FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => The Road to Drag Week 2014 => Topic started by: jayb on June 29, 2014, 09:40:11 PM
-
Another good week on the project, and a good weekend on the dyno this weekend. After last weekend I was intent on trying to figure out the cam advance/retard situation with the cam sensors, so last Monday I ordered some more of the Honeywell cam sensors that I had used for this purpose back in 2006, along with some of the required triggering magnets. These sensors pick up the presence of the magnet as it spins by the sensor, and provide a high speed digital output. The magnets come in a little aluminum carrier with an 8-32 stud on the back, so all I had to do to mount them was to center drill and tap one of the bolts on each cam that holds the cam sprocket on. Then the magnet carrier and magnet screw right into place. Here's a picture of one of the magnets mounted on the cam sprocket:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Road to Drag Week 2014/cammagnet.jpg)
After that I mounted the new sensors in the valve covers and set the airgap at about .060". I had also wanted to make sure that I ran the two sensors off the same set of electronics, in case different voltage supplies or noise was causing one to be thrown off compared to the other. So along with the magnets and sensors I picked up some other assorted electronics and made up this little circuit as shown below:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Road to Drag Week 2014/snsrcontrol1.jpg)
The device with the three legs is a common voltage regulator, with input voltage up to 30V and a 5V output. The two yellow things are capacitors that are required when using the voltage regulator. Then there are two resistors, and two LEDs, one set for each of the sensors. I fit these together into a little plastic box:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Road to Drag Week 2014/snsrcontrol2.jpg)
With this arrangement I wired both sensors to the same 5V power supply and ground, and wired each sensor output into the resistors and LEDs, and then also fed each output into the MS3X control unit.
By Friday night I was all finished up with the electronics stuff, and decided to try another cam timing change. My last change had been to advance the right cam from 105 to 102, and the left cam from 108 to 102. This had resulted in a loss of about 20 HP, so I elected to go back a little, but keep the cams equally phased. Working VERY carefully on Friday night, I got both cams backed up to 105. On Saturday morning I fired the engine and ran the first test. Thankfully power picked back up to the original level, or very close to it, but again the cam datalogs were confusing. For the left cam, I was observing about the same thing that we observed last week, but the right cam looked much. much better. It actually looked way TOO good, and was hardly moving at all during the warm up or the pulls.
For the cam sensor I am using two inputs to the MS3X. The first input is dedicated to a cam sensor, and the second is an auxiliary input. The left cam was on the cam sensor input, and it looked pretty much the same as last week, but the right cam did not. After a little reflection this was even more puzzling, because last week, with different sensors, I was getting results on both inputs. Really scratching my head on this one. After a few more pulls and basically repetitive results, I called Scott Clark to ask him about this. Scott suggested that I swap inputs to the MS3X and run another test. I did this, and sure enough, now the right cam sensor looked like it had a believable signal, but the left cam sensor didn't. This basically proved that the MS3X auxiliary input was smoothing or modifying the signal, rendering it useless.
At this point I made another change to the cam timing, moving both cams to an intake centerline of 108. The LSA of these cams is 114, so now both cams were degreed 6 degrees advanced. On the next pull I picked up a little more power, but not much, around 1.5 HP average across the 5500-7200 RPM range. According to the cam sensor datalog, the left cam was retarding 9 degrees as I went into the dyno pull, and then retarded a further 5 degrees during the pull from 5000-7200 RPM. That would mean that the effective intake centerline angle of the left cam was 8 degrees retarded, or 122 degrees, to make peak power on this engine.
I just didn't believe this; that is so far out of whack with what I know about engines that it just doesn't pass the smell test. After reviewing the data from both cams (including from the right cam when it was being logged by the cam sensor channel), I think one thing that I do believe is that during the pull, both cams are retarding about the same amount, 5 degrees or so. It the data prior to the pulls is disregarded, that would put the existing timing of the cams as about straight up, which makes more sense from a power perspective. I decided at this point to just abandon the cam logging experiment; I was chasing horsepower anyway, not cam angles. I'm going to do some more experimenting with the cam timing next weekend, but I'm pretty close to dialed in at this point.
