Tony @ Mamo Motorsports

Guys,

Finally had the time and opportunity to complete and dyno test two 416 long term engine builds I have had in the works for the better part of a year.





What makes all of this very interesting is the fact the shortblocks are both very similar....nothing super trick or exotic (Callies crank and rods and Wiseco shelf pistons).

Same bore, stroke and final cubic inches (4.070" bore X 4" stroke) with the shortblocks only differing in the final compression ratio. The higher RPM build had 12.5 to 1 static while the lower RPM road race build had 11.4 to 1 static compression (pump gas).


Lets talk about the 1st build which was the 416 road race project.....my customer is installing this engine in a C5 Corvette that he is currently running a stock C5 LS6 engine.

His goals were to keep his RPM's similar to OEM but make a bunch more power and torque across the board. Lower RPM torque mattered alot and it was my prime focus in the design of this package. This kind of racing is won by exploding out of corners quickly.....corner after corner after corner.....not by peak HP that you have in some tracks so little time to really use (only the larger tracks where alot of speed is developed).

Comparing the two builds I naturally kept the cam more conservative in the road race build.....less duration naturally and adding more advance to the installed position (both moves bolstering the bottom end more). I selected a ported FAST 102 for this build (versus a ported MSD which got the nod in the other build) as it develops more peak torque and works alot better under 6000 RPM than the MSD (which has shorter straighter runners and does better past 6000 RPM).

We utilized my proven MMS 235 heads in this build which has ample airflow to make good peak numbers but alot of airspeed to help promote good torque and responsiveness in the lower and middle RPM's that once again was of prime importance in this particular build.

Non adjustable Yella Terra rockers (my "Pro 10mm" version) in a 1.8 ratio capped off the valvetrain with Johnson short travel lifters that I dialed in the lifter preload to perfection with custom length 11/32 Manton pushrods (many varied lengths to match preload within a few thou). Both engines ran this exact same set up regarding the valvetrain



Custom cam with 241 / 246 @ .050.......650 ish lift factoring in the 1.8 rocker ratio.....medium lobe aggressiveness to help the Manley springs live longer in this harsher endurance environment




I also fitted both engines with a crank scraper kit I purchased from Improved Racing....have to say I was expecting many hours to fit and finesse the scraper properly and both engines took me about six hours each.....honestly that's not bad when you realize how many locations you have to double and triple check dimensions (and finesse some with a file or grinder) to keep things .015 to .020 away from the rotating components



Here are a couple of pics of the completed engine just prior to its trip to Westech's dyno facility





And last but not least the dyno curve which I was very pleased with.

Utilizing modest compression.....modest cam timing and a softer cam profile combined with an overall engine design meant to amplify the bottom end as much as possible, it essentially did just that with over 530 ft/lbs of torque from any RPM we started the pull at (even as low as 3500 RPM)



Super wide and very flat usable torque curve that generates 625 HP and a peak of 571 Ft/lbs of torque never dipping below 500 Ft/lbs till 6500 RPM. Peak power occurs early (part of the design goal) yet carries flat with a very soft roll off.

This 416 engine makes 125 more ft/lbs of torque at 3500 RPM than the OEM LS6 engine makes at it's peak and is 200 ft/lbs stronger peak to peak!! (along with similar peak to peak HP gains).

Needless to say they will have to relearn how to drive the car again but I can only imagine how much more fun it will be with the new engine installed.

OK.....looks like I will have to break this "tale of two 416's" up into two parts.....the draft I just completed is almost 11000 characters and Im not going to waste a bunch of time trying to chop that much away....I also feel most of the data and information I have posted is pertinent enough to keep in here.

Tony @ Mamo Motorsports

And we are back....

On to 416 Build #2....as I have already stated very similar to build one but with a much different application and design goal. This engine in being installed in a lightened F-Body with a cage that will still have license plates and might be seen prowling the streets on a "late Friday night" but will spend the bulk of its time at the track. It will have a custom built Powerglide trans with a 5000 ish stall converter and a 430 Dana rear.

