Dyno’d the 352 again today, with a BT MR 8V this time....

[blykins]

It made 465 hp and 417 lbft.

Lot of effort for no hp, but it sure looks good.

Don’t know if the secondary springs were stiff or JJ just couldn’t make enough vacuum to open them, so we had to make them open...

That was worth a 15 hp bump, but 465 was all she would muster.

At this point I’m thinking the intakes are above the capacity of the engine, but maybe not the right design for the rpm, so I’ll have to debate on the next step.

[blykins]

EDITED.  I can't subtract.

What's interesting is that the BT intake lowered the peak hp rpm by 600 rpm......

[Dumpling]

Cubic inches may be small enough to use a BXR intake mounted to a FE Power adapter (with intermediate Price Motorsport adapters)...

[plovett]

You should get Jay's book.  The BT 2x4 didn't start kicking butt until it was on the "390 Stroker" and the "427 Sideoiler" engines, 517 hp and 596 hp respectively.  It was just so-so on the milder combos.

pl

[frnkeore]

I think you need to borrow a TP manifold, to know if your maxed out on the intake side.

[blykins]

You should get Jay's book.  The BT 2x4 didn't start kicking butt until it was on the "390 Stroker" and the "427 Sideoiler" engines, 517 hp and 596 hp respectively.  It was just so-so on the milder combos.

pl

I agree Jay's book contains a lot of useful information, but I don't think there's anything in there about such a small engine pulling this kind of rpm.  Kind of an odd duck. 

At this point, I don't know if it's an intake deal, or if I need to do something a little different with the cam, which is what I'm leaning toward.   I do things according to experience and I didn't have previous experience with this small of an FE with this kind of goal.  Normally, 352's are mild little stump pullers for pickups and heavy cars.

Frank, do you mean a Tunnel Wedge?  I've thought about that....

[plovett]

I don't think the intake doesn't really cares if you are making 465 peak hp with a 352 at 6800 rpm, or 465 peak hp with a 427 at 6000 rpm.   I mean everything makes some kind of difference, but not much at peak hp here.

Jay tried this intake on engines ranging from 407 hp to 645 hp. 

pl

[blykins]

I don't think the intake doesn't really cares if you are making 465 peak hp with a 352 at 6800 rpm, or 465 peak hp with a 427 at 6000 rpm.   I mean everything makes some kind of difference, but not much at peak hp here.

Jay tried this intake on engines ranging from 407 hp to 645 hp. 

pl

I think I'd have to disagree with that, as wave harmonics depend on the rpm range, displacement, etc. 

Either way, I'll have to come up with another game plan.  It will either be an intake change or a cam change.  If it's an intake change, I'd probably follow Frank's suggestion and see if I could borrow a TW, although I hate borrowing guys' $$$ intakes.

[plovett]

I have a ported Dove TW you can borrow.

pl

[plovett]

I don't think the intake doesn't really cares if you are making 465 peak hp with a 352 at 6800 rpm, or 465 peak hp with a 427 at 6000 rpm.   I mean everything makes some kind of difference, but not much at peak hp here.

Jay tried this intake on engines ranging from 407 hp to 645 hp. 

pl

I think I'd have to disagree with that, as wave harmonics depend on the rpm range, displacement, etc. 

Either way, I'll have to come up with another game plan.  It will either be an intake change or a cam change.  If it's an intake change, I'd probably follow Frank's suggestion and see if I could borrow a TW, although I hate borrowing guys' $$$ intakes.

So you think the intake would be affected significantly (peak hp?) on two different cid/rpm combos making otherwise similar hp?

pl

[blykins]

I don't think the intake doesn't really cares if you are making 465 peak hp with a 352 at 6800 rpm, or 465 peak hp with a 427 at 6000 rpm.   I mean everything makes some kind of difference, but not much at peak hp here.

Jay tried this intake on engines ranging from 407 hp to 645 hp. 

pl

I think I'd have to disagree with that, as wave harmonics depend on the rpm range, displacement, etc. 

Either way, I'll have to come up with another game plan.  It will either be an intake change or a cam change.  If it's an intake change, I'd probably follow Frank's suggestion and see if I could borrow a TW, although I hate borrowing guys' $$$ intakes.

So you think the intake would be affected significantly (peak hp?) on two different cid/rpm combos making otherwise similar hp?

pl

Would be affected, or would affect?  LOL 

Yes, I do think it would affect. 