Now, with both cams at about 108, I decided to try another test. I pulled the throttle bodies off the front of the intake and put them on top. Here's a picture of this arrangement:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Road to Drag Week 2014/tbtop.jpg)
The motor definitely liked this change, picking up 10-15 horsepower across the top end power band, and not losing anywhere. I kinda figured it would like that. This also had an unexpected effect; prior to this pull, all the previous pulls had shown zero vacuum in the plenum. But with the throttle bodies moved up top, suddenly I had 0.5 inches of vacuum in the plenum above 6500 RPM. Apparently the engine was drawing the air more efficiently now and the throttle bodies were a restriction. However, sometimes plenum volume plays into this kind of thing, and I had my second 1/2" plenum spacer ready to install. Current plenum volume is 580 cubic inches with the first spacer, and the second spacer would increase that by 60 cubic inches. So, I took some time and got the second spacer installed. Here's a photo of the manifold with the top removed and the first spacer visible. I machined these out of black Delrin, and cut them for an O-ring to make sealing them up easy:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Road to Drag Week 2014/plenspacer.jpg)
After the installation the next pull got me another 7 average horsepower across the speed range, and back to zero vacuum in the plenum for the whole pull. Along with that the engine seemed to be running a little leaner, so over the next few pulls I richened the top end up about 4%, and picked up a few more horsepower.
Throughout this whole process I still was not seeing any significant amount of crankcase vacuum. I decided I needed to track that down at this point. I have an electric vacuum pump that I use for vacuum forming, and I attached that to the crankcase to try to pull a vacuum on it, and then hold a lit cigarette near any potential leak spots to see where the smoke gets sucked in (cigarettes courtesy of my pal Steve P, since I don't smoke). This just didn't seem to work too well; I think that the vacuum pump doesn't pull enough volume to make it all the way around the engine, so the smoke from the cigarette didn't react to any leaks. Also, I felt a little nervous holding a lit cigarette a few feet from the dyno's fuel tank LOL! Anyway, my Y-block pal JC was over this afternoon, and he suggested the opposite approach, pressurizing the crankcase to 5 psi or so to see if we could check for leaks with a soapy water solution. This approach gave instant results, and I found some fairly major leaks around the spark plug tubes. I was using 2 O-rings to seal each tube, but either that wasn't enough or the O-rings were old or something, because air was going by all eight of those things in a big way. I also found leaks around the cam sensors that were screwed into the valve covers, and around the valve cover rails themselves. So, this week I'm going to work on getting those leaks sealed up and see if I can develop some more crankcase vacuum. There is certainly some power to be had there, because this engine is large and has low tension rings.
At the end of the day today I ran one last pull for the camera. At the end of the pull a drop of oil drips on the right side headers and generates some smoke, but otherwise the pull looks pretty good. This is the engine running from 5500 to 7500 RPM:
http://youtu.be/1BxFC2B7ZSk
I'm going to give myself on more weekend on the dyno with this engine to try to tweak it just a little more, then its going in the car. In fact, with the 3 day weekend coming up, I might just take it off the dyno and try to get it in the car on Sunday. I'll post another update next week - Jay
-
Jay, have you advanced the cams until you lose power? It might like a couple more degrees advanced. Will installing the TBs on top work in the car? Are they spaced evenly over the runners? Chamfer under the lid like the one into the runners? Fun reading the changes, keep up the great information coming. Joe-JDC.
-
That is awesome Jay glad to see you got it all together and ready, wish I could be there to see it run.
-
Way cool and what a sound!
Yes, plug it into the car and get some driving time to see how it pulls under road conditions! Testing now should pay dividends later.....as you already know! LOL!
-
Jay, have you advanced the cams until you lose power? It might like a couple more degrees advanced. Will installing the TBs on top work in the car? Are they spaced evenly over the runners? Chamfer under the lid like the one into the runners? Fun reading the changes, keep up the great information coming. Joe-JDC.