Low RPM torque isn't even on the menu here and its a build we were looking for a 7500 ish usable RPM range. To be really honest this build started as a much milder configuration with a smaller cam and a FAST intake.....a more typical 7000 RPM street strip set-up but as time went on, the owner kept going down the rabbit hole and I think it started with us deciding to bump the compression higher.....then I told him about my new MMS 240 cathedral heads I was working on....a slightly larger variant of my MMS 235's with a larger 2.125 intake valve and the larger 1.630 exhaust from my NFI version of the 235 head. Chris was on board right away and at that point we were thinking of ways to push the envelope on what started out as a more conservative build. The new heads did well flowing 350 CFM on the intake and 270 CFM on the exhaust....impressive numbers for a medium sized cathedral. The shorter runners of the ported MSD became a natural choice with the new direction of the build knowing the MSD would help us carry the power alot better north of 6000 RPM at the expense of torque below 5000 which was really of no concern here. It's actually nice and in most respects easier to design a package when the goals of a build are so clear and your not trying to give a customer the "best of both worlds" which is always going to be a compromise naturally (but a challenge I also enjoy.....LOL).

What else.....camshaft.....yeah....this is good.....I had already installed his 7000 ish RPM camshaft designed for the direction we originally started. I mean it was installed and degreed in place and I had completely buttoned up the shortblock including all the covers and the ATI dampener....the short was DONE. I knew everything we had changed / upgraded even with the original cam would run really well and all of the changes would still help the engine carry alot better up top but after spending who knows how many hours dialing in this new 240 head, I couldn't stop thinking about the fact I really liked the direction of the new combo but knew in my heart the cam that was in there wouldn't take full advantage of it and that thought never left the back of my mind....it was like I planted the seed and it grew all on its own.....LOL I finally had to say something to Chris to see what he had to say about it considering it would be more labor to take it apart....more labor to install and degree a new cam and put it back together....and not to mention Im removing a brand new custom cam that cant be returned to Comp. Thinking back on the conversation now, I don't think Chris even hesitated for a second when I mentioned my thoughts about the cam and if he would consider stepping it up a notch. He was on board immediately and after hearing myself talk out loud about it for the first time sharing my thoughts with Chris we both agreed the "new" combo had morphed into a build that warranted a slightly larger grind. To be honest it wasn't a huge change but I do feel the cam we landed on was/is perfect for this build as I was hoping for a 7K ish peak number with the new direction we were heading and we landed right there (7000 - 7100 peak).....the original cam I installed would have fallen a little short of that and would have also fallen off faster past peak as well.

Last thing we threw in the mix in an effort to fatten up the top some was a GZ Motorsports vacuum pump....this was their larger Pro version and it takes a good bit of fabrication to set up. To be honest I have more time than in setting up the vacuum pump than I would like to admit to but the finished look and added performance made it all worthwhile. I did my best to keeping the install clean looking. It certainly helped our cause adding 8 HP at the top of the curve and costing us a little in the low and mid RPM's where the torque required to turn the pump was a larger loss than the vacuum in the crankcase helped output. I didnt expect to see a loss anywhere but it makes sense especially in an engine that wasn't really set up to fully take advantage of a vacuum pump (we didn't have thin lightweight rings in this engine). At lower RPM's it was really not needed in this build and just added a little to parasitic losses.....at higher RPM's however, creating a vacuum in the crankcase helped the engine hang on to its torque longer and generated a higher power figure doing so (we made 683-684 HP without the pump hooked up.....just a breather venting to atmosphere).

So here are the final results from 416 Build #2.....very pleased with the outcome of this build also
It is the most powerful 416 I have built to date and its still a hydraulic roller cam build that is not over the top in size (247 / 253 @ .050 114 LSA). I think most of you who are engine savvy would agree its still really just an excellent street/strip build.....nothing exotic regarding parts (just a well thought out combination) and tame enough to drive on the street pretty easily. It just requires better fuel or over the counter octane boost such as Torco or Boostane.




Here is a dyno pull of one of the last few runs we did on video.....this engine sounds sweet!




Some pics of the finished Build #2 engine and both of them strapped in the back of my Dually about to embark on the much anticipated trip to Westech












Hope some of you guys found this interesting....same dyno and same day in fact....#1 came off and #2 was installed a running a couple of hours later....ideal dyno data for comparisons sake

A couple more bread crumbs of data. Both engines produced the same amount of peak torque.....the long runner FAST helping to bolster the numbers in build #1 enough to match build #2's peak number in spite of that engine having a little over a point higher compression

BUT.....that's what the FAST and other long runner designs can do. The MSD on the other hand looks much better up top and was a key player in the power curve the 2nd build generated. That coupled with more cam timing.....more cam lift....more aggressive lobes.....higher static compression and a slightly better cylinder head (as well as the vacuum pump) all contributing to the engines ability to hang on to the torque curve longer and in doing so creating a bunch more peak power due to larger HP multiplier RPM always provides.