[blykins]

I have a ported Dove TW you can borrow.

pl

I sure appreciate it, but the way my heads and block have been cut, I'm sure the intake would need to be cut too.   Plus, with my luck, UPS/FedEx would lose it. 

I think I'm gonna try a cam swap first before I try different intakes.  I don't have experience with camming FE's this size for this kind of hp/rpm and comparing the cam to the ones I use in my 351C's, I have quite a bit more overlap. 

I think with some creativity, I can swap cams without pulling the intake. 

[frnkeore]

[/quote]
Frank, do you mean a Tunnel Wedge?  I've thought about that....
[/quote]
Actually, I was referring to a Tunnel Port, such as a DOVE or a 351C on Jay's adapter. They seem to do a little better that the Tunnel Wedge but, a TW would be good to try.

If there is more to be had on the intake side, it would be good to get before changing cam timing. That's why I said borrow.

It would be a good "Comparo" engine, to compliment Jay's findings.

[blykins]

Frank, do you mean a Tunnel Wedge?  I've thought about that....
[/quote]
Actually, I was referring to a Tunnel Port, such as a DOVE or a 351C on Jay's adapter. They seem to do a little better that the Tunnel Wedge but, a TW would be good to try.

If there is more to be had on the intake side, it would be good to get before changing cam timing. That's why I said borrow.

It would be a good "Comparo" engine, to compliment Jay's findings.
[/quote]

A Tunnel Port intake wouldn't work with these heads.  Totally different shape and layout, plus you can get into some funky pushrod tube issues with blocks/heads that have been whacked a bunch. 

I've thought about something on one of Jay's adapters, but haven't got too far with that idea.

[plovett]

I don't think the intake doesn't really cares if you are making 465 peak hp with a 352 at 6800 rpm, or 465 peak hp with a 427 at 6000 rpm.   I mean everything makes some kind of difference, but not much at peak hp here.

Jay tried this intake on engines ranging from 407 hp to 645 hp. 

pl

I think I'd have to disagree with that, as wave harmonics depend on the rpm range, displacement, etc. 

Either way, I'll have to come up with another game plan.  It will either be an intake change or a cam change.  If it's an intake change, I'd probably follow Frank's suggestion and see if I could borrow a TW, although I hate borrowing guys' $$$ intakes.

So you think the intake would be affected significantly (peak hp?) on two different cid/rpm combos making otherwise similar hp?

pl

Would be affected, or would affect?  LOL 

Yes, I do think it would affect.

I guess I should have said ,"would the function of the intake (manifold) be affected by the differences in the two combos which otherwise make similar hp."

Or you can be intentionally daft and argumentative.   

pl

[blykins]

I don't think the intake doesn't really cares if you are making 465 peak hp with a 352 at 6800 rpm, or 465 peak hp with a 427 at 6000 rpm.   I mean everything makes some kind of difference, but not much at peak hp here.

Jay tried this intake on engines ranging from 407 hp to 645 hp. 

pl

I think I'd have to disagree with that, as wave harmonics depend on the rpm range, displacement, etc. 

Either way, I'll have to come up with another game plan.  It will either be an intake change or a cam change.  If it's an intake change, I'd probably follow Frank's suggestion and see if I could borrow a TW, although I hate borrowing guys' $$$ intakes.

So you think the intake would be affected significantly (peak hp?) on two different cid/rpm combos making otherwise similar hp?

pl

Would be affected, or would affect?  LOL 

Yes, I do think it would affect.

I guess I should have said ,"would the function of the intake (manifold) be affected by the differences in the two combos which otherwise make similar hp."

Or you can be intentionally daft and argumentative.   

pl

I wasn't trying to be argumentative, I just didn't know what you were referring to.  Don't be a big girl. 

But yes, I think the function of the intake manifold is affected by the difference in the two combos which otherwise would make similar hp. 

[plovett]

I have a ported Dove TW you can borrow.

pl

I sure appreciate it, but the way my heads and block have been cut, I'm sure the intake would need to be cut too.   Plus, with my luck, UPS/FedEx would lose it. 

I think I'm gonna try a cam swap first before I try different intakes.  I don't have experience with camming FE's this size for this kind of hp/rpm and comparing the cam to the ones I use in my 351C's, I have quite a bit more overlap. 

I think with some creativity, I can swap cams without pulling the intake.

Did your BT 2x4 need to be cut to fit?   Just wondering as those pretty pricey to be chopping up.

pl

[plovett]

I don't think the intake doesn't really cares if you are making 465 peak hp with a 352 at 6800 rpm, or 465 peak hp with a 427 at 6000 rpm.   I mean everything makes some kind of difference, but not much at peak hp here.