Yes, I ran them both at an ICL of 102 and the engine lost 20 HP. Backed them back off to 105 ICL, and got it back, and then got a little more going back to 108.
Looking inside the plenum up at the throttle bodies, it is not an ideal installation. There is no radius where the hole enters the top of the plenum, and the throttle bodies are not ideally positioned. I'm actually thinking about making a new top plate for the manifold and mounting a couple of dominator throttle bodies instead of the single bladed units (which I really envisioned only for the front mount position; the top mount position was an afterthought when I was building the sheet metal intake). If I did the new top plate with the dominator throttle bodies I could get them perfectly positioned, and also radius the entry into the plenum.
Will it fit in the car? For the extra power, I think I'll MAKE it fit... ;D
-
If a big block Ford fits a Harley Davidson a car should be a piece of cake LOL.
-
Sounds good Jay! I'm dying to see the HP/TQ curves. 8)
-
I know it is a lot of extra money, but the Dominator throttle bodies sounds like that would be the best for making power, and especially looks. Joe-JDC
-
That "intake" top just looks small and restrictive when compared to the factory 5.4Ltr R-Code COBRA modular's and your running significantly more displacement and likely similar revs
r-code cobra, intake and 5.0 FRP
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=r-code+cobra%2C+intake&qs=n&form=QBIR&pq=r-code+cobra%2C+intake&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=#view=detail&id=03FF69B7C02449F2EABBB194AB08180FEC91AB9C&selectedIndex=0
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Cobra+Intake+Manifold&Form=IQFRDR#view=detail&id=62105D9C425ED83DF76945F84EA976C3A0C9CBA9&selectedIndex=6
http://image.popularhotrodding.com/f/enginemasters/1309_2013_amsoil_engine_masters_challenge_friday_coverage/60010407+w640/ford-cobra-409-jon-kaase.jpg
-
WOW!! That engine accelerates very rapidly Jay. Good work on squeezing the hp out of that engine. I can't wait to hear the hp/tq reading also. Keep at it. Just a thought though on pressurizing the block. Is it possible with the reverse air movement that it knocked the orings out and pushed the gaskets, causing the leaks? A standard small vacuum cleaner only pulls around 18-20in, but it can move more volume due to the bigger motor. It's another troubleshooting tool!
Are you running draft tubes down to the exhaust once it's mounted back in the car?
While watching your video of this engine, it reminds me of a quote from the Blues Brothers. They decide to run from the police in the Blues Mobile and Elwood floors the pedal and says, "blessed saint of acceleration, don't fail us now." Dan W.
-
Using a shop vac is a pretty good idea for a test; I should have thought of that. I think I might just give that a try tonight. On the O-rings they are doubled up, and are captive under a lip of the spark plug tube, so they can't really be pushed out place. The valve cover gaskets could, though, under the pressure test. I think I might glue the valve cover gaskets to the valve covers to prevent that.
In the car the engine stays hooked up as is, no draft tubes to the exhaust. The dry sump system is supposed to apply the vacuum.
My favorite Blues Brothers quote:
Elwood: "We've got a full tank of gas, a half a pack of cigarettes, its dark, and we're wearing sunglasses."
Jake: "Hit it!"
-
Being a volunteer fireman in the past and of course in filtration dealing with vacuum dehydration of transformer, turbine and paper machine oils and etc, I'd urge "caution" on vacuuming any kind of petroleum fumes, in addition vacuums by nature liberate 'light volatiles" (we literally boil the water out of the oil with the vac) . Household/Shop Vacuums are generally not explosion proof as are all the fans/blowers/vacs used in the fire service for evacuating fumes. Many vacs cool their brushes/motor with air from the vac - ever seen the sparking ring of brushes?. Might be a long shot on a crankcase but you'd not be happy a happy Hot Rodder with a flaming explosion in your shop ..
-
Thanks for your concern, BB, I will think twice about that...
-
Many vacs cool their brushes/motor with air from the vac - ever seen the sparking ring of brushes?. Might be a long shot on a crankcase but you'd not be happy a happy Hot Rodder with a flaming explosion in your shop ..
