Guess the tunnel port horsepower!

[jayb]

We are going to run Rob's (fetorino) tunnel port on the dyno today.  Here are the specifications:

- 496", 4.375" stroke, 4.255 bore
-  11.3:1 static compression, CP pistons
-  Stock tunnel ports ported by Blair, 375 cfm on the intake, 225 on the exhaust, 2.25/1.75 valves
-  Bullet roller cam, .660 lift, 258/270 @ .050", 107 LSA, ICL=105
- Dyno headers, stepped, 1 7/8"/2"/2 1/8", merge collectors
- Intake manifold #1 is a 2X4 tunnel wedge with Blair's modifications, 2" Wilson transition spacers, 780 vacuum secondary carbs with single fuel inlets and side hung float bowls
- Intake manifold #2 is a 1X4 single plane modified for a Dominator carb.  We'll be running a 1050 Dominator plus a tricked out 4150 carb
- Dry sump oiling system

This engine is designed for a road racing application in Rob's '69 Torino.  Peak horsepower and Torque guesses please, and also specify which intake manifold your guess is for...

[Kerry j]

I'll guess 710 HP and 640 TQ.

That's based on what my MR 496 with 9.5 compression made; it made 630 HP, flat tappet cam, Tunnel Wedge with 2, 715 cfm hollies and Dove aluminum heads that flow around 330. I'm thinking the extra compression and tunnel port heads would make another 80 HP. But then do we know what the TP heads flow?

[gene melchert]

I'll guess 675 hp w/ 2-4's and 660 w/dominator. If I win, the tooth fairy will put a Pond "graphite" block under my pillow!

[cwhitney]

496 2b4 Intake will be 680hp and 600 torque
496 single 4 will be 650 hp and 600 torque
Jay I think you pick up some power if you put 2" to 2 1/8" step header, or just a straight 2/18 header, alot of cubes for a 1 7/8 primary tube. GOOD LUCK Dyno days are always fun!

[Barry_R]

730@6400 with the 2x4
610@5400 on TQ

no money on this one - not enough history with tunnel ports to do more than a guess

[Qikbbstang]

2X4V
695HP @ 6350rpm
630Tq @ 5700

[machoneman]

710 with the 2X4, 625 torque; 695 with the 1X and 620 torque is my SWAG!

[ScotiaFE]

2X4
715@6300
605@5500

1X4 the big one
680@6200
580@5400

[482supersnake]

2x4
745 hp
630 tq

1x4
690 hp
620 tq

[e philpott]

810 HP  with 2x4 ..... 

780 with single 4 ...

[hotrodfeguy]

679HP 1X4
720HP  2X4
 

[fetorino]

I'll guess it makes plenty

[jayb]

OK, we have a partial answer to the big question.  First, here's a couple of photos of Rob's engine on the dyno, the second showing the dry sump tank in the foreground:





After getting the engine hooked up on the dyno, we started the engine mid afternoon.  I had hooked up one of my spare pressure channels on the dyno to crankcase pressure, because we weren't sure how much vacuum the dry sump system would pull in the crankcase, and Rob didn't have a vacuum release valve on the engine, so we wanted to watch that to make sure that we didn't develop too much and affect the internal oiling in the engine.  When the engine started the vacuum creeped up to about 8 inches at around 2000 RPM, which was fine.  After the engine ran for just a couple of minutes though, the Crane distributor gave up, and the engine died and wouldn't restart.  Fortunately the distributor in the 352 stock eliminator engine was the same type, so we just swapped that one in to keep going.  But after the engine restarted, suddenly we had zero crankcase vacuum.  First we thought that the pressure sensor channel on the dyno may have gone out, so we swapped to a different sensor, but still the same result.  Then we hung an analog vacuum gauge on the crankcase vacuum fitting, and still no vacuum.  Finally it dawned on us that the new distributor was not sealing properly to the manifold, and we had a big vacuum leak there.  So, we pulled the distributor again, removed the rubber O-ring, and wrapped the groove in the distributor body with teflon tape to make it larger in diameter, then reinstalled the O-ring and the distributor.  This made a minor improvement, and we were back to about 2" of vacuum, but nowhere near where we had started.  Finally we took The Right Stuff and fed it into the groove between the distributor and manifold, making a mess but also hopefully a good seal.  When we started the engine again we were back to the original vacuum level.

