ENGINE MASTERS

I need everyone to give me lots of suggestions on what to build next year for Engine Masters. I'll submit them to see if can get one of used next year. We need something new and great. Historically, it has to be 10.5 to 1 and in a 2500 hundred to 6500 hundred rpm range or maybe move the rpm around in reason.Who better to ask than the people that read the articles.  thanks for all sugesstions  

We definitely need to get rid of the flat tappet cams.  Running the engine 3000-7000 is much more real-world and not as hard on the engine as well.  

I disagree.  I'll not personally spend the $1000+ required to set an older model engine up for a roller - the little bit of extra power is simply not worth it.  If it's an all-out, double throw down build, then sure why not.  I can't really afford that, so I build my engines for reliability with what I can afford.  The power takes care of it's self based on parts selection.  Solid flat tappet cams offer a good compromise for a cash limited builder - which includes likely 80% of us.  What PHR needs to do there is allow the builders to deal with the ZDDP issue like the rest of us and not foist some sponsored synthetic oil on the contestants that ends up promoting cam failures.  Out here in the world, we're running racing oil, buying additives, etc.  Everyone has a friend that knows a guy that bought out the local EOS stash at the GM dealer.  We're all dealing with that problem, yet the contest rules went a bit head-in-the-sand on the issue.  Keep it real.  7000 RPM is not that real, either IMHO.  My new 351C in my 3300 lb Falcon runs low 11s ( 7.28 @ 93.5 1/8 mile ) with 10.5:1, 91 pump gas, a 238 flat tappet cam and shifting at 6700.  That's pretty real to me.  I built it with internal components to run 7K+ easy, but the tune up makes the best ET/MPH below that mark.  That's good, because I'll get a lot of use out of it and it'll take about 3 years to pay down the credit card bill for it.  Lots of people I race with stay in that RPM range too.  Buzzing the motor kills parts and most of us have shallow pockets.  The 351C 2V in our Mustang runs low 12s and has 2500+ drag passes shifting at 6000.  The valve springs were checked at 2000 runs - still good.  That's fun.  Telling me about your 700 HP gonzo motor that put a rod out the block at 7500 is not fun.  I'm still driving, you're bench racing.  Nyah, nyah.

Maybe consider adding a single power adder - maybe a spec nitrous plate system from a sponsor like Edelbrock, limited to some nominal level like 100, 125, etc.  Score the engine NA, then score it on the spray.  Different combos will respond in a multitude of ways to the power adder.  The magazines are full of that kind of bolt on quickie power stuff.  
1967 Falcon 4 door - 351C
1970 Mustang coupe - 351C
http://raceabilene.com/kelly/hotrod
Owner built, owner abused.

I like the power adder idea  

Falcon, this is a COMPETITION between PROFESSIONAL engine builders. Don't think that it needs to be so limited as to compare to a backyard build-off of whoever can make the most power out of parts sitting in their garage. These men have a lot of money to spend and have a desire to get themselves noticed or to represent their expertise. Roller cams don't offer small power gains, the offer BIG power gains...

We all know that rpm's increase stress on parts but with high-quality parts this is of little to no concern with the engines in this competiton. I had no idea just because an engine was spun to 7500 rpm that's it's inevitable that it will throw a rod out of the side of the block. If you're talking about NHRA Pro Stock it's a different story but it's not groundbreaking technology. It's 7500 rpm, there have been engines spinning to these numbers for 45 years and the market has addressed the issue with connecting rods, crankshafts, pistons, etcetera that will take the beating.  

Some might think that going to a roller cam makes the contest and replicas of the contest engines cheaper and easier to build but the exact opposite is true.  Add up the cost of one set of roller lifters and say 3 solid roller cams versus 3 solid flat tappet hard nitrided cams plus 3 sets of edm drilled lifters plus the possibility of cams going flat and killing cranks and rods and a roller is the way to go.  Springs and retainers are not much different in price at this quality level.

Starting the pulls at 2500 is rediculous.  What percentage of hot rodders have an engine making 400ft-lbs AT 2500 with a converter that will stall that low and hook up enough to load the engine hard down there.  The detonation we've heard down there on the dyno is not a good thing and it almost always clears up by 3000rpm for whoever is on the dyno.  7000rpm is not really that high based on the quantity of people bracke tracing on the weekends.  

I think keeping a simular format would be a good idea for 2008. Going with soild rollers could bring back the .800 to .900 lift cams and high spring pressures, it would be hard to call this a street engine. We liked the flattappet solids which were allowed this year. It kept you on your toes to not lose a cam during testing. Keep the rpm range the same it's been this way from the begining of the EMC. Maybe hdy. rolles next year and put a limit on the rocker arm ratios. I know we ran a big pan, but maybe for 2008 steel pans with no kick outs just to cut costs alittle.This was mine and keith,s first year to build an engine ourself's for EMC. We enjoyed meeting everyone and had a great time in Ohio. We just like to see the cost kept under control,( we don't build engines for a living). I'm sure the more we talk about next year the more ideas we'll have. Johnny, Ed and Steve have their work cut out for them and I'm sure they will do a great job.  

I know its a contest of professionals - but if you let the professionals run amuck, the end result is interesting and might sell me a magazine but it'll be less likely to sell me a part.  With a reasonable set of constraints, the professionals are more likely to give me something to take home to my own shop.