Shop Vac motors are AC. Only DC motors use brushes, so there should not be any sparking or arcing in a shop vac. Still don't think I'd want to run explosive fumes through it like gas, methane etc, but oil fumes should not cause much concern. Wouldn't hurt to use some sort of filter though to catch the oil.
-
Shop Vac motors are AC. Only DC motors use brushes, so there should not be any sparking or arcing in a shop vac. Still don't think I'd want to run explosive fumes through it like gas, methane etc, but oil fumes should not cause much concern. Wouldn't hurt to use some sort of filter though to catch the oil.
I have a shop-vac, radial arm saw, chop saw, grinders, drills and an assortment more AC 110 volt electric motors that say otherwise on AC current and brushes.
Josh
-
Are you sure that Ac makes it all the way to the motor?
Usually on (old) variable speed equipment there is a rectifier that converts ac-dc and then runs a dc motor with a variable voltage (pot).
It would be dumb to put a true AC motor on brushes as the power cycles for you and there is no way to make the motor run at some frequency other then 60hz without having a Variable Frequency Drive. It exists and known as Polyphase wound rotor that allows you to adjust the slip angle of the motor... but again its expensive and they wear out and don't offer much additional utility.
Why would you intentionally run consumables on a motor that doesn't need them? It commutates it's self.
-
Vacuum cleaner motors use brushes. Joe-JDC.
-
Jay, grab the hose off the Kirby in the house, the neighbors hose off their ElectroLux, connect it all up and put the vac out in the driveway. Suck away, make power and watch the shop vac burn all in the name of FE POWER! ;D
-
Shop Vac motors are AC. Only DC motors use brushes, so there should not be any sparking or arcing in a shop vac. Still don't think I'd want to run explosive fumes through it like gas, methane etc, but oil fumes should not cause much concern. Wouldn't hurt to use some sort of filter though to catch the oil.
I have a shop-vac, radial arm saw, chop saw, grinders, drills and an assortment more AC 110 volt electric motors that say otherwise on AC current and brushes.
Josh
You're absolutely right. I spoke before I thought. I was thinking about alternators and such. My bad.
-
because I've done just that lol. anybody that's a service tech if you use that canned air don't use the vacuum at the same time in a moderately enclosed space on a machine to keep the dust from getting everywhere. its a very loud pop and hard on the vacuum! luckily I was at the shop rather than customer site.
-
Nothing to add on external vacuum devices, but engine sealing is obviously key to making a dry sump or a wide vac work. We used a smoke tester on mine to find the leaks. The newer Cometic valce cover gaskets were a real improvement on mine. I don't know if they have a P/N for the SOHC, but they'll make just about anything.
I have also had good experince with the Accufab TB's. As you'll recall I run two on the tunnel ram on the 598". At 2200 cfm each all the carb guys lose their minds but they work great, idle and part throttle well, never mind WOT and you know the power we made back in 2011. More to come here shortly (fingers crossed). They are also far and away the shortest which helps with packaging and scoop height. A 16 x 3.5" filter showed a slight improvement on the dyno over open so I run the filter all the time. K&N for the road and a Nascar spec WIX at the track. Roush Yates has special prices on them from time to time, very inexpensive. I just squeeze them into an oval shape on top of the TB pan/isolator plate.
(http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh238/CDMBill/engine%20Induction%20and%20oiling/file-2.jpg)
(http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh238/CDMBill/engine%20Induction%20and%20oiling/file.jpg)
-
Thanks for the input Bill. I have two Wilson dominator throttle bodies on the high riser in my Mach 1 and I'm going to steal them for the test this weekend, but if they show some improvement over the 90mm throttle bodies, or even if they are the same, I'm going to pick up two of the Accufab units like yours. I like the low height, which is lower than the Wilsons I've got...
-
I have a Scorpion 2000cfm throttle body for the 482 that I am building. One of the big selling points was how low profile it is. It was also a decent price. It uses a 4150 bolt pattern with big throttle blades. Scott
http://www.dragzine.com/news/scorpion-racing-products%E2%80%99-non-stick-throttle-bodies/
-
Interesting TB. The top mount lever makes the air cleaner/filter question interesting.