Jay tried this intake on engines ranging from 407 hp to 645 hp. 

pl

I think I'd have to disagree with that, as wave harmonics depend on the rpm range, displacement, etc. 

Either way, I'll have to come up with another game plan.  It will either be an intake change or a cam change.  If it's an intake change, I'd probably follow Frank's suggestion and see if I could borrow a TW, although I hate borrowing guys' $$$ intakes.

So you think the intake would be affected significantly (peak hp?) on two different cid/rpm combos making otherwise similar hp?

pl

Would be affected, or would affect?  LOL 

Yes, I do think it would affect.

I guess I should have said ,"would the function of the intake (manifold) be affected by the differences in the two combos which otherwise make similar hp."

Or you can be intentionally daft and argumentative.   

pl

I wasn't trying to be argumentative, I just didn't know what you were referring to.  Don't be a big girl. 

But yes, I think the function of the intake manifold is affected by the difference in the two combos which otherwise would make similar hp.

I am pretty sure you would disagree no matter what I said.  But the offer still to borrow the TW still stands.

pl

[blykins]

I have a ported Dove TW you can borrow.

pl

I sure appreciate it, but the way my heads and block have been cut, I'm sure the intake would need to be cut too.   Plus, with my luck, UPS/FedEx would lose it. 

I think I'm gonna try a cam swap first before I try different intakes.  I don't have experience with camming FE's this size for this kind of hp/rpm and comparing the cam to the ones I use in my 351C's, I have quite a bit more overlap. 

I think with some creativity, I can swap cams without pulling the intake.

Did your BT 2x4 need to be cut to fit?   Just wondering as those pretty pricey to be chopping up.

pl

Yes, needed .060" cut off.  But I'm usually whacking .060" off of intakes for most builds.  Haven't used a Performer RPM yet that didn't need whacked.

[blykins]

I don't think the intake doesn't really cares if you are making 465 peak hp with a 352 at 6800 rpm, or 465 peak hp with a 427 at 6000 rpm.   I mean everything makes some kind of difference, but not much at peak hp here.

Jay tried this intake on engines ranging from 407 hp to 645 hp. 

pl

I think I'd have to disagree with that, as wave harmonics depend on the rpm range, displacement, etc. 

Either way, I'll have to come up with another game plan.  It will either be an intake change or a cam change.  If it's an intake change, I'd probably follow Frank's suggestion and see if I could borrow a TW, although I hate borrowing guys' $$$ intakes.

So you think the intake would be affected significantly (peak hp?) on two different cid/rpm combos making otherwise similar hp?

pl

Would be affected, or would affect?  LOL 

Yes, I do think it would affect.

I guess I should have said ,"would the function of the intake (manifold) be affected by the differences in the two combos which otherwise make similar hp."

Or you can be intentionally daft and argumentative.   

pl

I wasn't trying to be argumentative, I just didn't know what you were referring to.  Don't be a big girl. 

But yes, I think the function of the intake manifold is affected by the difference in the two combos which otherwise would make similar hp.

I am pretty sure you would disagree no matter what I said.  But the offer still to borrow the TW still stands.

pl

Not true.  If you said you were a big girl, I'd agree wholeheartedly. 

Some engines need a lot more rpm than others to make the same horsepower and it's usually the small engines.   Likewise, a runner/port opening that's a straight shot at the valve, or a runner that's the correct length for the rpm range is very important. 

Thanks for the offer again, but I'd hate to risk getting it here safely and then find out I can't use it.

[plovett]

I don't think the intake doesn't really cares if you are making 465 peak hp with a 352 at 6800 rpm, or 465 peak hp with a 427 at 6000 rpm.   I mean everything makes some kind of difference, but not much at peak hp here.

Jay tried this intake on engines ranging from 407 hp to 645 hp. 

pl

I think I'd have to disagree with that, as wave harmonics depend on the rpm range, displacement, etc. 

Either way, I'll have to come up with another game plan.  It will either be an intake change or a cam change.  If it's an intake change, I'd probably follow Frank's suggestion and see if I could borrow a TW, although I hate borrowing guys' $$$ intakes.

So you think the intake would be affected significantly (peak hp?) on two different cid/rpm combos making otherwise similar hp?

pl

Would be affected, or would affect?  LOL 

Yes, I do think it would affect.

I guess I should have said ,"would the function of the intake (manifold) be affected by the differences in the two combos which otherwise make similar hp."

