Hi Jim

I guess I am misreading their literature.

I am under the impression that Brodix heads are better but when I went to their site to take a look at their products, all the heads that I saw that would produce manners suitable for a street car have the exhaust ports even higher than the AFR heightened position. (.600 versus .300)

I am not trying to run Edelbrock heads but to run a better design than original while trying to get some weight off. Already having a steel scattershield and a vintage ac unit is tipping the scales in the wrong direction so I am trying to keep both Peter and Paul happy as can be.

On the not so happy side is my relationship with the man building the motor. He has had a $4000 down payment since mid September and has pushed me back to the first of the year for a completion time by putting personal projects ahead of me. I would feel better if he would take the time to run some possible pump gas component combinations by me. I got a red flag when I stop by there last week when I saw him boring a block without a torque plate and I asked him why he did not use them. His response was that in most situations he did not see any benefit to using them but if a customer wanted to pay him the extra $200 to take the time to bolt them on then he would.

I am not qualified to judge an engine builder but I am relatively new in this neighborhood and since making a deal with him to build my new motor I have heard some stories about him that are not to his credit. This is on top of a bad year with motors and replacements for my bike because of both incompetence and dishonesty.

I am mulling over asking him about what he thinks about matching the intake ports and if he gives the same response about "well if a customer wants to pay me to take the time then I will", I am going to cut my losses and nix the deal with him. If that is the case I will be asking you for more advice then just about components. If I did not already have my car for 30 years and infatuated with it I would just go out and buy a new Z06 and be done with it.

I am particularly impressed by the strength of Brodix heads and not forgetting the added benefit of any additional component strength as long as N2O remains a possibility.

I guess I have missed something so I will contact Brodix on Monday to see if they make any heads with the exhaust ports in the stock position. The reason my headers will not work with .300 higher is the under frame part of the collector going into the sidepipe. Consequently with over half the clearance taken up (.500) at that location, the collector will hit the frame when the motor is torqued.

Thanks again for your input Jim.

Doug

 

Brodix Race-Rite heads are cast w/ stock exhaust port heads:

http://www.brodix.com/heads/raceritebb.html

Prior to the AFR heads, I ran the Brodix-2 heads. They are a quality piece. The castings are very strong.

Mark

 

Yep..those are the ones. If you get some M2 or Tech Weld CNC versions of them (if they are doing them yet) you would have a killer set of heads!!

We need to check around some...I know some sidepipe guys ahve used the AFR's without issue.

Plus, Mark still has a set of custom built sidepipe headers hanging in his garage from the last version of his 540. You could *pretty* them up some maybe?


JIM

 

Howdy

Thanks for that link Mark

I see where they offer a lot of services for their heads including full polish or in part along with several others including intake and gasket matching. I was wondering if any of you had any knowledge of the side by side comparison of their dual plane (that will make an easy fit and part of a top end combo package from them) against the RPM Air-gap?

If I still had the flares I would like some header side pipes but I just spent a ton of money on a frame off that included removing them so I could have the original look. That might have not been money wisely spent in some respects because once I got back in it after being off the road for nearly 10 years my first desire is still to go fast. However I am now going to go with the original look with the factory covers.

BTW is CNC different from a full polish? I remember back when I had built some motors earlier (30 years ago) that full polish on street heads was a no no.

I have just had my home dynamics radically changed to a drastically higher overhead. I now have a 37 year old nephew who had a NB and went from being a young very successful man to a homeless one panhandling on the streets. He has his his 8 month pregnant girlfriend with him and while I am in a bit of mild shock going from living by myself to this I am glad he is regaining his senses. I find it hard to believe I am going from never having kids to having a newborn in the house in just a few weeks

I know one thing for sure and that is I am going to need to take some "fun" rides sooner rather then later. No LOL there

Getting back to the heads I see where those Brodix ones are for hydraulic cams only. I will have to look further into that before I try that route again. The last 2 hydraulic rollers have not gotten the job done. I have a 284 Comp cams hyd roller in the car now and had a LPE motor with one in another car

Thanks again

Doug

 

First, sorry to hear of your nephew. I hope things are able to turn around on that front. Family first.

I haven't seen any comparisons between the Brodix dual plane and Edelbrock RPM Air Gap. The RPM Air Gap has proven to be an impressive dual plane that gives away very little on the top.

Brodix offers a lot of options, its probably best to call them. They do offer a solid roller valve spring option for the RR head. I would expect they have a full CNC port option as well.