It will be interesting to see what happens with the other two TB's Jay. Any time to whip up a more symmetrical top for the tunnel ram?
-
Actually my sheet metal intake is kind of split in half right at the runners, so I'm making a whole new top part, which won't have the slant in it like the current design does. Much more conventional. We'll see what happens...
-
Nothing to add on external vacuum devices, but engine sealing is obviously key to making a dry sump or a wide vac work. We used a smoke tester on mine to find the leaks. The newer Cometic valce cover gaskets were a real improvement on mine. I don't know if they have a P/N for the SOHC, but they'll make just about anything.
I have also had good experince with the Accufab TB's. As you'll recall I run two on the tunnel ram on the 598". At 2200 cfm each all the carb guys lose their minds but they work great, idle and part throttle well, never mind WOT and you know the power we made back in 2011. More to come here shortly (fingers crossed). They are also far and away the shortest which helps with packaging and scoop height. A 16 x 3.5" filter showed a slight improvement on the dyno over open so I run the filter all the time. K&N for the road and a Nascar spec WIX at the track. Roush Yates has special prices on them from time to time, very inexpensive. I just squeeze them into an oval shape on top of the TB pan/isolator plate.
(http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh238/CDMBill/engine%20Induction%20and%20oiling/file-2.jpg)
(http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh238/CDMBill/engine%20Induction%20and%20oiling/file.jpg)
I'll tell you Bill that car has come a long way since I saw you at Knotts in the early 2000s. Love it!
-
personally I'd be surprised IF the K&N filtered as well as even a asphalt race grade Wix with their T66 media. The T88 media is dirt track grade. Would be interesting to install a accurate gauge to measure vac inside the filter housing to see how the filters perform at WOT max load. Looks like Wix does not make T88 paper media filters in your 16x3.5 size. You should at least look if holes in the media when held in front of light are visible to the naked eye as they are with the K&Ns. K&Ns use cotton gauze a large dia fiber and can't utilize as many pleats (surface area) as a paper filters.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ALL26029-Air-Filter-Element-16-in-x-3-1-2-in-Paper-Each-/360976759316?pt=Race_Car_Parts&hash=item540be43a14&vxp=mtr
-
Jay keep in mind with all that fab work you are doing - you need to fit a filter on for street driving and at least wire cloth to keep buzzards out of the motor on the track. Can you use a small restrictive filter for street driving since it's obvious you don't require much power on the street?
LOL Ive got some surplus combustion turbine intake pleated panel filters but they'd likely be a bit bulky to fit in a car w/o planning. WAG 2ftx2ftx2inch
-
That's right, BB, a restrictive filter on the street is no issue for me, and I have that contingency covered - Jay
-
a can, container, drum tank etc is something to use caution on. I'll admit that I'm out of my league on the volatility of fumes from different petroleum products but to me no one in their right mind should weld, use a cutting torch, grind or saw on an old fuel oil storage tank and likewise engine oil fumes can't be much be much different then fuel oil. I do believe the lighter petroleum fumes may be more explosive and anytime you start pulling a vacuum on a mixture of petroleum products the lighter products are liberated first. Is a tank filled with gasolene fumes any different then a tank filled with oil fumes I don't know? ............
Re: "I'd want to run explosive fumes through it like gas, methane etc, but oil fumes should not cause much concern."
-
personally I'd be surprised IF the K&N filtered as well as even a asphalt race grade Wix with their T66 media. The T88 media is dirt track grade. Would be interesting to install a accurate gauge to measure vac inside the filter housing to see how the filters perform at WOT max load. Looks like Wix does not make T88 paper media filters in your 16x3.5 size. You should at least look if holes in the media when held in front of light are visible to the naked eye as they are with the K&Ns. K&Ns use cotton gauze a large dia fiber and can't utilize as many pleats (surface area) as a paper filters.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ALL26029-Air-Filter-Element-16-in-x-3-1-2-in-Paper-Each-/360976759316?pt=Race_Car_Parts&hash=item540be43a14&vxp=mtr
I did an air filter test on a 896 hp 565 street engine I built. With a K&N 16x4 filter set-up the power difference from filter to no-filter was less than 1 hp through the entire dyno pull, you could overlay the graphs.
