lowcountry

iTrader: (1)

Just thought I would share a dyno graph of a new engine that Mr. Tony Mamo and I have been collaborating on. He just finished putting it together this week...


I can't wait to stick my T-56 on the back of it and drop it in the Camaro.

SoFla01SSLookinstok

Damn! Awesome power man! Care to share the specs of the motor?

Dynospeed

iTrader: (3)

That is going to be a lot of fun. Im also interested in the engine specifics.

NAVYBLUE210

Congrats Excellent Results!
LOL Pretty sure this is the engine that was on the DYNO @ WesTech just
before mine this Thursday.
ERL 440" W/MMS LS7s & MMS MSD?

lowcountry

iTrader: (1)

Man, you took all the drama out of it! Yep, you're right...small world for sure!


No real secret. As mentioned, we started out with an ERL 440 short block and then let Tony do his thing. The main components, MMS modified Trick Flow 260s and an MMS ported MSD intake. We ended up using a HR 245/259.


The goal here was for a kick a$$ street car and I believe we more than accomplished that.


I mostly wanted to post this to thank Tony publicly for a kick *** effort and for being a great guy to deal with...even though he comes from that Northeastern part of the country where people talk funny... J/K Tony


A few other parts:
- Improved Racing oil pan baffle and pick up clamp
- Johnson ST 2126 limited travel/axle oiling lifters
- Manton custom push rods
- PAC 1207 severe duty springs/Ti retainers
- Yella Terra MMS LS7 ultra lite shaft rockers
- NW 102mm throttle
- Fire Core wires
- RedLine coils
- Bosch 60 lb injectors

Tuskyz28

What's the torque number ?

lowcountry

iTrader: (1)

The torque is the middle line on the graph. Peak torque was 625 ft*lbs.

Darth_V8r

iTrader: (4)

Looked like it had just peaked when y'all let up. Would have loved to see it carry.

sxc Z28

Another great motor build by Mamo! Pics when installed in the Z please.

Tony @ Mamo Motorsports

You should have heard how funny I talked 15 years ago before living in California knocked the tooth out of my accent.....LOL

Guys....this build turned out excellent....nothing super exotic....wet sump FBody pan which is so-so for making BIG power with a large displacement engine above it (pan is real close to the crank in the front....you start getting power robbing windage issues with big inch engines that turn RPM).

Speaking of RPM I can post a later run where we took it to 7K.....as you might cause from how flat the rest of the curve was it only rolled over slightly and was within 5 HP of its peak if I recall (still over 700). I will post that later if I find the time (likely a Mamo vampire hour posting) as well as post some pics of the build and a video of one of the runs we made



Cheers,
Tony

lowcountry

iTrader: (1)

Will do. Probably be a couple of weeks. Once the engine gets put in, I have some fabricating to do...


Tony, get some sleep!

Tony @ Mamo Motorsports

Guys,

Here are some pics that I promised of the 440 going together

Like I said earlier its nothing exotic....just good ole fashioned displacement coupled with really efficient high flowing heads (my new MMS 265 LS7 heads)....a ported MSD intake....and a street friendly moderate sized HR (245/258 @ .050). This engine was making around 14" of vacuum at 1000 RPM or so....thats actually quite good. Btw its a 93 octane build so I set the static CR around 11.8 to 1 but it would probably run fine on 92 (it had 205 PSI of cranking compression). What else...I should mention we saw 208 BMEP on the dyno as well (Brake Mean Effective Pressure)....in the 190's is usually considered very good....over 200 typically only seen in racing engines. Its essentially telling you the engine had good output of torque per cubic inch.....you guys that are familiar with running engines on the engine dyno might appreciate that tidbit....and that is with this wetsump pan that was choking some power as well (borderline at this power level). This engine would love a vacuum pump and a dry sump with crankcase vacuum would be worth even more power and torque with no other changes.

I also installed Johnson short travel lifters and my MMS rockers built by Yella Terra specifically for my new LS7 heads. What else....ran my new coils on the dyno (basically a better looking stock replacement that bumps spark output about 10%) as well as my trusty dyno 102 TB with my fabricated (out od wood!) radius'ed entry to help smooth the airflow into the TB. This engine ran custom length 3/8 Manton pushrods and we used 1.875 dyno headers. In fact speaking of the headers, Im confident this engine would benefit quite a bit from 2" primary tubes....its got the CID to justify and its over 700 HP. My guess is 6-8 more here with a larger header....the LS7 loves anything you can do to improve the exhaust flow....especially my new head which flows over 410 CFM on the intake side thru a port that's 5 cc's smaller than an unported stock LS7 casting.....airspeed is very high in these heads and it moves huge volumes of it as well.

Anyway....here are a couple of pics of the engine going together in my shop and a few from Westech the other day. If you guys have more questions fire away and I will do my best to revisit this thread and respond






















Im going to try and load a video of one of the dyno runs as well....If I can make it happen I will post it shortly

This engine is going to be a heap of fun in Richards 2nd Gen Camaro let me tell you....it made 100 more ft/bs of torque and a 100 more HP than my SR 383 that I built some time ago and that engine ripped in my C5....the car was fast (130 traps). Granted this engine is a good bit larger but it just bitch slaps my former 383.....+100 HP and a +100 ft/bs.....same dyno so it's all apples to apples!

Catch you guys later!

-Tony

PS....Thought you guys would get a kick out of the pile of plastic I removed from Richards MSD intake when I ported it....coke can included for scale!!

