Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Carson City, NV
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Those hp numbers aren't that hard to believe. But attention to detail makes a huge difference. I have a 440 in my truck, flat top pistons that are out about .006", somewhat ported 452 casting heads (junk) that flow in the neighborhood of 265 cfm @ .500". A TQ 50 cam (228/235 duration, .503" lift with 1.6's and 110 ls installed at 106) and a torker II intake. 750 dp carb and dyno headers and it put a corrected 485 and 507 tq down. Now it had a bad rear main leak and I didn't have time to fix it and run it again, but with the experiences I had on that dyno, I could have seen 500 with more carb. This engine was pieced together from things I've had laying around and was given and it runs well for what it is. But the attention to detail is why I think this one runs so well.
Now as for the dyno, I've personally hung the weights on this dyno enough that I understood why it was necessary and what the numbers were supposed to be, so unless there's a discrepancy in the correction software, those numbers are real world. Compression ended up a tad high for the cast iron heads and 4x4 application, but at 5500 feet, I'm running 87 octane and 38 degrees total timing without a rattle (unless I do something stupid like floor it in 4th at 1800 rpm)
Sooo, getting back to the subject (kinda) those hp numbers aren't out of range at all, and no, the chevy heads aren't better than the fords. Keep in mind one other thing, the chevies have two good runners and two bad runners per head. Kinda makes me think an average flow between the two is a better idea than just throwing out the long runner numbers...