Or you can be intentionally daft and argumentative.   

pl

I wasn't trying to be argumentative, I just didn't know what you were referring to.  Don't be a big girl. 

But yes, I think the function of the intake manifold is affected by the difference in the two combos which otherwise would make similar hp.

I am pretty sure you would disagree no matter what I said.  But the offer still to borrow the TW still stands.

pl

Not true.  If you said you were a big girl, I'd agree wholeheartedly. 

Well you've never met me.  Maybe I AM a big girl. 

paulina

[blykins]

I don't think the intake doesn't really cares if you are making 465 peak hp with a 352 at 6800 rpm, or 465 peak hp with a 427 at 6000 rpm.   I mean everything makes some kind of difference, but not much at peak hp here.

Jay tried this intake on engines ranging from 407 hp to 645 hp. 

pl

I think I'd have to disagree with that, as wave harmonics depend on the rpm range, displacement, etc. 

Either way, I'll have to come up with another game plan.  It will either be an intake change or a cam change.  If it's an intake change, I'd probably follow Frank's suggestion and see if I could borrow a TW, although I hate borrowing guys' $$$ intakes.

So you think the intake would be affected significantly (peak hp?) on two different cid/rpm combos making otherwise similar hp?

pl

Would be affected, or would affect?  LOL 

Yes, I do think it would affect.

I guess I should have said ,"would the function of the intake (manifold) be affected by the differences in the two combos which otherwise make similar hp."

Or you can be intentionally daft and argumentative.   

pl

I wasn't trying to be argumentative, I just didn't know what you were referring to.  Don't be a big girl. 

But yes, I think the function of the intake manifold is affected by the difference in the two combos which otherwise would make similar hp.

I am pretty sure you would disagree no matter what I said.  But the offer still to borrow the TW still stands.

pl

Not true.  If you said you were a big girl, I'd agree wholeheartedly. 

Well you've never met me.  Maybe I AM a big girl. 

paulina

I agree.

[frnkeore]

Sorry, what I meant was a Tunnel Ram.

[blykins]

Sorry, what I meant was a Tunnel Ram.

If I had a set of mech secondary carbs, I could be persuaded into trying one on one of Jay's adapters.  Having to keep buying 2x4 carbs gets expensive....

[blykins]

BTW, Drew did a good job on the carbs.  Just needed a half turn on the mixture screws.

[Gregwill16]

Brent, the offer still stands on a factory TW and 660's right down the road.

[blykins]

Brent, the offer still stands on a factory TW and 660's right down the road.

Much obliged, Greg.  Same with Paulie, I just don't like borrowing $$$ intakes and I'm pretty sure it would need to be cut to fit. 

Let me try this new cam when I get it and we will go from there.

[plovett]

I don't think the intake doesn't really cares if you are making 465 peak hp with a 352 at 6800 rpm, or 465 peak hp with a 427 at 6000 rpm.   I mean everything makes some kind of difference, but not much at peak hp here.

Jay tried this intake on engines ranging from 407 hp to 645 hp. 

pl

I think I'd have to disagree with that, as wave harmonics depend on the rpm range, displacement, etc. 

Either way, I'll have to come up with another game plan.  It will either be an intake change or a cam change.  If it's an intake change, I'd probably follow Frank's suggestion and see if I could borrow a TW, although I hate borrowing guys' $$$ intakes.

So you think the intake would be affected significantly (peak hp?) on two different cid/rpm combos making otherwise similar hp?

pl

Would be affected, or would affect?  LOL 

Yes, I do think it would affect.

I guess I should have said ,"would the function of the intake (manifold) be affected by the differences in the two combos which otherwise make similar hp."

Or you can be intentionally daft and argumentative.   

pl

I wasn't trying to be argumentative, I just didn't know what you were referring to.  Don't be a big girl. 

But yes, I think the function of the intake manifold is affected by the difference in the two combos which otherwise would make similar hp.

I am pretty sure you would disagree no matter what I said.  But the offer still to borrow the TW still stands.

pl

Not true.  If you said you were a big girl, I'd agree wholeheartedly. 

Well you've never met me.  Maybe I AM a big girl. 

paulina

I agree.

Finally.   Now what difference in intake manifold design do you think the small and large engine making the same power at different rpms would need?

[blykins]

I don't think the intake doesn't really cares if you are making 465 peak hp with a 352 at 6800 rpm, or 465 peak hp with a 427 at 6000 rpm.   I mean everything makes some kind of difference, but not much at peak hp here.