Im sure you guys will have a few questions on some things I probably omitted and my typing fingers are getting tired at this point anyway. I tried to keep this thread on point but there was alot to discuss here so I wont apologize how long it is.....LOL

Cheers,
Tony

G Atsma

Thank you Tony! You continue to excel at what you do- BALANCED engines that excel in themselves at being TOTAL PACKAGES. Not just about your great heads, but also all the other players that enable those heads to do their absolute best.
A friend of mine named Chad, who flies jets for the Navy out here at Lemoore NAS, has enjoyed your talents in making his Vette far ahead of its former self. Plus he has related to me what a great guy you are personally. An asset to the business!
Carry on, Tony, always good to read of your projects and other work you are doing!

Burken01

iTrader: (88)

Thanks for the thread Tony

Just so everyone knows, engine #2 is me! Haha

Long journey but paid off with the attention to detail that you'd expect from tony. We talked for like 15-20 min on one phone call about the spacers for the vacuum pump, that's what you get with him. He doesn't screw around lol

G Atsma

Ya gotta love it!

Che70velle

iTrader: (6)

Tony you never disappoint. I’m trying to wrap my mind around the two engines producing almost the same exact peak torque numbers, yet two different setups minus cubic inches.
Are either of these engines utilizing Ti valves? Very well done Tony!

spanks13

iTrader: (5)

Nice results Tony! Good to see some love for the smaller bore strokers they're still great engines but are rarely well optimized. 600+whp from a 415 is not the typical result but I think your 691hp engine would do it.

On that same dyno at Westech our 415 w/ vac pump at 11.4:1 compression on 91 octane made 663 at 7000 with a victor jr and holley 750, factory stock ported ls3 heads at 288cc's. 243/257 .638/.638" lift on 110+2 cam hydraulic roller comp cam with factory rockers using EHI/EHX lobes. Has been 9.94 at 133 mph in a 3200 pound station wagon. We could work it harder, but we can't run quicker than 10.0 without getting the boot from the track since it doesn't have a full cage. We didn't do a sweep any lower than 5100, but the funny thing is the first data point was 571 ft lb.

Add another Westech 415 to the list that makes 570 ft pounds with a completely different top end haha!

Tony @ Mamo Motorsports

Scott,

Thanks man!.....was very pleased with both combinations and they really made for an interesting comparison with so many similarities yet with enough differences that matter that allowed them to both be tailor made for the different applications they will be utilized in.

Both of my customers were very smiling for sure. Regarding your valve question, both of these engines were running my hollow stem custom Ferrea intake valves. The road race engine a 2.100 valve and a slightly larger 2.125 valve in the higher RPM build.

Essentially that new MMS 240 head I used in "Build 2" is a new variant of my MMS 235 head that comes with a slightly larger intake valve and some additional bowl work as well. It bumps up the CFM up top (.550 lift and higher) about 5 - 6 CFM.




Thanks for chiming in....

And I have to agree that this engine would make 600+ at the wheels especially in a manual trans car with a light clutch. My C5 had a 383 that made 615 on Westech's dyno with a ported FAST 102 and a small solid roller with AFR 225 heads (back in 2005!).....that was a big number at that time for a fairly mild 91 octane combo and the car ran great (130 traps....3450 lbs).....it put down 535 at the wheels on numerous dyno's.

This is a 75 ish gain over that engine so it would have easily cleared the 600 mark in my Vette which was a six speed running my lightweight (32 lb) RPS clutch.

And congrats on your results also.....I do like the single planes for the higher RPM potential they offer.....even ported, the MSD cathedral isn't as good up top (runners are still fairly long) but its the best RPM intake in a lighter composite material. This engine would have likely kissed the 700 mark with the shorter intake runner in a single plane design but the curve would not be as wide and flat as the longer equal length runners of the MSD.

Does it matter with a glide and 4.30 gears? Maybe....maybe not.....its only a two speed so it depends on the converter but for manually shifted cars that might do a little road racing and want RPM and a reeaally wide torque curve the MSD would get the nod for sure in that application.

Also keep in mind we made this power with a modestly sized 240 cc cathedral head (huge velocity to generate these numbers). Installed on your typical engine dyno, the rate of engine acceleration is controlled by the dyno's hydraulic brake (the standard being 300 RPM per second) but out in the real world (or on a chassis dyno without a load cell), the engine itself controls the rate of acceleration and this engine is going to be wicked responsive.