Mark

 

Thank you for the kind words Mark

I hope to call Brodix on Monday or Tuesday at the latest.

BTW I checked out your profile and saw your car. Very nice and very impressive. I like the stock look with those valve covers painted. Do your heads show aluminum or are they painted? Without an aluminum head option in 66 I am considering painting mine.

Do you have pipes running the full length of the covers? I had thought of running headers for an under car exhaust and then just work out some sort of plumbing like other cars that exit the exhaust just in front of the rear wheels. That way it would look like stock sidepipe exhausts but with the enhanced performance of larger pipes.

Doug

 

The heads are not painted. Aluminum heads were offered in 67 with the L88 or L89 engines, so I'm "correct" there.

The 3.5" pipes run the full length under the exhaust covers, along w/ a 3.5" in/out Borla XR-1 muffler that was cut & rolled to reduce the case dimensions to better "fit" under the covers. Not a perfect fit by a long shot as the modified mufflers stretch the exhaust covers, but it was about the best compromise for flow and sound suppression while fitting under the factory side exhaust covers. The system is finished w/ chrome 3.5" turnouts in the correct location. Custom Tubes fab'd the headers and exhaust system.

In spite of all the modifications, I've tired to maintain where possible a factory appearance. The biggest deviations are with the engine (AFR logo on heads) and headers.

Mark

 

Hi Mark

Well you have done an excellent job

That is very interesting about your inside diameter sidepipe/muffler and might hold promises of something better for me than I already have planned.

Here is my header with a 3" inside diameter exit. http://www.stahlheaders.com/Frame%20New%20Drag.htm

I have slipover connectors for them with the plan of having sweet thunder 3' outside with 2.5" inside diameters (largest available from them) going under the covers. However since you are fitting 3.5" under yours I could do the same as long as your covers are not modified. That would seems to sound better than what I am presently planning to do. (probably quieter too).

If my idea sounds feasible to you I could send them one of my slipovers for a exact fit needed at my end. Then they could do the same for me. They might even have the layup for yours in their records.

How does that sound to you?

Thanks

Doug

 

Hi Doug, just caught some of this post here. You ARE in a bit of a dilemma with the shop. He really doesn't need the plate there while he's boring the block but the type of unit you're "tossin" around here with a stock G.M. casting MUST be plate honed. I'd might tend to agree with him about the plate issue on a "Bow-Tie" going only to a "4.500" hole but NEVER on a production line block. We use the plate on everything, but most of those "Race" blocks don't respond the same as "stock" blocks, still no reason here to not use it. AND there should be no more than a $50.00 additional charge here for mounting the plate on both sides. That's $25.00 per side add'l!

As to the heads, no matter the brand, if you're going down the path of a pump-gas 496" then keep the runners small, anywhere from 300 to 320 cc's. Being we do all our own porting "in-house" we don't pay much attention to brands although I do have some of personal preferences. In your case to keep things very simple I would most definitely go the Edelbrock route, and I don't usually recommend this brand, but it makes the exhaust location a "non-issue". I'm doing a set now for the same scenario with the 60549's. We know we can make them deliver and as I stated it's for the same reasons, no pipe issues.

With any BB stroker unit you rely more on this longer stroke for torque than trying to make up for lower torque with longer runners. You simply don't need any high/long runner intakes or extra large runner heads to achieve your goals. If anything too large intake runners will do more harm than good. You need to keep the "air-speed" as high as possible while maintaining a good enough volume of air into the cylinders. To accomplish this "feat" is not as easy as some think! Cam specs are probably the most effective numbers you will have to make.

If I were you I would consider running a solid roller setup. We started testing Comp's new "pressure-fed" rollers recently with excellent results. I might add here also I have a unit built in 1990 with a set of Crane's solid rollers and we just did a "freshen-up" a few months ago and reused the same lifters. He's replaced a number of sets of springs since, but the lifters are like the day we first installed them.
Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. If possible try to place ALL the specs on the car as accurate as possible up here. E.G., the weight, trans, rear gears, tire height, and the type of use it will mainly see. What if any power options? At the moment we're "deep" into the new F.A.S.T. class racing up here. Lots of power but looking stock AND running on stock street tires. We have one in particular, an LS-6 (not a stroker) with a true 10:1 C.R. (runs on 93) making 500 HP without even breakin' a sweat on the dyno with a "less-than-adequate" stock "low-rise" intake! And with a 238 @ .050 solid lifter deal yet. 300 CFM through the iron square ports. Note: if you go roller, whether hyd. or solid, make certain you use a "steel" blank, do not go cast. Set it up to run the cast distributor gear however! Again, it keeps everything simple. Good luck and stay in touch!