I also use K&N filters exclusively on my dirt oval track engines, it's the only way I can keep bearings in the motors. I have tested the Wix and the R2C filters and after a feature race I can wipe dirt out of the carburetor bores when using a clean white rag. Having a rigid base and top and sealing the filter with grease is very important as well under dirt track conditions. The trick to using a K&N filter is to use a genuine K&N not a copycat and don't wash it. I see degraded filter performance even after the first washing. We run 1 filter for a season and then throw it away. I have dyno'd back to back with a used K&N and a new one (dirt track motor 450 hp level) and found around 2hp difference. Not enough to worry about and that was a very dirty filter.
-
Interesting and good info, Mark. It's nice to hear real world experience and testing like that rather than theory and guesses.
-
personally I'd be surprised IF the K&N filtered as well as even a asphalt race grade Wix with their T66 media. The T88 media is dirt track grade. Would be interesting to install a accurate gauge to measure vac inside the filter housing to see how the filters perform at WOT max load. Looks like Wix does not make T88 paper media filters in your 16x3.5 size. You should at least look if holes in the media when held in front of light are visible to the naked eye as they are with the K&Ns. K&Ns use cotton gauze a large dia fiber and can't utilize as many pleats (surface area) as a paper filters.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ALL26029-Air-Filter-Element-16-in-x-3-1-2-in-Paper-Each-/360976759316?pt=Race_Car_Parts&hash=item540be43a14&vxp=mtr
I did an air filter test on a 896 hp 565 street engine I built. With a K&N 16x4 filter set-up the power difference from filter to no-filter was less than 1 hp through the entire dyno pull, you could overlay the graphs.
I also use K&N filters exclusively on my dirt oval track engines, it's the only way I can keep bearings in the motors. I have tested the Wix and the R2C filters and after a feature race I can wipe dirt out of the carburetor bores when using a clean white rag. Having a rigid base and top and sealing the filter with grease is very important as well under dirt track conditions. The trick to using a K&N filter is to use a genuine K&N not a copycat and don't wash it. I see degraded filter performance even after the first washing. We run 1 filter for a season and then throw it away. I have dyno'd back to back with a used K&N and a new one (dirt track motor 450 hp level) and found around 2hp difference. Not enough to worry about and that was a very dirty filter.
Did you happen to run a dyno pull against a regular pleated filter like a Wix or the like? I'd be curious to know how much power was gained using the K&N.
-
Don't want to hijack Jay's thread, :-[ but that's some VERY interesting info, indeed, Mark - as cjshaker noted.
Do you clean the K&N's at all during the course of the season?
-
not a copycat and don't wash it." It's standard operating procedure with HVAC pleated airfilters that are extensively tested by labs. Out of the box their "initial" efficiency is about half the rated performance Average Efficiency/Rated Efficiency when they start getting clogged @ 1/2"WC. By the time they start choking at 1"WC "terminal" efficiency arrestance has skyrocketed to over 90%. I'd expect the washables would be similar to the HVAC filters in that you can see the holes in the media with a decent pair of eyes also and they are doing "cake filtration" where the captured dirt is doing much of the filtration. Unfortunately when filters start out so loosely it's a poor foundation as large globs of greasy dirt can bust loose.
Your stating the WIX and RC2 filters suck so badly that there is wipe-off-able dirt in the carb bores, indeed this says the filters suck. Are those Wix & RC2's really their "dirt", not asphalt filters?
-
Week SOHC. I keep thinking a hefty SOHC has got to require considerable oil forced through its veins to take care of the mains and rods, but also all those followers/rockers and two cams worth of journals. When I think of all the dry sump race engines I've only seen running the large racing oil filters and large lines it indicates these motors like volume. Then I think about what could happen if excessive oil is forced through a to small filter, sure it could go into bypass but more then that even in bypass the filter may still not not be able to handle all the flow. If that happens things could get worse as pleats could potentially pinch and delta-P increases.
