Excellent response, I felt the same way about the #2 starve. It
appears to me if it was even close to being a problem,
with very few mods, that somebody would have discovered a fix a long
time before now. I have a question about Magnum Heads....do they
respond well to mild tuning, cleaning up runners, port matching, etc?
Are they so good stock that they don't need much help? Gotta magnum
w/180K miles on it but still runs like a bat outta ______. What would
cause a slight hesitation on first crank up in the am? Ambient temp
anywhere from 30 deg to 85 deg. About a block later all is well.
Thanks, Dak Wizard for your consoling nature and mercy on us peons.....
John
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:43 AM, <jon@dakota-truck.net> wrote:
>
> "Ray Block" <BPracing@wowway.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > Well Jon, not only am I not an engineer, I haven't even stayed at a Holiday
> > Inn Express. ;-) However, I (and others I will mention) do have real
> > world experience with these engines under extreme conditions.
>
>
> The best kind of experience. :-)
>
>
> > First of all, let me say that I agree with your perception of how the fuel
> > rail is pressurized and what little effect the firing of an injector has on
> > the system. While I can imagine a situation where someone may have a
> > large enough engine and large enough injectors to tax a stock system's
> > capabilities (fuel rail or pump), I can't imagine it being very common or of
> > any concern to the vast majority of us.
>
>
> Yeah, something just seemed to tickle the ol' BS meter on that one.
> His engine definitely wasn't very radical, IIRC, the most extreme mod
> was ported heads. I dunno why he didn't just drop a 360 in there
> instead of going through all the trouble of taking a 318 out to ~340.
> Anyhoo, like you were saying, I could understand if he was making
> 900hp that he might have a fuel feed issue, but this guy's fuel needs
> are basically stock, and with all of the Daks out there running some
> pretty wild combinations with the stock fuel rails, from NA through
> nitrous, blowers and turbos, this is the first time I've heard about
> this "lean #2" condition.
>
>
> > Since you mentioned Mopar Muscle as the source of this story, I will add
> > that there is a thread on a Mopar forum questioning the validity of another
> > Mopar Muscle article that proclaims the stock hydraulic roller lifters in
> > Magnum engines are too heavy and prone to failure at rpms above 5400.
>
>
> On a completely unrelated tangent ;-) I would love to be able to
> use hydraulic rollers in my next big block build. I *think* I have
> seen where some companies are starting to come out with them now, so
> if its a bolt-on deal, so much the better. I don't know what has
> taken so long for somebody to do this. Roller hydraulics have got the
> low rolling resistance and fast ramping abilities of a roller cam with
> the low maintenance of a hydraulic, and the icing on the cake is a
> stress-free break in; no worries about wiping out a cam lobe on that
> critical first startup.
>
>
> > Basically, I don't put a whole lot of stock in much of anything the Mopar
> > rags write about. When it defies common sense or my experience, I just
> > call BS on the whole thing and move on. LOL
>
>
> Thanks, Ray (and to everyone else who replied as well). I'm glad
> to see that my gut / BS detector is still somewhat functional. ;-)
>
>
> --
> -Jon-
>
> .- Jon Steiger -- jon@dakota-truck.net or jon@jonsteiger.com -.
> | '96 Kolb Firefly, '96 Suzuki Intruder, Miscellaneous Mopars |
> `-------------------------------- http://www.jonsteiger.com --'
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 05 2008 - 15:32:20 EDT