. csa.

I'd sure like to have been able to compare the 2 heads back to back on the same engine.

That rule change did away with us needing to test it for emc.

Randy

[CGT]

Methinks the SN heads would make more HP per cfm on a smaller cube engine, but may not have the flowz of the EMC heads

The sn heads actually have more flowz than the emc heads. They are a few cc larger with a little larger av. csa.

I'd sure like to have been able to compare the 2 heads back to back on the same engine.

That rule change did away with us needing to test it for emc.

Randy

The SN heads are ringer heads, just like your usual stuff. I intend to prove that with the addition of some ring seal and proper "clearancing"

[Carnut1]

0106181940_HDR.jpg

I decided to see what that step does in a more conventional port. Not much. Thanks, Charlie