From there we started making some pulls on the engine, starting with 3000-4500 and working our way up to a 4500-6500 RPM pull.  The engine made 685 horsepower right out of the box, with no jetting or timing adjustments, and didn't appear to be falling off at 6500, so we went to 7200.  But we didn't see too much improvement there, and the engine was making its peak power right around 6500 RPM.  The engine appeared to be running a bit lean on the top end, showing A/F numbers in the 13.5:1 range, so we decided to up the jetting in the carbs by a few steps.  On the next pull we were down just a bit on average horsepower, so it seemed we had gone a little far with the jetting.  With the dual quad carbs changing jets was a big ordeal of course, so rather than rejet at this point we decided to try timing next.  We had been running 38 total with the distributor locked, so we increased the timing to 40 and made a pull.  The engine really liked this change, picking up 3 average horsepower across the range and more at peak.  The engine was breaking in nicely also, starting easily and picking up a little power, so we were running right around 696 horsepower pretty repeatably on the pulls. 

Next we wanted to make a change to the collectors and see if that had an impact on the power.  The dyno headers Blair brought are stepped headers, 1 7/8 to 2 to 2 1/8, with merge collectors.  I had a set of merge collectors with a bigger choke point, so Rob and I installed those on the engine and made a pull.  Results were nearly the same, but the bigger merge lost just a bit of average power across the range compared to the original collectors we had been using, so this didn't really help us. 

By now we were getting close to the end of the day, and felt we'd wrung this engine out pretty well.  We decided on one more set of changes:  return to the original merge collectors, and take out some of the jet that we put in earlier in the day.  I think we ended up with one jet higher than we had originally started with.  This combination turned out to be the one the engine liked best, and we finally hit 700 horsepower with this combination.

So, after a day of tuning and tweaking our final dyno pull yielded exactly 700 horsepower at 6600 RPM, and 625 lb-ft of torque at 5000 RPM.  Here is a plot of the data:



Today we'll be swapping to the single 4 intake and trying a couple of different carburetors on the engine.  Rob prefers to run the single four intake in the car, so we'll be trying hard to optimize this combination also.  I'll try to post the results late tonight - Jay

[KMcCullah]

What kind of gas are you guys running?

695hp with the best single 4bbl is my bet.
615 tq.

[machoneman]

Nice Jay...many of us were pretty close....so much for SWAG.....LOL! 

So, when do we see a few pics of this road-racing Torino? Is it a H-M NASCAR clone, something entirely different, more likely the former 80's-90's Riley & Scott Trans-Am Mustang cars ......or what?

[67 Fastback]

If you go to Lateral G forum there is a build on Robs car very impressive .

[e philpott]

well I flubbed that !!    lol... I should have paid more attention to compression ratio and the small .050 on the intake side of the cam

[My427stang]

Great motor, but why all the exhaust duration?  That's quite a split.

[jayb]

We were running 110 octane fuel that is available locally here in the Minneapolis area.  The reason for the long exhaust duration is because the exhaust ports on these heads didn't flow all that well, around 220 cfm if I remember correctly.  Compared to the intake, exhaust flow was low, so Blair compensated with a lot of exhaust duration on the cam.

Here is a link to a web site showing quite a few pictures of Rob's Torino under construction:

http://www.roadstershop.com/current-projects/rob-s-1969-torino

[jayb]

This morning we got going on the intake swap on Rob's engine.  We removed the tunnel port intake and Rob spent some time cleaning the gasket surfaces in preparation for installation of the single four intake.  When he was finished I took the opportunity to snap a couple of photos of this really cool engine, with the intake off:





Next we installed the 4V intake and then re-installed the valvetrain.  Here's a couple of photos of the engine at this stage; the second one shows Blair doing the valvetrain installation on the left side.





We finished the engine off by installing my 1150 Dominator on the intake.  After installation we started the engine and ran it for a few minutes to warm up before making any pulls.  Unfortunately the engine didn't have crankcase vacuum any more, in spite of the fact that we re-sealed the distributor with The Right Stuff.  We suspected that the end rails of the intake, where we had used The Right Stuff to seal, just hadn't had enough time to set up, and that the leak was there.  Rob confirmed this later in the dyno session by noting that we had a minor oil leak at the back of the intake.  As a result of no crankcase vacuum, we expected the engine to be down a little bit on power.