Double P.S. Gasket matching ALL the components is mandatory AND leave yourself a .020" anti-reversion wall on the intake manifold if your going to street drive this as I suspect you will be. Race units don't need this. If you do a search up here, I went into some detail how best to accomplish this with absolute "dead-on" accuracy.

 

I notice Stahl is listing headers for Vette's with BB's with *high port* heads. Will those take care of some Brodix or AFR or whatever with no issues?

As I mentioned my Hookers fit my raised port heads better than they fit stock heads.


JIM

 

Hi Jim

I already have the headers in my possesion and I ordered them for regular height exhaust ports.The problem with them connected to AFR heads is the clearance betwen them and the bottom of the frame. The clearance is .500 and with the AFR heads taking up .300 of it the pipes will hit the frame when the motor is torqued.

With the info provided by Mark on getting bigger pipes inside the covers my exhaust situation will be just fine and that will not be a problem. Also I am sure the Brodix heads with the standard height will suffice considering the wide range of options that are available from them. However some more serious questions remains about the engine builder and the whole 496 equation. I have always been either square or big bore oriented and never long stroke.

IMHO this seems to me to be even more relevant with 4:11's and a TKO 600. So what do you think is better considering my requirements and desire to run well between 4000 and 6500 and not about to peter out.

Do 540's rev as well as 502's or is there a difference? I am going to make some calls this week about the exhaust pipes and the heads. A week from monday I will decide on whether or not I am going to continue with the original chosen engine builder. As I have stated earlier there are issues there and Gary's post echos my sentiments about the issue of the torque plates that I raised earlier.

I miss the days of high compression 427's. I always liked them

Thanks Doug

 

I guess it all gets into what you really like to do. The 540's rev pretty well......they go 7500+ rpm if you want to with right parts....mainly meaning good heads that like to flow up there with that many cubes. They are real happy in street trim in the 6500-7000 rpm range. When I went to a flat tappet for awhile, it still revved fine past 7000. No issue there. I cross the finish line right at 7000 rpm and it's still pulling hard. My final drive in 4th gear is 4.08.

If you want to rev easier....then of course the 4.00" stroke 502/509's are a little better. They will make a similar power..just a higher RPM as compared to a 540..but we're not talking big stuff. Check out June 2005 Hot Rod's big bore/short stroke comaprisons. Very little difference overall.

You can always go with the 4.500+ bore and the 3.76 stroke. Those are 8000+ rpm deals, but you need valvetrain that likes it.

If I was going road racing and wanted to hang it at 6500 rpm all day up and down shifting, I'd use a shorter stroke. If I was purely drag racing and was willing to use a valvetrain that was happy at 9000 rpm, I'd use a shorter stroke. But I'm playing on the street trying to get 3600+ lbs of Vette moving plus I want to be able to cruise on the highway at a reasonable RPM. I need to be able to make power without insane valvetrain etc. That's where the long stroke and big cubes comes in. Your O/D will like added cubes too.

These days the 540 is about like the 454's of the old days. They rev well and make great power. 700 hp is easy with a flat tappet cam that will live forever. 800 isn't anything crazy on pump gas.

I know those Stahl headers are expensive, but just like any header they are easy to tweek if the only issue is the frame clearance. You can slightly bend them downward as needed. Any chance Stahl will accept a trade in if they are unused?

How 'bout solid motor mounts?

Good machine shops are very hard to find. Often the best guys are the little ones that have nicely equipped shops behind their homes. They don't advertise, they have little overhead and they take their time to do it right. The vast majority of them are drama queens that may be great machinists but are terrible businessmen!

JIM

 

I went through basically the same thing whenever I was searching for aluminum heads to replace the iron ones on my 468. I wanted to keep the Hooker headers because I like the way they look and sound with no mufflers in them . Everyone told me that I would have tons of custom work in getting them to fit. My buddy said he would help me cut and weld them if need be. I said screw it and took a chance and got the aluminum boys that fit my budget and the header side pipes bolted right up.

For the record I am running Pro Topline 320cc aluminum heads and am very satisfied. These heads have 3/8" raised exhaust ports.

 

I spoke w/ Jere Stahl back when I was researching side pipe headers and although he advertises a raised port header, he also said it would not fit/feed into the factory side pipe covers, hence my decision to have a custom set made. I'm pleased w/ the results.