I sure hope you are not the one to experiment if a large dry sump OHC motor can run a mini-size filter.
BB
-
I use a System 1 oil filter with the Peterson Wide Vac external oil pump I run. No oil starvation related issues to date (nine years) with the aftermarket 385 block.
-
Jay, it looks to me that the washer under the center cam sprocket retaining bolt resembles a slice of pepperoni I had on my pizza last week! :o If its just being used for fit up of the sensor magnet, OK, but if its going to last for test runs and a week on the road I can see that sprocket getting loose with that washer all deformed. I'm thinking a hardened steel parallel ground application and some red loc tite.
Courtney.
-
Actually the cam sprocket itself has an indentation in the center, and the washers around that center bolt always end up looking like that. The tin plate that goes over the cam degreeing holes in the cam sprocket, which is under the washer, also deform in that area. The tabs you can see on the tin plate were used by Ford to bend up around the hex head bolts that they used in that position, and locked them in place. I just use Loctite on the bolts. Never had a problem...
-
Don't want to hijack Jay's thread, :-[ but that's some VERY interesting info, indeed, Mark - as cjshaker noted.
Do you clean the K&N's at all during the course of the season?
We do not. I have tested a lot of other filters against the K&N and to be honest have never found more than a couple of horsepower difference as long as the filter is large enough for the engine. There is more power to be had with the proper shape base and top as well as the right distance from the base to the top.
The K&N was compared to an HVAC filter with "large holes" and using dirt to filter. This is not entirely true and is a common misconception about the K&N filters. K&N uses a natural cotton fiber and this fiber has little "hairs" on it. If you hold a K&N up to the light, yes you can see though it. However, when the engine is running the little "hairs" vibrate back and forth effectively blocking dirt from getting through the filter. This is why you can't use a K&N copy, they use a cheaper synthetic fiber and it doesn't have the "hairs" an you will destroy your engine (at least in a dirt car you will) I had this happen to me when a customer bought a new filter that was "just like" a K&N only cheaper.
I am not sponsored by K&N nor affiliated with them in any way but I do use their products (at least their filters) and I have been happy with them. I will tell you on a dirt 2bbl car the best base is the carbon fiber one from R2C not because it makes the most power but because it's very, very rigid and seals well. A large domed top usually works the best too. I have put a lot of effort into keeping dirt out of my engines and this is what works for me.
I should add, the reason we quit cleaning the filters is because I found a decreased ability to filter dirt after washing them (compared to a new, clean filter or a used dirty filter) I personally think this is because the little "hairs" don't work so well after washing. We just run a filter for the season and trash it afterwards. As long as I can wipe the carb with a clean white rag and it comes out with no dirt on it I'm happy. It really helps to keep the cost of the freshen-up down when you don't have to replace every part in the engine due to abrasive contamination (dirt)
-
Here's a photo David Vizard took of me when we were testing filters on the EFI 565 @ almost 900 HP on 91 octane. (the photo shows a carburetor because we tested with that too)
-
Here's a photo David Vizard took of me when we were testing filters on the EFI 565 @ almost 900 HP on 91 octane. (the photo shows a carburetor because we tested with that too)
That's very interesting, indeed. If any engine could or would get messed up, it's a dirt track runner for sure! Nice to have actual experience here rather than.....well, you know...LOL!
I haven't had the need to use a K&N for some years but would not hesitate to do so. Had a box stock '94 V-6 'Stang that I threw one on and asked the Ford dealer's #1 tech rep if this could void the warranty. He stated that for years his crew has serviced a lot of Fords, most quite 'hot' in the engine bay, with a K&N and they even offered a in-house cleaning/oiling service for a fee. I also watched it like a hawk for about 2 years and never was able to wipe any dirt off of the EFI throttle body or EFI intake tract.
-
Excellent info.
Be sure you hang around here - it's good to hear from those who've been there/done that!!