Nevertheless we went ahead with a few dyno pulls, first with my 1150 Dominator, and later with Rob's brand new 1050 Dominator.  Rob's carb made a bit more torque than mine did, and ran about the same peak horsepower.  It showed a little leaner on the A/F readings, but they were pretty close.  Here's a dyno plot of the best pull with Rob's carb, which made 629 lb-ft of torque at 4900 RPM, and 672 horsepower at 6400; these are the black lines on the graph.  The red lines are the previous day's result from the tunnel wedge intake:



Finally we installed Blair's double throwdown, triple whammy, brand new 4150 carb to try it out against the Dominators.  Here's a shot of the carb on the engine:



Unfortunately, at this point the dyno quit cooperating.  We had been having troubles on and off with the starter during the past three days, and after making a brief checkout pull from 3500 to 5000  RPM with Blair's carb, the starter quit engaging the flywheel.  I've been using this particular flywheel for about five years, and the teeth have definitely seen better days.  It appears that they chose this moment to check out.  I tried replacing the starter with one that had a better gear, but it was no use; the engine would not turn over more than 90 or 180 degrees before it would stop and the starter gear would grind against the flywheel.  So, we had to call it a day without testing the 4150 carb.   

In any case though, we had a great time over the past three days, dynoing the two engines very successfully and shooting the FE breeze along the way.  I have to thank Blair and Rob for making the 1000 mile drive from Tennessee to dyno the motors here; it was my pleasure to have them, and I hope we get a chance to do it again some time.

[fetorino]

From my point of view what a great three days.  I would have really been something to see what the whamy triple throw down carb would do but those are the breaks.  Jay you are one heck of a nice guy and your hospitality is unparalleled.   

I'd drive the 1k mi anytime (in the summer months  ) to dyno at your place. 

[66FAIRLANE]

Great stuff! I was surprised to see some of the guesses so far apart between the dual and single carbs.

[machoneman]

Nice results! Thanks for the link to the Torino pics Jay. That is definitely a max effort car build-up as well.  Great to see modern testing of the now near 45 year old T-port design .

[Qikbbstang]

LOL crow-crow only 5 off on both Hp and Tq I'd say I nailed it and actually placed the rpms in the figure ranges.. One thing I kept in mind this is a Road Race engine not a Drag Racer so kept it down a hair.

[My427stang]

How would over-scavenging show up on a dyno?

Flattening out on top and showing rich maybe?

Certainly no criticism on the motor, Blair does great stuff, but I have been considering how more lift/less duration on the exhaust side would work out.

My thought is, for these big ones, keep a constant overlap value (in my case for drivability) but instead of big exhaust duration, add intake duration for power but make a shorter, taller exhaust lobe that flows enough but shuts the door early.

Although I haven't figured out a way to calculate what the motor might want, it seems to me that especially with a very good header design, adding exhaust duration could  eventually overscavenge.   

The second phase to that is, if it is overscavenging and a quick and tall exhaust lobe will fix it, may as well get a little more intake lobe to make some additional top end power.

I noticed Kaase was doing it on his EMC Hemi motors, which are known to overscavenge with too much exhaust duration, but how would we see it on a dyno to know if a wedge was emptying the chambers?

[fetorino]

Click on the picture because these motors need ot be heard to be appreciated.

[BruceS]

Fetorino, Jay, and Blair: Wow! What a treat to see and hear about this session and that awesome Tunnel port!  Isn't it great that we live in a time when we mere mortals can play with Ford's racing legends?  I think Lee Roy, Cale, and Davey Pearson would be proud!  Can't beat that sound, too.

[jayb]

How would over-scavenging show up on a dyno?

Flattening out on top and showing rich maybe?

Certainly no criticism on the motor, Blair does great stuff, but I have been considering how more lift/less duration on the exhaust side would work out.

My thought is, for these big ones, keep a constant overlap value (in my case for drivability) but instead of big exhaust duration, add intake duration for power but make a shorter, taller exhaust lobe that flows enough but shuts the door early.

Although I haven't figured out a way to calculate what the motor might want, it seems to me that especially with a very good header design, adding exhaust duration could  eventually overscavenge.   

The second phase to that is, if it is overscavenging and a quick and tall exhaust lobe will fix it, may as well get a little more intake lobe to make some additional top end power.