The 3.5" pipes will expand your covers slightly. Previous to running this exhaust system I ran a full 4" system underneath the factory covers. Talk about pushing the envolope. The 4" pipes expanded the covers sufficiently to hold the pipe in place. Back to your 3.5" system. If you go this route, what mufflers do you plan on running? Would be a shame to go thru all the trouble of a 3.5" system and choke it w/ a small orifice muffler. People have reported good results w/ the STS Spiral Turbo baffles, and there are dyno results to support this. My problem w/ them, IMO, is the exhorbitant price for an auger style muffler insert. See link below for an inexpensive auger style muffler insert:

http://www.speedwaymotors.com/xq/asp...qx/Product.htm

And chrome exhaust turnouts to finish the system:

http://www.drivetrain.com/chrometip.html

I guess the choice between Edelbrock and Brodix RR heads comes down to personal preference, particularlly if you're going to have them ported. For what its worth, I prefer Brodix, but I'm sure the Edelbrock heads are a fine product.

As to how well a 4.25" arm revs compared to a 4.00", I guess it depends on your definition of "likes to rev". In theory, an oversquare design trades low end torque for high rpm power as compared to an undersquare architecture. In practice, at least at the rpm levels we operate, there is not such a marked difference. That said, valve timing and head flow will dictate where peak power occurs, irrespective of bore/stroke, within reason of course. I can assure you my 548" w/ 4.25" stroke and peak HP at 6650 rpm pulls HARD at high rpm. A 502" w/ similar peak HP will make less torque, which may give a sensation of more "revability" due to the lower torque (ie less "hit" at low/mid rpm). Also consider the vast majority of the 2005 509" Engine Master contestants built engines w/ an undersquare design. The logic of maximizing torque at such a low rpm as mandated by the rules notwithstanding, most engines made peak HP in the 6300 - 6500 rpm range.

It all comes down to personal preference. If you liked a 427 better than a 454, you might prefer a 502/9 to a 496/540. Previous to getting some decent rubber that actually controls wheelspin to manageable levels (MT ET Drag Radials), I often wondered if a 509" build would not have been better. I'm glad I stuck w/ the 548".

Take care,

Mark

 

I think you said it well Mark,,,,

If the TQ is lower at low RPM, then you get that *2 stroke coming up on the pipe* feeling as it comes alive at high rpm...your buttometer might tell you it's a great revving motor. But with the 540 style stuff...the TQ is always there. No need to downshift...it's always ready.

I never had much trouble running with 454's when I was using my 427..but I just made sure I had it in the right RPM range. It would be the same with 540's vs a 509. Again this is stuff that has to drive on the street...real racing is another deal and RPM wins!


JIM

 

Hi Jim

For sure torque is the way to go for a street motor which is essentially what mine is despite my version of street driving. I am not sure how to say that without appearing to be a dangerous nuisance on the street so I will just ask you to take my word for it that I am not.

I got a call from the engine builder today and he wanted to talk over some things but I put it off to monday when I can do it face to face. Its not like I have not been stalled for a couple of extra months over a completion date stated BEFORE I handed money over. Especially after what I have always believed about boring blocks and confirmed by Gary about the torque plates, I am somewhat doubtful over us continuing together. I would rather cut my losses now and hopefully it will just be a matter of lost time.

The whole idea of a 496 was his and what I asked for was the best combination to go fast, run on pump gas and fit without having to make modifications while maintaining my vintage air unit. I have seen the street 67 from Hendricks Motor Sports that is currently being put together locally but they have unlimited funds and connections for custom made everything. Consequently they are putting together a new injected ZL1 in a vert with air and custom headers. I would to if I could. So like bence13_33 I will run standard exhaust port heights with a good chance of the nod going to Brodix for the heads

However listening to you I see no reason to start off 45 cu inches less and still be in the same ball park price range while I can still get the necessary 6500 minimum RPM's to run with 4:11's and a 5 speed from a 540. My understanding is that it will fit just as well as the 496 ( Am I in error in that assumption?) and be just as well mannered on the street,

Mark has shared some more good info on the exhaust and the headers I have will work just fine but the possibilities are good I will be looking for a new engine builder. Right now some vendors I had hoped to talk to seem hard pressed for time to chat right before a holiday so I am back on hold again.

Thanks

Doug

 

If you are willing to go to a new block, then yes, you can build a 540-565" motor that looks and fits just like a 427 would do. Externally it's identical really...just a LOT beefier design internally. There is a Forum member here that has some great connections on good parts. We recently got a Dart Big M block from him for another Forum buddy. He just sent me a note last week that he has another brand new Dart block bored to 4.600 already (that's a 532" to a 565" depending on stroke) for a real good price. So if you go to something like that..the door is wide open.