Jay tried this intake on engines ranging from 407 hp to 645 hp. 

pl

I think I'd have to disagree with that, as wave harmonics depend on the rpm range, displacement, etc. 

Either way, I'll have to come up with another game plan.  It will either be an intake change or a cam change.  If it's an intake change, I'd probably follow Frank's suggestion and see if I could borrow a TW, although I hate borrowing guys' $$$ intakes.

So you think the intake would be affected significantly (peak hp?) on two different cid/rpm combos making otherwise similar hp?

pl

Would be affected, or would affect?  LOL 

Yes, I do think it would affect.

I guess I should have said ,"would the function of the intake (manifold) be affected by the differences in the two combos which otherwise make similar hp."

Or you can be intentionally daft and argumentative.   

pl

I wasn't trying to be argumentative, I just didn't know what you were referring to.  Don't be a big girl. 

But yes, I think the function of the intake manifold is affected by the difference in the two combos which otherwise would make similar hp.

I am pretty sure you would disagree no matter what I said.  But the offer still to borrow the TW still stands.

pl

Not true.  If you said you were a big girl, I'd agree wholeheartedly. 

Well you've never met me.  Maybe I AM a big girl. 

paulina

I agree.

Finally.   Now what difference in intake manifold design do you think the small and large engine making the same power at different rpms would need?

Runner length, plane design, plenum shape. 

[turbohunter]

You two are hilarious with your quoting.

[tks08]

Keep up the good work.  Little JJ gives me some real motivation for my '58 EDC 352 covered in grime in the back corner of my garage.

[WConley]

You two are hilarious with your quoting.

I'm enjoying it too 

[Tommy-T]

Sorry, what I meant was a Tunnel Ram.

If I had a set of mech secondary carbs, I could be persuaded into trying one on one of Jay's adapters.  Having to keep buying 2x4 carbs gets expensive....

Why is it mandatory to run mechanical secondary carbs on a tunnel ram?

[winr1]

https://www.fordfe.com/history-super-stock-352-t7407.html

Bill Heinson and his 352




Ricky.

[blykins]

Sorry, what I meant was a Tunnel Ram.

If I had a set of mech secondary carbs, I could be persuaded into trying one on one of Jay's adapters.  Having to keep buying 2x4 carbs gets expensive....

Why is it mandatory to run mechanical secondary carbs on a tunnel ram?

Tommy, don’t recall saying it was mandatory, but if I were to do a Tunnel Ram, I’d do a pair of mechanical secondary carbs turned sideways. 

Tunnel ram would certainly be tempting.  And would look good.

[Joe-JDC]

Sounds like it is time to go to a 2.125" intake valve, very long rod, rod journals turned down to 2/2.100", mains -.030-060" if bearings are available, and pistons with ceramic coating on crown and coated skirts, .9/.9/2.0 rings, and back to a Street Dominator, or RPM fully ported.  Polish crankshaft, windage screen, oil pump pressure lowered to 50# at WOT, IH oil filter adapter with filter, 5W-20 AmsOil, 950 carb., and electric water pump.  It will take a major change to increase the horsepower from where it is now.  It's only money.  Joe-JDC

[plovett]

Okay, no more quotes.  I'm glad it was entertaining.

Brent, the reason I asked about intake manifolds in relation to cid and rpm was because you brought it up.   You implied that dyno data for the same intake at similar hp levels, but on a different displacement and rpm range was not relevant to what you are doing.  I thought you might want to expound upon your assertion.   You mentioned that the BT2x4 brought the peak rpm down a bit.  Longer runners?  I wouldn't think the 2x4 dual plane would have longer runners than a 1x4 PI intake.  I think they'd be a littler shorter on average?  You also mentioned plenum design and runner shape, but are not opening up about it.   So do you know more about it, or is it just based your dyno experience? Or?   

This is interesting.   For instance, does a smaller higher rpm engine want shorter runners to get the same peak hp as a bigger and lower rpm engine, that is otherwise similar?  I could see some going the opposite direction.   That is, using longer runners to try to crutch the already weaker low rpm power.  Sometimes intuition is wrong, though.   Are we talking big differences or more subtle ones? 

Project JunkyJunk is certainly not the average combo.  Combinations that are at the edges of the range tend to make it easier to see trends.  Is that happening here or is the BT 2x4 acting like it does on other similar hp combos?