I noticed Kaase was doing it on his EMC Hemi motors, which are known to overscavenge with too much exhaust duration, but how would we see it on a dyno to know if a wedge was emptying the chambers?

I don't know how overscavenging would show up on the dyno data, but I think that one issue with your suggested approach is that more lift may not generate much more flow.  I don't have the flow numbers, but I'll bet that at .660" lift the flow on that exhaust port is flatlining, and adding lift won't generate much more.  The only potential benefit would be if the ramps were steeper and you got to the lift where flow maxes out more quickly, but then there is the issue of street reliability with the spring rates required for a faster ramp. 

Your question really begs for a back to back dyno test with different cams, to test the theory behind a long exhaust duration and overscavenging port.  So many FE questions, so little time...

[KMcCullah]

The heads appear to be aluminum. Has somebody started casting TP heads? Or are they cast iron with a clear coat?
Is the HVC coil really duct taped to the mount or is it in the witness protection program? 

[jayb]

Those are factory cast iron heads, painted to fool people into thinking they are aluminum heads.  I see it is working 

Yes, that is duct tape holding the coil in place.  The coil had one 10-32 stud that we were able to screw onto the front engine mount bracket for mounting, but it was in a rubber mount and the coil would flop around on the rubber without the duct tape.  -2 for style points on that one...

[My427stang]

I don't know how overscavenging would show up on the dyno data, but I think that one issue with your suggested approach is that more lift may not generate much more flow.  I don't have the flow numbers, but I'll bet that at .660" lift the flow on that exhaust port is flatlining, and adding lift won't generate much more.  The only potential benefit would be if the ramps were steeper and you got to the lift where flow maxes out more quickly, but then there is the issue of street reliability with the spring rates required for a faster ramp. 

Your question really begs for a back to back dyno test with different cams, to test the theory behind a long exhaust duration and overscavenging port.  So many FE questions, so little time...

I agree, unfortunately not a cheap or quick test.  My thought is that the exhaust valves would pass max flow twice if you run a lot of lift, and an exhaust port doesn't suffer fuel separation, so let it run up where it's ugly LOL.

Add that the exhaust is a much lighter valve than the intake side, you may be able to run a significantly more radical exhaust lobe, which would allow a little more intake lobe for a given overlap.

Man, I could retire from the USAF in <3 years and start doing some of this...

I can't wait until I don't have to move every 3-4 years again.  Any acreage for sale near you? 

[hotrodfeguy]

Off by 7 on the single 4 woot !!!

[Chad D]

How would over-scavenging show up on a dyno?

Overscavenging should show up lean on an O2 sensor, the fuel that makes it into the exhaust is unburned...

[jayb]

How would over-scavenging show up on a dyno?

Overscavenging should show up lean on an O2 sensor, the fuel that makes it into the exhaust is unburned...

Hmmmm, that's interesting.  If that were true then if you jetted up to correct the "lean" condition, you'd be dumping even more unburned fuel in the exhaust, and instead of going richer with more jet, the O2 sensor would show leaner.  I've never seen that, but then I don't know that I've ever had an engine that was overscavenged on the dyno.  That would be a weird situation, adding jet and seeing increasing A/F numbers...

[Chad D]

How would over-scavenging show up on a dyno?

Overscavenging should show up lean on an O2 sensor, the fuel that makes it into the exhaust is unburned...

Hmmmm, that's interesting.  If that were true then if you jetted up to correct the "lean" condition, you'd be dumping even more unburned fuel in the exhaust, and instead of going richer with more jet, the O2 sensor would show leaner.  I've never seen that, but then I don't know that I've ever had an engine that was overscavenged on the dyno.  That would be a weird situation, adding jet and seeing increasing A/F numbers...

VE% should show up considerably higher as well.  Saw it happen on a sprint car engine.  Very counterintuitive.

[CaptCobrajet]

How would over-scavenging show up on a dyno?

Flattening out on top and showing rich maybe?

Certainly no criticism on the motor, Blair does great stuff, but I have been considering how more lift/less duration on the exhaust side would work out.

My thought is, for these big ones, keep a constant overlap value (in my case for drivability) but instead of big exhaust duration, add intake duration for power but make a shorter, taller exhaust lobe that flows enough but shuts the door early.

Although I haven't figured out a way to calculate what the motor might want, it seems to me that especially with a very good header design, adding exhaust duration could  eventually overscavenge.   