The rotating assy costs the same..the only difference is the cost of the block really. I was originally going to build a 496 also out of my 427, but knew I would never be happy until I got a *big* motor. I'm sure glad I went for it. It's been a killer motor!

Your builder is correct in steering you toward the most cubes you can get. Cubes are always a good deal...BUT...where many people fail to get it right is you have to FEED those cubes. It's easy to end up with a great big motorhome or tow truck motor. Those aren't any fun. TQ is great...but it's no fun if it falls off too fast. The trick is to get it to hang on and keep making good TQ after the HP peak.

I don't think you caught what Bence said...he said he bolted his sidepipe headers up to a set of Pro Topline raised port heads with no issues. Just like the stock ones!

The way it runs is going to have everything to do with the heads and cam you select as well as intake/carb. The first version of mine made 732 Hp@6200 rpm with as cast, unported Brodix heads. But it fell off rapidly as RPM climbed and was down to 591HP@7000 rpm. I ran it that way for a couple of eyars, and it was an animal....but it was like a switch.....you were on the powerband and then out of it quickly as it pulled hard past 6000 rpm.

The next version was designed to kill off some bottom end and move powerband upwards. The heads spent a LOT of time on the flowbench, then I went larger on cam and changed intake. Same carb and shortblock otherwise. This time it made 825HP@7400 rpm and was still climbing actually. It was only dropping off 3-5 ft lbs per 100 rpm. Oops....heads turned out better than I thought....too much cam. I ran it that way for a while too and it was an animal up top.....but I could tell I needed to do a little tweeking. I switched cam back to one inbetween the other two and nailed it just about perfect I think. It drives smoother (doesn't sound as nasty though!) and it picked up 9-10 mph in the 1/4 mile!! The only other thing that changed was slightly larger headers and the smaller cam and it came alive. I haven't dyno'd it since the cam change, but I can guarantee you it likes it much better!!

If you get into this deal, between the group of us hardcore idiots, we have run a pretty large group of parts through these 540's and have a pretty decent idea of what does what. Everything from daily driver 19 mpg 540's to the insane stuff.

Just let us know which way you want to go.

Let me know if you need to get in touch with the block guy.

JIM

 

Hi Doug, it's nice to come up here and get opinions but the choices you're talking about making MUST come from you and the builder. If you don't build units for living you MUST trust the builder, if not you must make a change, period. There's no worse position to be in than lay out a whole bunch of "dough" and end with something you're going to hate to even drive. You will never be happy and at this point you won't be able to do it over. It has to be done the first time, correctly, and most important of all, you have to be 100% satisfied.

Let me give you something to ponder for a few days. Neither the size of the unit NOR the brands of components are going to be any guarantee of the power you desire. Not even the money you lay out is going to be!

I want to give you 2 examples here for a second to try to "show" what I'm saying. I have both these units posted over on the "Chevelle" site.

First a '70 396, G.M. square-port O/C aluminum heads (Winters-290 intake runners), TRW pistons, ring gaps at .030"+, 10.5 C.R., an "Engle" solid lifter, and absolutely no porting whatsoever, tested with an old Edelbrock Torker and 750 carb and 1.750" headers. Came off the dyno at 500+ HP and 465+ Torque, runs excellent on 93.

Second, '70 454 (original LS-6 with lowered comp.), 10:1 C.R., stock C.I. (#291's) square-ports (minimally ported due to exh seats), stock low-riser Aluminum intake, 750 Holley, 1.750" headers (for test only), solid lifter Blue-Racer 238/248 cam, stock "stamped" rockers. The intake manifold totally "killed" this unit but was required due to rules! Came off the dyno at 500+ HP and 500+ Torque, also runs excellent on 93.

