Why does 400" always win the EMC?
Moderator: Team
Why does 400" always win the EMC?
I've asked this question before and haven't gotten an answer I can understand, but there's something at work in the formula which favors building to 400". So one more time, WIGO?
Jack Vines
Studebaker-Packard V8 Limited
Obsolete Engineering
Studebaker-Packard V8 Limited
Obsolete Engineering
- John Wallace
- Guru
- Posts: 1511
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 10:20 am
- Location: was Central Illinois - Now in Sunny Florida!
- Contact:
Re: Why does 400" always win the EMC?
Maybe it's the builder?
John Wallace
Pontiac Power RULES !
www.wallaceracing.com
Pontiac Power RULES !
www.wallaceracing.com
Re: Why does 400" always win the EMC?
For true, Rick. I should have titled it, "Why does 400" win EMC most every year?"
Jack Vines
Studebaker-Packard V8 Limited
Obsolete Engineering
Studebaker-Packard V8 Limited
Obsolete Engineering
-
- HotPass
- Posts: 3460
- Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:42 pm
- Location:
Re: Why does 400" always win the EMC?
I think it's the near optimum size given the rule limitations of the cylinder heads and rpm range.
-Bob
Re: Why does 400" always win the EMC?
There are probably opposing forces pushing things towards 400".
Things like carb limits, lift limits, cam limits, some years mufflers, etc, would tend to favor less cubes.
But the power to run the valve train, bearing friction, etc would "tend" to be close to the same amount of power for a 450 cube engine as it would be for a 350 cube engine, so those forces would tend to favor bigger cubes because the power taken by those things would be less percentage of a bigger cube than smaller cube.
Last year when the 353" won, the rules were kinda restrictive, but the second place engine was 451 cubes.
So the top 2 averages 400" LOL
Randy
Things like carb limits, lift limits, cam limits, some years mufflers, etc, would tend to favor less cubes.
But the power to run the valve train, bearing friction, etc would "tend" to be close to the same amount of power for a 450 cube engine as it would be for a 350 cube engine, so those forces would tend to favor bigger cubes because the power taken by those things would be less percentage of a bigger cube than smaller cube.
Last year when the 353" won, the rules were kinda restrictive, but the second place engine was 451 cubes.
So the top 2 averages 400" LOL
Randy
-
- Pro
- Posts: 235
- Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 10:06 pm
- Location: Ottawa, Canada
Re: Why does 400" always win the EMC?
One year BES Tony commented on how he browsed through his historical dyno sheets and right around 400 cubes was a sweet spot.
Mike R
-
- Guru
- Posts: 6378
- Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:15 am
- Location: Roseville, Michigan (just north of Detroit)
- Contact:
Re: Why does 400" always win the EMC?
YEP ... that is the opinion I have. The rules limitations mostly favor an engine combination around that size.hoffman900 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:45 am I think it's the near optimum size given the rule limitations of the cylinder heads and rpm range.
That is one reason I think they should go back to requiring every brand have the same C.I.D. as the others that year; smaller and larger than 400.
More different combinations would probably win.
http://www.rmcompetition.com
Specialty engine building at its finest.
Specialty engine building at its finest.
Re: Why does 400" always win the EMC?
Rather than start a new thread and still trying to understand the EMC internal scoring logic, I'll ask the same question a different way.
From all the past years of EMC, can we postulate a formula which correlates head CFM with cylinder displacement with Early Iron EMC results?
For example, a BBC, with available OEM iron heads can be built anywhere from 366" to 454", so which would you choose and why?
If the Studebaker V8 heads flow 200-225 CFM, would you expect to score higher with a 224" or a 310" or something in between?
For
From all the past years of EMC, can we postulate a formula which correlates head CFM with cylinder displacement with Early Iron EMC results?
For example, a BBC, with available OEM iron heads can be built anywhere from 366" to 454", so which would you choose and why?
If the Studebaker V8 heads flow 200-225 CFM, would you expect to score higher with a 224" or a 310" or something in between?