Hoping for some good video of it when its finally installed in Chris's Camaro....he's working on the cage right now and the engine install is a good ways off but I will be excited to see and hear some footage of this engine at the track!!

Catch you guys later

-Tony

Darth_V8r

iTrader: (4)

Both of those torque curves are insane. I would think if he (owner) stalls high enough that glide will pull almost like a cvt type transmission.

Also, that is a clean vacuum pump install. Much respect! Mine looks like *** compared to that.

spanks13

iTrader: (5)

Yeah honestly he should have around a 6000 stall converter in the car and shift about 7500. 4.30's with a 28" tall tire will be about right. Our car likes to be short shifted a bit and use the converter to accelerate off the gear change. By 6000 rpm any of the short runner intakes should be starting to take over in power production. The single plane stuff is nice because it is a simple, cheap way to get a carb on the car. A vic jr intake is what, $350?

I think we found the limit of what the vic jr is good for on top of this 415, but it accelerates really good on the launch and middle of the track. The small carb and intake have such good response. We tried a big CID intake and 1050 dominator and it pulled like a **** up top, but was sluggish in the converter and the start of first gear. Sluggish is relative obviously - those were 9 second passes, but it moved the performance on the time slip and you could hear the engine trying to sort itself out a bit. Once it did I ran it out to 7800 rpm in first and it was still going... The smaller intake may be bandaiding what could very possibly be too big of a cylinder head for us on this combo at 288cc's. With more cam, gear and converter the car would go faster - but this is the "last forever" engine and we can't go quicker than 10.0 in this car without a full cage so we'll keep the vic jr and the revs below 7500.

There's huge merit in having a combo that is highly optimized vs having something that is going fast in spite of itself.

spanks13

iTrader: (5)

You'd be surprised even with a 6000 stall it is pulling away from the converter by the 60' clock. Once the front end is back down and you can see the track again it is behaving pretty much like a normal car haha.

Burken01

iTrader: (88)

It's going to be a big stall

My only issue is that I may eventually want to run a 150-200 shot on it since I gapped the rings for it. And so I know with converters, there's a compromise of all out NA vs one designed with nitrous in mind.

Tony went all NASA on the vacuum pump lol but it needs to be strong, especially if the front wheels leave the ground

Burken01

iTrader: (88)

Yea I'm going to spend the money and get a good converter, I was looking at the Neil chance bolt togethers for adjustability. But so pricey. But definitely want to go big or go home type of deal

NAVYBLUE210

Tony,

Congratulations on another outstanding result x 2! Your clients will be ecstatic with the exceptional performance of your engines in their vehicles.
I continue to be impressed by your willingness to share your knowledge and the details of your builds as well as the thought process that goes into each specific application. I'm surprised this thread doesn't have more views and comments/questions.

Thank you for all you do for our hobby/addiction LOL.

Jimbo1367

Tony,
looks great. Is there any graph that show power and torque at 2500 or 3000 and up? This is were we(I) want to see cathedral ports shine
thanks,
Jim

bortous

I can't believe I missed this thread.
Both are fantastic results.
The torque curves don't get better than that.
Nearly 700hp from a 416 is pretty crazy.
By the way, you take very nice photos.
Can't wait to see what mine does.

Tony @ Mamo Motorsports

Dan,

Thank you.....much appreciated. Both my customers were very pleased and I couldn't be more happy for them.
I should also add they both were excellent to deal with and worked around my "extended timeline".


There is no need....a good cathedral head will always make more power under say 4000 RPM. And to be more specific, I'm talking about a genuinely good cathedral head in an aftermarket casting that is more efficient than a stock ported head with even higher flow. Like comparing one of my really good cathedral offerings against one of my LS7 offerings. At lower RPM the demand for air is also lower and the airspeed in the cathedral is a huge advantage at that point so the smaller head (that's still moves a good deal of air) will always shine. And Im talking WOT and part throttle but the part throttle would be even more enhanced for the same reasons (as there is an even smaller requirement for air at part throttle / low RPM operation....airspeed playing an even larger role now).

I find it this way in most things related to modding high performance engines....most modding choices (NOT all) usually represent a compromise. Bigger cams increase the top but hurt the bottom. Smaller cams increase the bottom but hurt the top....longer intake runners help the bottom but they hurt the top forcing an earlier horsepower peak....you guys get my point.