A quote from PHR from a previous EM wrapup: "By keeping parameters at street-sane levels and promoting the use of factory-based dimensions, we're on to something benefiting a broad range of enthusiasts from the most hardcore racing engine builder, to the aftermarket manufacturer, to every reader of this publication. It gives engine builders a chance to show their talents, aftermarket manufacturers a chance to showcase the capabilities of their products, and readers a chance to see streetable recipes brewed by the true executive chefs of horsepower."

I'm just saying keep it as real as possible.  Roller cams are great power makers.  But 90% of the people I know, 90% the people I race with and a large portion of the people I chat with online run flat tappets because the roller is just flat too high buck.  
1967 Falcon 4 door - 351C
1970 Mustang coupe - 351C
http://raceabilene.com/kelly/hotrod
Owner built, owner abused.

I'm just saying keep it as real as possible.  Roller cams are great power makers.  But 90% of the people I know, 90% the people I race with and a large portion of the people I chat with online run flat tappets because the roller is just flat too high buck.  

Then you're hanging around the wrong racers. To each his own BUT you don't represent the majority here, flat tappets are being phased out. This started years ago and is ongoing. There will always be a few that will think that the best hot rod ever is a rebuilt flat-head Ford but you don't have professionals build these engines in a horsepower competition. To appeal to the masses you need some limited modernization. It's great that these engines are still on OE "parameters" that were determined many years ago but you need to bring in some new or at least re-engineered parts and ideas to keep things interesting.  

I think i'm gonna grab some popcorn and watch the fireworks fly    

Get lots of butter - I love butter on popcorn.  You won't hear my popcorn squeaking in the theater, I get it greased up good.  I'm going to have to put butter on part of my previous posts and munch down on a bit because of a tip I got today.  Been knocking around on Doug Herbert Cams web site.  For my 351Cs in particular, he's selling billet roller cams for $199.95 and solid roller lifter sets for $209.99.  Kinda shoots down the "$1000  roller cam cost" statement, huh.  Don't have a problem with new or re-engineered parts - my fresh 351C has new tech H beam rods,  Probe latest design pistons with 3mm oil rings, etc, etc.  I'm hanging with the right racers, we're just on a budget.  Not as an indictment of roller cams, but I can say that I know a bunch of people running rollers locally have had some kind of lifter failure over the last 24 months.  Not all, but a significant number.  I take that as an indication that roller lifter design has some room for improvements of some sort.  But it's apparent if you shop around, a roller cam and kit are not so far out of reach for a budget hotrodder.  It's not as cheap as my $87 solid lifter Crane I scored on eBay, but it's still in the ball park.  So I stand corrected, somewhat, maybe, a little, shucks.  I still run low 11's with a flat tappet, so I'm not completely out to lunch

I like this one in particular - too bad Santa's credit card is maxed out from the last build:
Herbert Billet Roller - 351C
Lifters


Maybe another idea that leaves the lid partially off:  Have the EM competitors use as many off the shelf parts as possible, then price those parts, possibly using a "spec" catalog (from Jegs of course) and/or current published pricing from the supplier and then create some kind of declining multiplier to modify the score.  The point being the more dollars spent to make the power, the less credit you get for the power produced.  Now to shoot holes in that - A lot of the power made comes from the intelligent use, preparation and application of those parts, not just the parts by themselves.  And it might not make good sense to penalize parts used for reliability, like my use of stock length Eagle H beam rods in my sub 7000 RPM 351C.  Depends on your tastes really - some folks like to try and make big mo power on stock parts and then show off the pieces when the bullet explodes.  Some folks overbuild in areas so they don't have to mess with it later.  
1967 Falcon 4 door - 351C
1970 Mustang coupe - 351C
http://raceabilene.com/kelly/hotrod
Owner built, owner abused.

so what about the guy that run rollers..... or want to see what roller cams can do?  they aren't all that expensive. Just because some of you guys refuse to embrace modern technology doesn't mean it isn't here to stay.

A better rule would be to limit valve spring loads and height and allow any camshaft the builder wishes to use.

Lets at least see some 1980's thechnology in the competition........  I alway find it amazing how vocal the cheapest guys are..... Falcon67 how about showing everyone how its done and enter the EMC in 09'........  

i just got my copy of this months mag and i checked out all the engine builds and i did not see any mopars.what is it about mopars anyway? the way i see it anybody can build a small block chevy its easy. its easy to hard chevy / ford /pontiac ///////////////// dodge. i know that parts for bb dodges are hard too get and even small blocks are not that easy to get. i love my bb im working on a bb indy 413 with a 440 crank and 512 heads but like any else this takes lots of money lots and lots of money.and thats why chevys are [ CHEAP AND EASY ] sorry guys.  

my bad. your doing good.
but how bout give us the complete tech on all the engine masters cometitors motors, so we can see where , and why. things are different.
this will certainly help me to know what is good, or not so good. in my future builds.
how bout you let them mix and match factory strokes, and factory blocks, to see what truly works best.
like a 327 crank in a 400 block (chevy)
a 302 crank in a 400 block(chevy)
a 302 crank in a 351 block (ford)
ect. ect.
i want to see these types of combo's with respective longer rods. thats why i want to see them.
for real daily driver info. not weekend warrior or race only crap.
but for my 132mile daily commute, and the other poor suckers out there like me...  

I personally would love to build a 440,but budget constraints only allow small block chevy. Cheaper than rest,yes. Cheap,not my pocket book. If they are that easy(sbc)than fill out application and maybe get a chance to take trophy.Ask Bishoff or Carol how easy it was not to take 1st.