Had chance to dyno my 390 again

[billballinger]

My son pulled the 394 out of my truck to go in the Galaxie.  He left for a day and would tell me where he went.  I found out when he came home.

He borrowed a 750 3310 from the guy, but took my Crites 2" headers over and they dynoed it.  It has C4AE-Gs I ported that cam out with a higher average from .050-.0550, than a CJ, which I attribute to the excellent valve job based on 45° but had some fairly uncommon angles with it and I worked the short side to the middle. Its a 1999 270S, which had 141° degrees duration at .200 like the other Magnums with lash at .019, My flow numbers were very fat from .200-.550,  but were not bragging numbers above that Mario428's Holley SD with a 1" spacer, he is a genius because they matched my heads like a dream. The heads had 2.03/1.56 valves but I had done a lot of rubbing on the heads and they were very quiet on the bench. It was at 37° of timing. 

He didn't keep the sheet because I can't read it any way, but it made 438-443 hp from 5600-6200, and 448-454 lbs ft from 3700-4000, the numbers just got there and lofted.  with the open Crites.  It has been 13 years since I built it, and it pulled the same numbers.  I have decided that 4.30's for gears and the C6.  Many people have come up with lower numbers on 390's. but mine I guess is just an anomaly.  He would not tell me who dynoed it, but the guy was scratching his head and swore it was a 428.  He said it pulled like a little monster for what it is from 1800-6200.   Something that is ironic is that Tommy-T has given me a 3310 with a secondary metering block conversion to run on it.  Good bye Edelbrock, I worked really hard on an 800 AVS converting it to an AFB and tuning it.  I don't know what it dynoed, but I expect my 3310 to be quite similar to my latest results.

I feel good putting that motor in now, These were the same number it pulled in 1999!  I want a hotter roller-cam engine with 500+ hp, but this one should be fun!  It is a combination that came together I guess, I put a lot of detail into everything. And the machine work was done with torque plates, and very precise.   So, it should make for a good cruiser!

[jayb]

Bill, those are outstanding numbers for that engine!  What intake manifold are you using?

[lovehamr]

Mario428's Holley SD with a 1" spacer, he is a genius because they matched my heads like a dream.

[65er]

Good stuff Bill!
 Man what a great surprise and the good numbers are just a really nice bonus.

[bluef100fe]

That thing runs hard.... I had/have a very similar combo dynoed and posted on here ... made almost exactly the same torque and horsepower at roughly the same rpm... Big difference with mine is the cam duration and lobe separation... what ICL did you use Bill? If you remember from all those years ago lol.

[billballinger]

I measured it it .010 because I planned to run my lash at .019, got a bunch of new SP rockers and measured them to make sure I had 16 at 1.76. The duration came out just at 230° @.050. It was an older Magnum series and it had 141° at .200 lift, 110°LSA and 106 ICL.  It is a 270S solid, and with the head work I had done and Mario428's Holley SD it was like all of planets aligned. :-)

I have always believed in the combination.  I filed the top rings at .022 and the 2nds at .019.  That's about all I remember, what was your cam?

[bluef100fe]

Its very close to comp cams small solid drag race grind... 108 LSA 103 ICL mid 240's @ .050 INT mid 250's EX 0.570ish lift after lash.... Im thinking about rolling it back a little to 105 or so ICL when I change heads this spring. Hoping to find a little more out of the combination yet.  Thanks bill.

[billballinger]

That thing runs hard.... I had/have a very similar combo dynoed and posted on here ... made almost exactly the same torque and horsepower at roughly the same rpm... Big difference with mine is the cam duration and lobe separation... what ICL did you use Bill? If you remember from all those years ago lol.

Yours is no slouch at all.  I have to admit that i did do a little welding in the floor and on the short side, and on the exhaust laid a bead along the dead spot coming out of the valve.  By the time I smoothed it out, it had velocity and cross-section recommended  by flat tracker Shell Thuet, Yamaha's skunk-works guru for flat track Yamahas that Kenny Roberts won with.  The FE port as it is on the early head had that escalator in the intake floor, and a short side that acted like a dam.  The velocity was barely there, but the cross section was pretty good.  I just filled in that floor and then took the roof up even with what I had taken away on the floor.  Is ay I welded, but it was a guy about to retire who was a master welder in cast iron, heated it and welded it.  But they don't at first glace appear to be much different than an early head.  I just used the Shell Thuet , and the Norton, BSA, flat track shaped and adapted them to the cubic inches.  On the exhuaust, He filled the dead air to make it a more efficient "flue" like on a wood stove, the draft as soon as the valve opened was pulling hard. 

Thats about it really,  The machinist was left with a good short side for his valve job, and I got the flow from .050.-.550 average up with 2.03/1.56 valves to what even ported 2.09/1.65s were doing.  They laid off at .600, but that was right for what i was building.  I miss that.  Days I'll never see again.   

