Poll: What would you rather see R&D on?

[blykins]

another race engine ? I guess that is where the money is at .

I would venture to say that most of the "new" stuff has come from the data and R&D from race engines.  If you stick with the way Ford did things 50 years ago, there's not much to be learned, but if you try new things, then you see where the envelopes are. 

[chilly460]

Large base circle cams, crankshaft windage mitigation, low tension rings...all that stuff wasn't new but it wasn't commonplace in the early 2000s aftermarket and is now in every LS that comes down the line at Chevy. 

Brent, is there any room to go larger cam core on an FE?  I've never looked them over in that area.  Imagine the cost would be rough, but seems the trend is to some pretty extreme cam velocities that are allowing 235*/.650" hydraulic rollers that will spin up to 7k.   Bigger cam also means shorter pushrod if my thinking's right, that can't hurt.   

[blykins]

BBF's and FE's already have an advantage on base circle.  The cams are pretty large and lots of other engine families would kill to have this size camshaft. 

You can go to a larger camshaft, but it would require having the cam tunnel bored.  Keep in mind that I'm gonna throw a set of roller cam bearings in this 390 block I have if I go the HR route, but there's a limit to how much more you can take out of the cam tunnel without causing a lot of problems. 

The hydraulic roller camshaft I have here is about 20° @ .050" larger than the one you just used for example.

The FE's disadvantage is the valvetrain weight, lifter weight, etc, etc.  I have ways around all of that right now, if we go the HR route. 

[Barry_R]

another race engine ? I guess that is where the money is at .

Dunno about that.  The game as it is lies in getting the most out of an old school envelope.  The vast majority of what we do - at least at my place - is street builds.  Take the old FE and give it all the new stuff - modern ring packs, light pistons, modern chambers and ports, hydraulic roller cams.  Still looks FE on the outside but can run alongside anything else now with the benefit of 50 years of technological upgrades.

One I have wanted to do but never found the time to take on would to do a stone stock rebuild, then do one with torque plate, light rings, tight quench, hyd roller, and the rest - - just see what all this stuff is worth without changing the core package.  With EMC builds I have been all around the fringes of this but never done a true back to back.

[chilly460]

Hey, while I'm spending Brent's money...

Run something like a 242/250 .650/.650 106LSA hydraulic roller with a set of heads that will support it

Then run a milder 242/250 .575ish 110lsa deal.   As I said, trend seeems to be towards more velocity and tighter LSA.  I know there are a LOT of generalities and so many approaches of plotting the lobes with LSA as an afterthought and so on...but it would be interesting to see how it moved powerband, how it effects total power, and how they did on valvetrain stability. 

[blykins]

I've tried different LSA's several times with that being the only change.  Makes the torque do cool things on most engines and you need the short LSA on some big fat intake port heads....like a TP.

Right now, the mule is gonna be a .010" over 390, with 12:1 Racetec pistons, 1mm rings, Molnar rods, ported CJ heads, a ported Portosonic intake, and a Dominator carb.  I'm probably leaning towards the hydrualic roller as the distributor already has a steel gear on it and I already have the camshaft here.  But just wanted to feel everyone out. 

[chilly460]

Assume the tight LSA gets the big port moving before piston velocity can help it a little? 

I think just the fact of doing a stouter 390 is a good step, majority of info I see is street strokers.  No ding intended there, I'm looking to do a street 462 so happy to see any info I can get, but it's gotten to be fairly well sorted by now. 

Like to see 390 builds that make 550hp and run with the good stroker small block stuff...although if you're putting rods and pistons in it hard to resist throwing a 4.25 crank in while you're at it so not sure how many other people would be interested

[wayne]

Do both just change cams and valve train and we will all see which is the best bang for the buck.Like Jays intake test.

[blykins]

Assume the tight LSA gets the big port moving before piston velocity can help it a little? 

I think just the fact of doing a stouter 390 is a good step, majority of info I see is street strokers.  No ding intended there, I'm looking to do a street 462 so happy to see any info I can get, but it's gotten to be fairly well sorted by now. 

