Previously posted Mar.25th 2011 in the After Markets Heads section as, "Pump Gas Dyno Test." I'm surprised there wasn't more apparent interest shown, at the time, particularly from those clamouring for 4" bores & 400 H.P.! That 337 cu" street engine, tested at approx 393 H.P. & 420 lb.ft. of torque, at a max of 5400 rpm.! ... In comparison, I was just perusing a new cars buyers guide today & noted that one of Gov't Motors new Ls 6.2 L /378 cu. in. Ca-a-o engines, is rated at 400 H.P. & 410 lb.ft. It's a substantially bigger & modern electronically controlled engine, that has little if any more peak power than a revamped version of our favorite 50+ yr old engine... Interesting.

Paul

The part you're probably missing about that engine is the fuel economy and emissions. Newer engines tend to be able to develop similar power more efficiently and cleanly.



However, I think the fairest Y comparison to that engine would be the Engine Masters engine, which really puts it to shame in the power department. But still if you look at every aspect, it's probably lacking in more areas.


Lawrenceville, GA

Charlie: Your comment about emissions is undoubtedly correct.. however your opinion on the EMC engine isn't really relevant, as it's a full out racing engine, not a street engine, tuned for an auto transmission.

Paul

We have differing opinions about the type of engine the engine masters engine is. I'd call it a hot street engine


Lawrenceville, GA

The competition rules DO stipulate lower RPM levels for the test than you'd think Paul. They also require both torque number averages and hp averages be considered in the final score.

           I'm not sure what the limits were that year, Ted would know, but I was surprised at how low they were

Frank/Rebop

Bristol, In ( by Elkhart) 

Frank: Not sure where you & Charlie are coming from on this subject?.. My post was about Mummert's "street engine" for a customers Sunliner, in comparison to a 2012 "Catmaro" engine ..nothing to do with the EMC engine mentioned in Charlie's response..

Paul

I was just trying to be more apples to apples, using another engine to compare raw streetable power. 375ci is much closer to 378 than 337, and the power the 375 produced just makes the Y look a whole lot better.


Lawrenceville, GA

Paul.  Seeing as the EMC engine was my baby, I’ll throw this out there.  I’m with Charley’s assessment that it is indeed a street engine.  It idled fine at 900 rpms and the potential for a slower idle was there if not concerned about long term camshaft lobe wear.  The dual plane intake had a lot to do with the low rpm idling characteristics as well as the carb and spacer combination which was finely tuned for this combination.  With a small stall converter, this engine would have been right at home in front of an automatic trans with no drivability issues as the manifold vacuum at idle was good.

 

In my book there are only two qualifiers for a street engine and that is for it to run on pump fuel and give a reasonable level of dependability for everyday driving.  The EMC engine had both of these and some to spare.  How an engine is cammed will to a large degree dictate the transmission and the rest of the driveline particulars.

 

The 2010 EMC engine was revamped last year with higher compression and increased camming and now resides between the frame rails of the roadster.  It no longer fits my definition for a street engine as it now requires higher octane fuel than is normally available at the pump.  Still idles just fine at 1000 rpms and the amount of torque straight off at idle is phenomenal to say the least.  Power output has been increased to the point that drive line breakage is now coming to the forefront.

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)

Ted,



Can you briefly address this concern?



Happy New Year. Is 2012 the year of the 427 Y-Block?



Thanks,



Ivan

Cam lobe wear any time the rpms are low enough that oil splash is not prevalent is always a concern in any flat tappet engine.  Modern valve spring pressures simply aggravate this.  Raising the idle rpms is simply a quick way around a potential issue.  To a large degree, this is why new camshafts are broken in at 2000-2500 rpms.

 

For my own engines, it’s simply prudent to keep the rpms just high enough that the cam and tappets are getting adequate oil in those instances where the engine may be idling for longer periods of time.  In the EMC engines case, the engine would idle at 750 rpms but there was no need to stress the valve train components by letting the engine idle for long periods of time there so the idle is simply set at 900 rpms.  You’ll have to remember that particular engine was running over 400 pounds of over the nose valve spring pressure in the first EMC competition and that requires a steady stream of lubricant.  That camshaft after two years of dyno competition still looks ‘new’ and I’d have no issue in using it in another engine if the opportunity arose.

 

A good example of low rpm cam wear are the big block scrubs (Chevies) that the farmers use in their pick ups.  Prolonged idling simply wastes the camshafts in short order and that’s primarily due to the increased low rpm loading (lifters dragging the lobes) and the reduced oil being splashed about.

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)