Tony @ Mamo Motorsports

Here is one of the earlier dyno runs....we had a little too much oil in this test (we were comparing oil pressure of the sweeps with different levels in the pan....this was over full about 3/4 of a quart and it hurt the power a bit up top).

The sweet spot of pressure and power turned out to be right above the full mark btw which isn't always the case. This engine needed a little more oil to fill up the boxed in oil pump pick up utilizing the Improved Racing FBody oil pan baffle. It almost works too good and its more sensitive to the oil level to refill the pick up area. I think it would work better in a car that was moving so the flap doors would open allowing more oil in to the pick up cavity




So here is the dyno run (click on the picture)....engine just climbs up there smoothly and sounds completely content at 7000 which is really just past its peak so its still in the zone....its a 7300 shift point engine....maybe even 7400 to get the most from it and ride the fattest part of the power curve thru the gears. You can almost hear the engine still asking for more when Steve @ Westech pulled the handle back...almost sounding like a car you short shifted....LOL

Quick Carl

Nice Job Tony as always. Great results!

Tuskyz28

Why such a large split on the cam ?
Yes I understand it's a rectangle port headed motor. I could understand if the heads didn't flow that well in the exhaust department but since it's a aftermarket head vs a stock LS7 head I'm kinda scratching my head unless the op plan on spraying a shot of nitrous down the road. Here lately I been seeing LS3/LS7 aftermarket heads make great power without so much split such as navyblue 396ci.....

Dark Energy

Nice....... Tusky I told you Once before no need to look.

Tony @ Mamo Motorsports

Tusky,

Lets say you were right in your assumptions

That being the case, too much exhaust duration would hurt the engines V/E, efficiency (and BMEP) by bleeding down the cylinder to soon and over scavenging the intake discarding unburnt oxygen and fuel into the exhaust where it never has a chance to get converted into energy (torque and HP).

Lets look at the actual results....clearly the dyno doesnt show that to be the case and in fact this engine was stellar in all three categories producing close to 1.42 ft/lbs of torque per cubic inch with effective cranking compression low enough to run on 92 octane.

With such a high flow / high speed intake port (that flows as well as a good 24' medium sized BBC head), this engine thinks its a forced induction build for all intensive purposes and I cammed it like it was. Even a killer exhaust port like I have on my MMS 265 (about 270 CFM) pales in comparison to the intake and we only have a 65% E to I ratio which is far from optimum even in an N/A build (75% would be more ideal). In a perfect world a 410 CFM intake port would require something along the lines of 310 CFM to better get the job done and much more low lift flow than a 1.6" valve is capable of. Look at this head as a BBC head on the intake and an SBC head on the exhaust....something needs to be done to correct this

The LS7 architecture is heavily skewed to the intake side and anything you can do to help evacuate the cylinder better usually rewards you with more power. The stuff your used to looking at and evaluating here on Tech has very little in common with the heads I just ran.

As I said.....too much exhaust flow and the peak torque output would have been compromised and this engine was excellent in that department so at the end of the day it would seem my line of thinking regarding the cam and ultimately the results prove the valve events were more than satisfactory. Shortening the exhaust lobe would boost the bottom slightly, but ultimately reduce peak power and especially the engines ability to carry flat past peak power (the horsepower curve would roll over sooner). With the cam in it now this big engine that will rev like a 350 but make 150 more ft/lbs and 150+HP while doing so....it wont fall on its face at all which is a typical problem of larger cubic inch builds...it will want to keep pulling up top and personally Im a big fan of engines that can do that.

So there you have my long winded technical response to a good question....hope you have a better idea now of why I did what I did and the reasoning behind it



-Tony

PS....I have also been privied to alot of testing with cams that had more and more exhaust duration....even with heads that already has 75% E to I ratios big splits didnt act the way conventional wisdom might lead you to believe regarding the WOT power curve....the main thing effected was idle quality due to the increase in overlap but this cam is not a big cam in this size engine....proven by the 14" of vacuum it had a 1000 RPM....Ideal idle speed in the car is probably around 900 or so and it would still make a respectable 12" or so there.....more than enough for power brakes etc.

Double06

Tony is the problem here also just the LS block itself not having enough bore to accommodate the larger exhaust valve while keeping a big intake valve. Sort of the max bores you see here are in the 4.155 and 4.185 while on your typical (not 396 bb chevy) the bore is 4.25 inches to start which most guys bored out to 4.28 / 4.31 and of course the bowtie block where the party starts with a 4.5 inch bore. So I guess what we need here is a 1.7 or larger exhaust valve when getting to these bigger cid and hp builds if we want to keep the exhaust duration down. Going with too big a valve I guess you could get some shrouding from the bore itself. I know on the BBC going to the 4.5 inch bore is a huge plus as it really unshrouds the valves in the bore. Funny the GM stage 3 cam is 233 /276 at .050 duration I guess GM was aware of the exhaust issue there.

big hammer

Pretty nice heads and build. And I like how you touched on how it won't fall on its face like most big inch builds. I see lots of guys throw small heads on big inch LS and the power ***** the bed after 6000 rpm. Nice tow truck engine.

Port velocity is great but it's the velocity over the intended rpm range of the engine and the intended use of it. For a race type application liminting the rpm of an LS to 6000 is really limiting the potential hp of it. Give me 7000-7500 minimum

Tuskyz28

Correct me if I'm wrong but is the motor 4.185 bore x 4.000 crank ?
​​​​​Just wondering cause it's more than one way to come up with 440 cubic inches....