[plovett]

Sounds like an awesome 390, Bill!   Big power for the cam size, valve sizes, etc.  which makes it sound like it's very efficient and all components perfectly matched.   With 4.30 gears it ought to be brutal.

I noticed you said it was dynoed with Crites headers.   Are those 2" primaries?  I also have Crites headers (in my Cougar) and am happy with them.  My Crites outpowered my Hooker Supercomps on the dyno at all rpms.

paulie

[Qikbbstang]

worth 1,000 words and in this case may even be more. I have problems comprehending what you did to those stock ports:


"I have to admit that i did do a little welding in the floor and on the short side, and on the exhaust laid a bead along the dead spot coming out of the valve.  By the time I smoothed it out, it had velocity and cross-section recommended  by flat tracker Shell Thuet, Yamaha's skunk-works guru for flat track Yamahas that Kenny Roberts won with.  The FE port as it is on the early head had that escalator in the intake floor, and a short side that acted like a dam.  The velocity was barely there, but the cross section was pretty good.  I just filled in that floor and then took the roof up even with what I had taken away on the floor.  Is ay I welded, but it was a guy about to retire who was a master welder in cast iron, heated it and welded it.  But they don't at first glace appear to be much different than an early head.  I just used the Shell Thuet , and the Norton, BSA, flat track shaped and adapted them to the cubic inches.  On the exhuaust, He filled the dead air to make it a more efficient "flue" like on a wood stove, the draft as soon as the valve opened was pulling hard. "

[hotrodfeguy]

I still say that single plane works better than the F-427 as I keep getting told by the guru's on the other site the F-427 kicks arse, but again what does the dyno know.  Nice package you have working. The SD/SM is a great manifold and I love the A,G,R heads myself with CJ valves with any FE build. But that came from my old friend Mike Ulrey "It can't hurt" was his saying. Let us know how you like it when you mash the pedal 

[billballinger]

worth 1,000 words and in this case may even be more. I have problems comprehending what you did to those stock ports:


"I have to admit that i did do a little welding in the floor and on the short side, and on the exhaust laid a bead along the dead spot coming out of the valve.  By the time I smoothed it out, it had velocity and cross-section recommended  by flat tracker Shell Thuet, Yamaha's skunk-works guru for flat track Yamahas that Kenny Roberts won with.  The FE port as it is on the early head had that escalator in the intake floor, and a short side that acted like a dam.  The velocity was barely there, but the cross section was pretty good.  I just filled in that floor and then took the roof up even with what I had taken away on the floor.  Is ay I welded, but it was a guy about to retire who was a master welder in cast iron, heated it and welded it.  But they don't at first glace appear to be much different than an early head.  I just used the Shell Thuet , and the Norton, BSA, flat track shaped and adapted them to the cubic inches.  On the exhuaust, He filled the dead air to make it a more efficient "flue" like on a wood stove, the draft as soon as the valve opened was pulling hard. "

Well, if you look at Barry's new head, that is about close a similarity as i can say without saying too much mainly what I did was turn the intake floors and the short side radius into a gentle spillway, instead of turbulent rapids right at the bowl and then did everything necessary to have the least turbulence with the most flpw volume to fall in and follow the course with out too much speed that it breaks up.  If I had the money I woiuld just buy Barry's new heads, they are very well scienced and have advantages that took considerable welding on my C4's.  On the roofs, they had to contour to make the mixture cross over without breaking up and maximixe what could go straight without jamming the bore wall.  There is little to be gained out there.  You want to hit the piston pin straight so the flame front gives as big a whack as possible.

That was about it, i can't really draw a word picture, and I dont have any oictures. But I'd just buy Barry;s new heads, they are like an LS3 for the FE, and quite like everything I have learned optimizing  ports.  Mine are optimized for 394 ci, with the flow concentrated between .050-.550, they don't stall at .600, but they gain in the single digits, and stay quiet.  Like I said no big bragging numbers, but average  for my  ci and cam is well matched.   I like Barry's, because they have room to grow tp big inch engines without turbulence short of a Blair Patrick Pro port.   And, if the planets are aligned right at 445 they may be equal in the range of a street/ strip.  But I learned most of my stuff from Motorcycles and applied it to stock car engines.  The stock FE with some welding is a fine port. Kids don't know how good they have these days.:-)  Edelbrocks are good, but Barrys heads are a radical 21st century departure from them.  They are more LS/ Cleveland as you can do short of splayed valves.  For ports that all flow the wrong fore and aft angle they are damn good.       Keep in mind that FElony heads have 2.2 valves and mine are 2.03 the average flow is the same if you proprortion the bigger valves down, and is right in line with a 394 vs a 445.  If I had his heads my 394 might need a little more stroke :-), but if you look at the cutaways and pictures, my son who just regasketed the the heads said they are very close on the ports.  Makes me want to try some bigger valves:-)   But it is together and i am very satisfied in how it runs.