The second phase to that is, if it is overscavenging and a quick and tall exhaust lobe will fix it, may as well get a little more intake lobe to make some additional top end power.

I noticed Kaase was doing it on his EMC Hemi motors, which are known to overscavenge with too much exhaust duration, but how would we see it on a dyno to know if a wedge was emptying the chambers?

We were dealing with a 60% flow ratio exhaust to intake.  In my world, the lobes I used are "endurance" lobes.  This thing should make alot of laps and some street miles with no trouble.  I would have approached it differently if we had brazed the floors in the exhaust, and/or had a real aggressive camshaft.  I was using the split duration, tight centers, and the header/collector to crutch the 60% exhaust problem.  My gut tells me that it would be hard to overscavenge this combo.  If it had 75-80% exhaust ports, you would have seen a much different camshaft.  I also had pump gas on my mind.  The cam being pretty mild on the intake side, I tightened the centers to take some of the bite away from the DCR, which was fairly high for static of 11.3.  I know the DCR calculators don't address the separation, but more overlap will reduce the tendency to detonate at lower rpm.  Many factors led me to make the cam like this, and it did okay.  R&D with no budget constraints could no doubt produce better results, but I had no 500" road race TP data to draw from, so this was square one.......

[My427stang]

We were dealing with a 60% flow ratio exhaust to intake.  In my world, the lobes I used are "endurance" lobes.  This thing should make alot of laps and some street miles with no trouble.  I would have approached it differently if we had brazed the floors in the exhaust, and/or had a real aggressive camshaft.  I was using the split duration, tight centers, and the header/collector to crutch the 60% exhaust problem.  My gut tells me that it would be hard to overscavenge this combo.  If it had 75-80% exhaust ports, you would have seen a much different camshaft.  I also had pump gas on my mind.  The cam being pretty mild on the intake side, I tightened the centers to take some of the bite away from the DCR, which was fairly high for static of 11.3.  I know the DCR calculators don't address the separation, but more overlap will reduce the tendency to detonate at lower rpm.  Many factors led me to make the cam like this, and it did okay.  R&D with no budget constraints could no doubt produce better results, but I had no 500" road race TP data to draw from, so this was square one.......

Got it, and certainly don't think I am critiquing. If it looks that way I apologize. It's an awesome build that did everything right. 

I just brought it up because there is a lot of information out there on intake lobe selection, but exhaust tends to be more of a black art, although your discussion of using the headers to work the port shows you surely get it.

What I have been trying to wrap my head around is a way to increase intake duration while keeping the torque curve as flat as possible.

My theory is a very early and large intake lobe for these strokers, but to keep from excessive overlap, I want to find a fast way to empty the chamber with a faster exhaust lobe.

Ford actually did it in some of their motors, like the J code 302.  The issue I m running into is without dyno testing, its all a WAG, add to it there is very little exhaust lobe discussion, I am no engineer, but it seems like without a requirement to keep anything in suspension, overspeeding an exhaust port is less critical, so we may as well get into the lift area for max flow as soon as we can

What I can't figure out is how to time that lobe, because ultimately, the opening of that lobe will determine how big I can experiment with an intake lobe.

I know it sounds backwards, and I truly understand standard cam design, but I really want to estimate then prove or disprove an experiment.

For example.  (These numbers came out of my a$$ before I finished my first coffee BTW)

Cam 1 - standard kind of cam Intake 290/250/.650 lift, exhaust 294/254/.660 lift, 110 centers on 106 ICL

Intake closing point is at 71 ABDC, overlap is 72 degrees adv, at .050 overlap is 32 degrees

Cam 2 - Intake 300/258/.650 lift, exhaust 292/254/.690 lift, 112 centers on 101 ICL

Intake closing point and overlap is the same, but looking for lift to evacuate the cylinder not duration.

While I was coming up with an example, I think what I am finding is to do what I want, I  need to spread the centers and run a very early lobe to keep comparable numbers.  In addition, to make a significant increase in lift, I may not have a streetable lobe on the exhaust side (as you pointed out)

Moreover, I am not sure that my end result between those two cams I put up as examples would make that much difference anyway LOL

Opinions?