The point here is this: these are very similar units power-wise, but when you "break" down the individual pieces they aren't even close! The LS-6 is in a 4150# Chevelle running 112/113 MPH (12.6's) on 7.000"
"factory-original" bias-belted tires and a legal class car. The "street-rod" for the 396 is still be built, but I'm assuming my customer will very happy with his also! With his unit I foresee possibly some high 10's. It IS a light car, but I don't have the weight handy. Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. You really don't have too many options in your position, but I will add this: the ENTIRE project should be established long before ANY machine work is started, the components should be laid out way ahead of time, and most importantly, you show know where every last penny is going. When I "sit" with a customer here I will do my best to go over EVERY item as close as possible. It's an extremely rare occasion for me to "up-the-ante" mid-stream unless there's some "mutual agreement". We do, on rare occasions, make unanticipated changes, but it's usually the customers own choice. Otherwise it just comes under the heading of "bad business", and for me, I can't afford it! I already have many customer's up on these sites. We are heavily involved in the F.A.S.T. class cars up here in the Northeast! You may find this hard to believe but I have an LS-5 on hold over an oil pan issue. Even an item this small, in this particular case, must be "perfect", nothing less will do. It's for a 100 point resto!

 

Hello Again

Well coming down to the wire and having overcome some differences this is what will be built and it will be with a warranty.

My 454 marine block with 496 stroker kit. eagle crank/ srp pistons (I left the fact sheet on the parts at a friends.

Brodix RR Rect port CNC chambers Brodix 2016 intake. It seems that the Brodix intake is a little better at a higher rpm level than the RPM Air Gap is although not quite as good on the low end. Everyone has said the same thing about the added benefits of a good single plane so I am forewarned there. Maybe at some time in the future I will do the mods to run a tall intake but not now. My fresh frame off with everything new and a new TKO 600 has already exceeded my original budget more than I would care to admit BEFORE doing another motor


The valve train will be Comp cams XE 286R Mech Roller. W/1.7 rockers the lift is 653/660 and duration @ 50 is 248/254.

All of the valve train components will be from comp cam and this is a mandate for him to build a motor with a warranty. There will be girdle used and he says there "should" be virtually no valve train maintenance. I did not like departing from stock valve covers but once again it is a matter of whether or not I want the motor under a warranty or not.

He also requires an MSD with a 7000 rev limiter chip and the motor will be fully broken in and "tuned" with my headers. He says that I can watch this if I want but most customers leave.

There were one interesting " would not do" from him and one was he would not build a 540 on a stock casting and warranty it. However if I wanted to use one of a couple of after market blocks he would build that or bigger w/warranty. However I established some guide lines in the beginning around money and installation ease. I need to start exercising some discipline otherwise there will be no limit. Having owned several offshore fishing boats I have found that without established boundaries I can justify just about anything.

I do have one concern and that is my "obligation' to build a adequate fuel delivery system. He mentioned 1/2 inch as being what most use for his motors and as I contemplate the complexity of doing that right it seems to be ridiculous to do that from the sending unit all the way to the carb.

How much fuel can a motor like this need? I have no problem with installing a electric fuel pump if need be but this half inch stuff done right is a real lot of work. Heck at that point I might just as well make the other mods and run the big intake

So I wonder what you guys that run a lot more HP than I will be getting use for fuel line diameter?.

Other than the intake I believe I have stayed within the working perimeters suggested by most here that are running bigger motors on the street than I am with the exception of me maybe being a little radical on the cam. Actually he surprised me as i figured him to go a step milder then he did but he said with 4:11's and a 5 speed he felt that I would be happy with it. At the same time he says he will do as the customer asks but he also seems to be recommending this combination.

You guys have given ma a lot of advice that is greatly appreciated and it has been followed as much as possible.

Doug

 

Well, you're going to have a sweet motor there. What compression will it end up with? That cam will be a TQ monster down low....a 496 could still use some more..but it will be a strong one and your TKO will like it in low rpm cruise mode.

540's are built on aftermarket or Bowtie blocks usually. They can also be done on regular 502 blocks..just not as strong of a block. But many of the big companies are using them in their crate motor 540's.

A girdle is a sweet deal...but you might look into Marks deal. He went with shaft rockers and got them all under the stock covers. Yes it costs a little more, but by time you add up girdles and rockers, studs etc, you can get real close to a shaft setup...especially the newer entry level ones.

I ran a 3/8' fuel line on my 540 with a Holley mechanical pump for several years. I never had any starvation issues...but at the time I was on street tires and not at the track racing with slicks. When the tires are spinning and stuff..the chances of running out of fuel are slim. When you hook up and really get your foot in it, the fuel needs go WAY up!

But I now have a full system on mine. I have an Aeromotive electric pump at the rear pulling from a sump on the stock tank. I use -10 line to the front to regulator and a -8 return to the top of the tank. A good fuel system is important to make it run well, but for initially getting it going, you'll be fine. If you put a nice electric at the rear a 3/8' will do OK..but he's right....1/2" at least or -10 would be real nice!!

Good luck with the new build!!


JIM