Mission: You Wanna What? [LOL]

dont forget on any tri power conversions you need to change base plates or plug all idle passages in them . you dont use air screws on anything but the middle carb. also throttle plates are different on tri power front and rear.

TRBenj wrote: What joe said. I'd be surprised if the rh roller was $500 more than a lh roller conversion, especially once you consider all of the other components that would need to change on your current rh engine.

Tim, The problem is with the blank. I ordered a cam from Lunati a while back and slipped in my RH 440. The oil drive gear is cut on a different bias and if you set the cams side by side, it's like they're in a mirror.

Unfortunately, there are no rh blanks available.

What joe said. I'd be surprised if the rh roller was $500 more than a lh roller conversion, especially once you consider all of the other components that would need to change on your current rh engine.

You'll shoot your eye out...

It will be interesting to see how those 440 source heads work, they are at a price point where I would find them preferable to putting any money into stock heads for an upcoming RB build I have planned.

I would tend towards the dual quad setup as that was a common chyrsler marine offering on the RB's.

Left vs Right certainly effects resale and cool factor, but does also increase the degree of difficulty somewhat. What transmission is on there now? Is it really a paragon? I would expect a borg warner 72 series back there, which would of course be usable after rotating the pump. As for handling on that barge.. don't know that I would bother switching just for handling purposes, maybe a little less lean but it would be a stretch to be too worried about it. I dont think the pcm trans would be worth the effort either, it would likely survive but the gear reduction combined with the torque the engine could produce would be pushing the limits of a 1 inch drive shaft.. so you just start throwing money at the thing and youll find your prop choices arent that plentiful either.   

Roller cam is a no brainer..
remove any ideas or worry about getting it out of the water because you have a "top end" engine/cam/intake. Trying for a stump puller is the road to wasted money. Its a boat, by its very nature it takes less torque to move through the water at lower speeds than higher speeds, combine that with it being a big block stroker and there is no chance your are going to end up with a hole shot that is anything less than spectacularly improved over what it is now.

What are your thoughts for ignition?

I have a bunch of 1.23 transmissions at the shop. Don't know if you could mate one up to the 440.

Press your own j tubes into the Holley 2 bbl. demon makes six pack set ups. Might check if they offer those in uscga. I love the speed demon on my car.

I was curious if a Hurth reversing trans would help/solve the handling issues with a lefty.Plus with the down angle you can get more under the hood.Tim is right roller all the way I think.The money you save on a reg roller for a 440 would buy most of trans.I am still kicking around putting dual quads on my 511 BBC just love multi carbs and the budget is totally out the window why stop now.

phatsat67 wrote: Thanks Pete!! Tony I also think you are a little to scared of the cross ram power producing rpm. They aren't quite as high strung as you might think. Keep in mind the super stock cars in stock configuration were being shifted around 5800-6000. And going through the traps. At 6500 depending on factory gears. The earlier engines had as much as 13.5 to 1 comp. the factory camshaft was very conservative. The factory max wedge exhaust manifolds were like headers in that they had longer tubes and were designed to scavenge cylinders. With an aggressive camshaft swap they took full advantage of the header like manifolds and power output would go up drastically. With your big inch stroker and good head flow I think it will be easily possible to more than eclipse your 500 number well before the 6000 rpm mark. I also think that the proven 6 bbl application would be your best choice. But a big block with a cross ram would be soooo cool. Can you get flow bench data from 440 source on those heads to aid in camshaft selection?? 440 cross ram Pete, that's another thing I was going mention is I'm not sure there is a marine rated 6 bbl carburetion that would work. The cross ram would probably be easier to tune. 6 pack cars are quirky so most people just but bran new carbs instead of rebuilding.

Jeez, she sounds Swwweeeeet! Can't get enough of that sound!

Riley wrote: How many vintage engines actually have marine carbs?

Anyone who has not had a fire yet.

AND is willing to risk having one.

How many vintage engines actually have marine carbs?

Thanks Pete!! Tony I also think you are a little to scared of the cross ram power producing rpm. They aren't quite as high strung as you might think. Keep in mind the super stock cars in stock configuration were being shifted around 5800-6000. And going through the traps. At 6500 depending on factory gears. The earlier engines had as much as 13.5 to 1 comp. the factory camshaft was very conservative. The factory max wedge exhaust manifolds were like headers in that they had longer tubes and were designed to scavenge cylinders. With an aggressive camshaft swap they took full advantage of the header like manifolds and power output would go up drastically.

With your big inch stroker and good head flow I think it will be easily possible to more than eclipse your 500 number well before the 6000 rpm mark. I also think that the proven 6 bbl application would be your best choice. But a big block with a cross ram would be soooo cool. Can you get flow bench data from 440 source on those heads to aid in camshaft selection??

440 cross ram

Pete, that's another thing I was going mention is I'm not sure there is a marine rated 6 bbl carburetion that would work. The cross ram would probably be easier to tune. 6 pack cars are quirky so most people just but bran new carbs instead of rebuilding.

Tony,
Listen to Zach's suggestions. He has been around the Mopar's for a long time. He is the #1 member on site with the Mopar knowledge.

phatsat67 wrote: The only difference in max wedge heads were the closed combustion chamber like the 1967 440 hp heads only availiable on the gtx and rt. ports remained unchanged. The crossram will produce power. You could produce 500 with that stroker kit below 6000 rpm..

I thought the intake mounts were a little different and the ports didn't quite match up.

What about width? Will a Cross Ram fit under a CC doghouse lid? I can custom fab a doghouse if I need to (I will need to if I go Hilborn.).

Would you go Mopar Performance Cross Ram or Edelbrock STR14?

The only difference in max wedge heads were the closed combustion chamber like the 1967 440 hp heads only availiable on the gtx and rt. ports remained unchanged. The crossram will produce power. You could produce 500 with that stroker kit below 6000 rpm..

phatsat67 wrote: 440 Build Just as a reference. Check out the guys tow rig for that Daytona at the bottom. I have seen it lots of times at the Mopar shows.

Impressive build Zach. Are part of the MidAmerica guys I used to see at the St. Louis Boat Show a few years back?

I remember showing up wearing my N.O.A. T-shirt and hat and received the Royal treatment.

They knew I was serious.

phatsat67 wrote: They will fit any bb Chrysler head..

MMM, I don't know. According to the Mopar catalog:

Mopar Performance Catalog (see P. 56)

These Cross Ram Intakes require the use of Max Wedge Cylinder Heads.

And still the very nature of an underhood tunnel ram, the RPM numbers (3,500 - 7,500) don't fit a marine pleasure boat profile well as it it designed for the Super Stock Drag Racing world.

Also, there are fixes for the system:

STR 14 Box Flow Dam Fixes

The STR 14-6 looks way COOL, but it has its own little problems:

Str 14-6

In the end, the headache of a Cross Ram in a marine application introduces too many variables that are easily avoided and handled by going dual quad high rise or Hilborn Injection. And I am not sure about Hilborn Injection. I still have a call in to them about my application.