[CaptCobrajet]

What you are talking about is what I call "exhaust blowdown".   Putting a steep ramp on the opening side of the exhaust, running a fast rocker, and then a slow closing side to kill some valve speed on the closing side generated by the fast rocker arm.  I never had any luck with running the intake way ahead in anything FE.  The further apart the lobes are, the later I like to open the intake valve.  Wide centers on a street stroker would need low compression to avoid detonation, in my opinion.  Also, heavy street cars will pull better with tighter centers.  I do try to get all of the blowdown I can when the exhaust valve opens, and then let the header pull it through a slow closing side.  Some of this kind of theory is unfortuneately only proven through extensive testing...........which requires huge amounts of time and money, or seeing trends over time.  I have to go with the trends over time, because for some reason I never seem to have huge amounts of time.....or money, LOL.

[jayb]

I try not to overthink this stuff too much, because there are way too many variables coming into play that can affect the results.  But Ross's second cam selection, where he went with a wider lobe separation and advanced the ICL, is exactly what I've been doing on my SOHC motors for the last few years.  I've been running 114 or 116 for the LSA, and advancing the intake lobe as far as possible until piston to valve clearance becomes an issue.  On my engines this is usually around 106 or 108.

I've been thinking about another series of dyno tests, the Great Cam and Head Comparo LOL!  There's a lot of projects in the way first, but it would be interesting to chase down theories like this with some real back to back dyno testing.

[CaptCobrajet]

The wider separation will work better than the tight centers when the exhaust flow is really good.  In the case of your cammer, I think you are right to use wider centers.  The 108 is about as far as I would move it forward with a 114 sep.  That said, some engines might like to go further advanced.......I just never start any further than that.  I would assume that one of the cams is going to retard quite a bit in a cammer from chain stretch, so maybe that one should go forward a little more and the other one back a little?  Maybe when I grow up I will get a cammer!  I always wanted one, but have never taken the plunge.  I think all consenting adults should own at least one cammer!

[fetorino]

All the focus on exhaust duration and cam profiles nobody noticed the top secret road race oiling system.  It worked really slick on the dyno.

[machoneman]

Cool! Was surprised to see at first a billet pan but that would be really hard to duplicate in sheetmetal. Your design, Jay's, someone else? How about another pic showing the pickup port side? 

[fetorino]

Cool! Was surprised to see at first a billet pan but that would be really hard to duplicate in sheetmetal. Your design, Jay's, someone else? How about another pic showing the pickup port side?

I wish I came up with that design.  It is Bill Daileys brainchild.  He makes some great stuff for some very competitive teams in several series.

http://www.daileyengineering.com/dailey_engineering_home.htm

When we fired up my motor on the Dyno Sat morning some questions about the oiling system remained.  I called Bill's shop and he answered the phone and all my questions.  As we were hanging up he said "I'll be here a couple more hours so don't hesitate to call if you need something"

When choosing parts nothing beats a vendor/manufacturer who will support what they sell.  Bill is proud of his stuff and has a bit of an ego about his stuff being the best.  But when the rubber meets the road he is exactly the kind of guy you want to deal with and will take the time to ensure you understand his design, how it works and how to set it up.  His system worked flawlessly in addition to being super compact hanging down only 1.8" from the pan rail on the block.

[fetorino]

I decided witht he cost of race gas the raged edge dynamic/static compression for pump gas and what I'd read about E85 that I'd give it a try.  So Blair took my engine back to the dyno. The set up remains the same but with a single Holley 4150 on top calibrated for E85.

Anyone have a guess how it did?

Here are the specifications:

- 496", 4.375" stroke, 4.255 bore
-  11.3:1 static compression, CP pistons
-  Stock tunnel ports ported by Blair, 375 cfm on the intake, 225 on the exhaust, 2.25/1.75 valves
-  Bullet roller cam, .660 lift, 258/270 @ .050", 107 LSA, ICL=105
- Dyno headers, stepped, 1 7/8"/2"/2 1/8", merge collectors
- Intake manifold  is a 1X4 single plane modified for a Dominator carb.  Running a tricked out 4150 carb for E85
- Dailey 4 stage Dry sump oiling system

This engine is designed for a road racing application in my '69 Torino.  Peak horsepower and Torque guesses please this time we didn't run the 2x4 since I didn't want to pony up for a pair of E85 carbs. lol

[machoneman]

SWAG: 675 hp, 590 lbs/ft.

[fetorino]

SWAG: 675 hp, 590 lbs/ft.