Like to see 390 builds that make 550hp and run with the good stroker small block stuff...although if you're putting rods and pistons in it hard to resist throwing a 4.25 crank in while you're at it so not sure how many other people would be interested

Most of the stuff I'm using has been laying around for awhile, so it's not costing me that much. 

[blykins]

Do both just change cams and valve train and we will all see which is the best bang for the buck.Like Jays intake test.

It's not really a bang for the buck sorta test.  I can make the same power with either one if I wanted to, but this is mainly to show what's possible with what parts.  The high rpm FE hydraulic roller is not the road most traveled, so it would be interesting to play around there.

The solid flat tappet wouldn't be the typical solid flat tappet build, but we would be testing minimum spring pressures with some extremely lightweight valves, which would get us away from some of the higher dollar oiling lifters, break-in dangers, etc. 


It's also kind of a pain to do both, not that it can't be done, but it would require spring changes, distributor gear changes, etc, etc.  I don't have a lot of R&D time. 

[Straubtech]

lower rpm , maybe 5200 max , good low end , for heavy cars , trucks , maybe tow truck , trucks seem to be getting more and more popular . 50's , 60's and 70's trucks . just thinking out of my head , uh box .

We have no issues with hydraulic rollers and those rpms.  The issue comes with trying to pull "big boy" rpms with them.  I've seen some 6500 rpm hydraulic rollers here, but it takes some strategizing to get them to pull on up. 

I've actually got the hydraulic roller camshaft here for a higher rpm engine, but wanted to think outside the box a little more.

Brent,
The .750" wheel More stuff will go to 7500 rpm or better and not nose over, but as you have hinted to it takes the supporting cast of larger diameter pushrods, spring rates, and lightweight parts to assist this.   Now going with 6085 Morel with the .810", one can exceed the 8000 rpm range if the choose.

[cjshaker]

The FE's disadvantage is the valvetrain weight, lifter weight, etc, etc.  I have ways around all of that right now, if we go the HR route.

Just trying to learn here. Aren't most hydraulic rollers of the same basic design? What makes the FE different or heavier? Is titanium a no-no on pushrods? Conical springs, titanium valves and retainers should get the FE valvetrain down to manageable weights, but I realize you're talking about expensive parts. Not many people have titanium valves just "laying around"

[blykins]

The FE's disadvantage is the valvetrain weight, lifter weight, etc, etc.  I have ways around all of that right now, if we go the HR route.

Just trying to learn here. Aren't most hydraulic rollers of the same basic design? What makes the FE different or heavier? Is titanium a no-no on pushrods? Conical springs, titanium valves and retainers should get the FE valvetrain down to manageable weights, but I realize you're talking about expensive parts. Not many people have titanium valves just "laying around"

Many FE's have 3/8" stem valves, a lot of the time with 2.190"-2.250" heads, a larger diameter .875" lifter, etc.  Pushrod weight is generally considered a "neutral zone", that doesn't affect valvetrain performance. 

Rocker arm weight comes into play, as well as the design/weight of the springs/retainers/etc. 

Shedding weight on the valvetrain goes a long way.   A lot of Cup engines run non-adjustable rockers with very light valves and will see 9000+ rpm with a solid roller camshaft, using ~400 lb open pressure valve springs.

I love higher rpm stuff and we generally see "typical" FE hydraulic roller stuff making peak hp around 6000-6200, or maybe a little higher if we use some factory non-adjustables, etc.  I'd like to make one scream.

I've got some parts here that I think will do pretty well.   

[plovett]

I vote for the solid flat tappet.  A 12:1 high rpm 390 just screams old school.  So a well thought out flat tappet would fit the package, in my opinion.  Save the hydraulic roller for the new school 445's and 482's.   

JMO,

paulie

[e philpott]

I'm with Paulie on the solid flat tappet 12.5 390 with no wives for drivers hyd , cough , real manly stuff  ..lol