For
Jack Vines
Studebaker-Packard V8 Limited
Obsolete Engineering
Studebaker-Packard V8 Limited
Obsolete Engineering
-
- Guru
- Posts: 6378
- Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:15 am
- Location: Roseville, Michigan (just north of Detroit)
- Contact:
Re: Why does 400" always win the EMC?
All the numbers BELOW peak torque is a function of the EMC scoring. Smaller engines NEED to be torquey engines so, a lot of mass air flow down there is somewhat counterproductive for those; getting the right balance is imperative.PackardV8 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:48 am Rather than start a new thread and still trying to understand the EMC internal scoring logic, I'll ask the same question a different way.
From all the past years of EMC, can we postulate a formula which correlates head CFM with cylinder displacement with Early Iron EMC results?
For example, a BBC, with available OEM iron heads can be built anywhere from 366" to 454", so which would you choose and why?
If the Studebaker V8 heads flow 200-225 CFM, would you expect to score higher with a 224" or a 310" or something in between?
For
http://www.rmcompetition.com
Specialty engine building at its finest.
Specialty engine building at its finest.
Re: Why does 400" always win the EMC?
I've thought about this a bunch and I'm wondering if the longer stroke, ~3.75 avg., gives you more piston speed to activate the intake tract when you can't weld the runners for length but increasing the bore much beyond the 400 cubes (give or take...) simply starts outpacing the cylinder head limitations.
That's the roadblock I kept hitting when contemplating an AMC build for the contest.
That's the roadblock I kept hitting when contemplating an AMC build for the contest.
- Stan Weiss
- Vendor
- Posts: 4815
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:31 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
- Contact:
Re: Why does 400" always win the EMC?
Jack,
Might want to talk with Mummert who is a member here. His 289 sbf came in second place and not where out of first.
390 FE (400") 2,511
289" (296") 2,504
427" BBC (429") 2,448 ( Jon Kaase)
404" BBC 2,412
Stan
Dyno sheet from testing
https://i1043.photobucket.com/albums/b4 ... sqdz8w.jpg
Might want to talk with Mummert who is a member here. His 289 sbf came in second place and not where out of first.
390 FE (400") 2,511
289" (296") 2,504
427" BBC (429") 2,448 ( Jon Kaase)
404" BBC 2,412
Stan
Dyno sheet from testing
https://i1043.photobucket.com/albums/b4 ... sqdz8w.jpg
Stan Weiss/World Wide Enterprises
Offering Performance Software Since 1987
http://www.magneticlynx.com/carfor/carfor.htm
David Vizard & Stan Weiss' IOP / Flow / Induction Optimization Software
http://www.magneticlynx.com/DV
Offering Performance Software Since 1987
http://www.magneticlynx.com/carfor/carfor.htm
David Vizard & Stan Weiss' IOP / Flow / Induction Optimization Software
http://www.magneticlynx.com/DV
- midnightbluS10
- Expert
- Posts: 933
- Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 8:41 am
- Location: Shreveport, LA
Re: Why does 400" always win the EMC?
Congrats, Mummert! I remember him posting about that 289 in the other Engine Masters thread. Wow!
JC -
bigjoe1 wrote:By the way, I had a long talk with Harold(Brookshire) last year at the PRI show. We met at the airport and he told me everything he knew about everything.It was a nice visit. JOE SHERMAN RACING
Re: Why does 400" always win the EMC?
The 400 inch range thing isn't some magic number . I think it's just because those builders who have won with 400 is because that's what they usually build and are comfortable in that cube range
I remember when this topic first started...I mentioned back then that if that was true, how did Joe Carroll sneak right in there with a 302 Chevy? It wasn't some one year fluke,, he was always right there with all the 400's
he Debunked that theory
I remember when this topic first started...I mentioned back then that if that was true, how did Joe Carroll sneak right in there with a 302 Chevy? It wasn't some one year fluke,, he was always right there with all the 400's
he Debunked that theory