I'll help you out on that SWAG.  With a fresh batch of VP it ran better with the single 1050 than it did at Jays on the MN 110.  E85 is oxygenated and significantly cools the intake charge.

I really wanted to try it, not for more hp but because it's cheap at the pump and is detonation resistant.

Try another SWAG.  lol.

[chris_r]

690 hp, 650 tq

[JohnN-1BADFE]

Hey Rob,

I understand you will be here in Colorado later this week to pick up your engine. I'll will be picking mine up as well from Blair.  Will you be here on Saturday?  That's when I'll be meeting Blair at Cooper's.

[fetorino]

Yes sir.  I will see you sat.  Check your PM.  Where are you coming from?

[JohnN-1BADFE]

Got the PM.  I'm here in Littleton, Colorado about a little over an hour from Cooper's.

[fetorino]

Now how about a guess on the E85 hp   lol

[JohnN-1BADFE]

697HP / 655TQ

[drdano]

Ok, so what were the numbers on E85?

[cammerfe]

I was just on the old forum and saw a link to this topic. Please note that Dove does cast aluminum TP heads and that they are available with two different Dove-design exhaust runner layouts. I did a series of articles for, if I remember properly, Mustang Illustrated Magazine, regarding the use of a set of these Dove heads with his 'type II' exhaust. With this design, the exhaust runners are raised, reshaped, and spread apart. We put this combination in Brother Lon's '67 Mustang.

It was necessary to remove the 'shock towers' and go to a coil-over lay-out in order to allow room for the required custom headers. That design made it possible to come straight off the heads, without any turn-down, for more than six inches. I have my copies of the articles in question somewhere in storage, so I can't give the flow figures from Wayne Kuchtyn's Superflow, but there was significantly greater flow available with the alternate design. I'm practically sure that the flow ratio was very close to 80%.

KS

[fetorino]

Ok, so what were the numbers on E85?

Sorry I never posted that.  It was right at 695 @ 6400 rpm and 643 ft lbs @ 4800 with a single 4150 Holley built for E85

I was just on the old forum and saw a link to this topic. Please note that Dove does cast aluminum TP heads and that they are available with two different Dove-design exhaust runner layouts. I did a series of articles for, if I remember properly, Mustang Illustrated Magazine, regarding the use of a set of these Dove heads with his 'type II' exhaust. With this design, the exhaust runners are raised, reshaped, and spread apart. We put this combination in Brother Lon's '67 Mustang.

It was necessary to remove the 'shock towers' and go to a coil-over lay-out in order to allow room for the required custom headers. That deign made it possible to come straight off the heads, without any turn-down, for more than six inches. I have my copies of the articles in question somewhere in storage, so I can't give the flow figures from Wayne Kuchtyn's Superflow, but there was significantly greater flow available with the alternate design. I'm practically sure that the flow ratio was very close to 80%.

KS

Ken

We were aware of the Dove heads and specifically the ones with raised exhaust ports.

Dove = Porosity so I was in no hurry to jump into trying to find a "good" casting.

A couple other things kept me with the Iron heads.

1.  The E85 detonation resistance means the Iron is just fine.  also E85 is difficult to fire when cold so as an occasional drive heads that keep some heat in them should aid in eliviating that problem.

2. I like the idea of making hp with as many Ford parts as possible on my Ford engine.  The heads and intake on mine are Ford factory castings.  There is something cool about that, in my humble opinion.

Also considering the avg torque of 599 ft lbs from 4500 -7k and the accompanying hp average of 656 in the same rpm range do I need more for a car where the events I run in require 200 tw tires?  I'd say no.  This thing will be a handful on the roadcourse as it is.

40lbs less weight up front and some more hp may entice me into taking a Dove risk in the future but for now I'm just fine.

[cammerfe]

Porosity is endemic with sand-cast aluminum, and also with die-cast for that matter. That's the reason that there was a large department at T&C Livonia to repair C-6 cases and why both Ford and Mercedes-Benz impregnate aluminum castings at present. Dove uses the same impregnation process and equipment as Ford and M-B and pressure-tests 100%. And if you intend to 'whittle' on one of Dove's offerings he'll be happy to do the  impregnation after the whittling. Proceeding in this way has resulted, for me, in a 'no issues' experience with Dove's stuff!

KS

[hotrodfeguy]

Well the E-85 likes 14:1 in a perfect world.
I will guess add 45FT TQ and 20HP