In fact I have already done this test in some respects with a 454 shortblock I built for myself with cathedrals at the time in 2012 and moving into LS7 heads later (2016 ish) when I ended up selling that engine to a local customer. Compression was the same.....similar cams....same exact short.....both made 650 ish TQ and the cathedral looked fantastic on the very bottom and still made big power (710 HP), but with the LS7 heads and the same peak torque it made almost 770 HP simply carrying the torque past peak longer and flatter bumping the power a good bit higher due to the the HP multiplier increasing with RPM. Making 20 more ft/lbs of torque at 5200 RPM is worth about 20 more horsepower but making 20 more ft/lbs at say 7000 RPM is worth close to 27 HP.....big difference with the added RPM but its alot harder to make 20 more ft/lbs at 7K because you have much less time to fill the cylinder at that RPM compared to in the low 5000 range.

Anyway.....point is the larger higher flowing LS7 heads helped the engine look alot better up top and this is just the nature of comparing two very different cylinder head architectures.....BUT don't discount the potential of a good cathedral set-up (this thread the perfect example) because they most certainly do offer stout performance potential and the bonus of increased lower and middle RPM power and responsiveness (both WOT and part throttle). Not every one is in search of the ultimate peak power number in the build they are putting together. There is no right or wrong here.....only which head suits your personal wants and needs better. Not to mention alot of the decision to select one over the other should be driven by details of the vehicle itself and its intended application.

Hope this helps Jim


Bort,

Thanks.....and yes its hard to argue with either of these TQ curves. They are similar only positioned in different parts of the RPM band

The "almost 700" 416 was the highest HP 416 I have built to date and I think what makes it even better is its still a build most people could easily put in their hot rods and enjoy alot of seat time with. Its not an over the top maintenance heavy build at all. The shortblock is relatively generic and semi inexpensive to build (as far as strokers go) and it has a semi aggressive hydraulic roller cam with 19' of overlap (that's not a "big" cam with 416 cubes and over 12 to 1 compression). This engine probably best features the benefits of selecting optimal matching components and its a fairly easy combo to duplicate (really easy if you contact me right!.....LOL). BUT seriously....what was cool thinking about the results after the fact and all the time spent getting there was a chance to re-visit an engine platform I have done numerous times before but now applying some of the recent few years worth of experience and "upgrades" and a new slightly updated head design to that platform to see what's capable now in 2020 with some of these additions.

Going into the dyno I had kind of prepped my customer to look for approximately 675 HP and on Westech's dyno that's a stout smallblock I assure you. Truth be told I was secretly hoping for 685 HP, and never gave much thought to any more than that as we would be approaching LS7 numbers in the 700 realm. I was pleasantly surprised to achieve 691. We probably could have nickeled and dimed a few more but that's not what a test like this is really about. Its more of a controlled break in.....oil and filter inspection....and make sure the engine is just overall very happy making in the vicinity of what you expect it would and should.

On a chassis dyno in a customers car Im all about the nickels and dimes as now your utilizing ALL the equipment in the customer's vehicle as it will be used in the real world and doing another half a dozen pulls to find another five or more RWHP is a more worthwhile endeavor IMO

Hope all of you reading this have a good weekend

Catch you guys next time

-Tony

bortous

Hey Tony,
I was going to ask this question via private email but I thought to ask you in this thread for everyone to see.

In regards to your MMS 250 cathedral head has this also had the same special treatment/enhancement as that 240cc head you did on the 416?
​​​​​​The reason I ask is that the 235 is already enhanced, and the 240 is enhanced further.
Cheers

Tony @ Mamo Motorsports

My MMS 250 head was kind of an experimental head I worked on and tested on the 454 I had discussed in my previous reply in this thread. It was a bit of a compromise with a larger intake (2.200) and a smaller exhaust (1.570)

Intake flow was up about 8 CFM.....exhaust down about 4 CFM and while that looked promising to me the engine made within 1 HP pf my modded 245 head with the 2.165 / 1.600 combination. I think I was getting to the limitations of the composite cathedral intakes at that point.

I may have seen a little more with a different manifold design using the 250 cc head (such as well designed single plane with the right internal CSA so the manifold itself was no longer the choke point) but I never tried that test.

Most of the larger cathedrals I handle now (including yours) I stick with the proven 245 valve arrangement (2.165 / 1.600) and get the most I can out of that architecture and have done so with good results over the years.

The 250 head might be a situation I revisit if I found a customer building an aggressive single plane configuration with enough engine and bore size to justify the larger cathedral head

Looking forward to your chassis dyno results.....hoping you are getting closer

-Tony

jhshnh

Oh no! You made big power with cathedral heads! Careful... this forum may blow up!