Thanks,

paulie

[Joe-JDC]

Paulie, the BT 8V has passages that go from the very back to the front on each bank to all the ports on that plane, making for very long runners.  It is also very convoluted and narrow in places making it difficult to get a good increase in airflow.  Check out Jay's book again, and you will see on the stroker 427 that the ported BT 8V(mine) was only a little better than the stock BT 8V. On pages 182-183, my ported Streetmaster made within 10 hp of the BT and more torque.(page 254 -604.1/632.8hp) A TW would be the next logical step to finding if JJ would respond to more carburetion or intake height.  For all the testing, I still think a Streetmaster ported to 340 cfm, a Street Dominator ported to 340 cfm, or a Ported RPM will give JJ all the airflow it can use in it's current iteration.  JMO, Joe-JDC

[blykins]

Sounds like it is time to go to a 2.125" intake valve, very long rod, rod journals turned down to 2/2.100", mains -.030-060" if bearings are available, and pistons with ceramic coating on crown and coated skirts, .9/.9/2.0 rings, and back to a Street Dominator, or RPM fully ported.  Polish crankshaft, windage screen, oil pump pressure lowered to 50# at WOT, IH oil filter adapter with filter, 5W-20 AmsOil, 950 carb., and electric water pump.  It will take a major change to increase the horsepower from where it is now.  It's only money.  Joe-JDC

I'm not ready to throw in the towel yet.

Normally we look to the displacement, head flow, intake, compression, and cam to get us in the general horsepower area we want to be, and then we look to the "fine tune" things such as you described to give small incremental increases. 

I do have some rods coming in a few weeks.   I wasn't focused on the long rod/short rod argument, but mainly on the fact that I'm looking at more compression down the road and I don't want a domed, 1.920" compression height piston. 

We are right at 1.3 hp/ci with this combo.  A really strong FE on the dyno I use is about 1.5 hp/ci. 

I think there's a little more here in the "general components".  Obviously, going from 10:1 to 12.5:1 would probably net me a 40+ hp gain, but I'd like to dial in the rest of it before I go to that step. 

I have another camshaft coming.  We will see.

On the intake side, the TW, or an adapter with a larger single plane intake may have to be in the cards.   I know a Strip Dominator on a 351C will support 620 hp and 8000 rpm in unported form.  That might be a good one to try on JJ.

[plovett]

Paulie, the BT 8V has passages that go from the very back to the front on each bank to all the ports on that plane, making for very long runners.  It is also very convoluted and narrow in places making it difficult to get a good increase in airflow.  Check out Jay's book again, and you will see on the stroker 427 that the ported BT 8V(mine) was only a little better than the stock BT 8V. On pages 182-183, my ported Streetmaster made within 10 hp of the BT and more torque.(page 254 -604.1/632.8hp) A TW would be the next logical step to finding if JJ would respond to more carburetion or intake height.  For all the testing, I still think a Streetmaster ported to 340 cfm, a Street Dominator ported to 340 cfm, or a Ported RPM will give JJ all the airflow it can use in it's current iteration.  JMO, Joe-JDC

Joe,  thanks for the to the point response.   I actually have a 2x4 BT here and will look at it again right now.  I was thinking the two carburetor locations made for slightly shorter runners, but apparently not.   I do remember that port matching the BT 2x4 made little difference.   

It will be interesting to see if more airflow at the intake will JJ or if the restriction is in the heads.

Brent, in my line of work people like you are very dangerous.  Egos and the need to be right and/or look confident all the time lead to product being let through when it shouldn't be.  It is a loss of a quarter million dollars IF it is caught after production.   10x more so if another egotisitical person lets it through the next step again and it gets to the customer.  Look up the Dunning/Kruger effect.  I don't know if I spelled that right.  Might be another "e".    I am glad you are just building engines.

paulie

[blykins]

Paulie, the BT 8V has passages that go from the very back to the front on each bank to all the ports on that plane, making for very long runners.  It is also very convoluted and narrow in places making it difficult to get a good increase in airflow.  Check out Jay's book again, and you will see on the stroker 427 that the ported BT 8V(mine) was only a little better than the stock BT 8V. On pages 182-183, my ported Streetmaster made within 10 hp of the BT and more torque.(page 254 -604.1/632.8hp) A TW would be the next logical step to finding if JJ would respond to more carburetion or intake height.  For all the testing, I still think a Streetmaster ported to 340 cfm, a Street Dominator ported to 340 cfm, or a Ported RPM will give JJ all the airflow it can use in it's current iteration.  JMO, Joe-JDC

Joe,  thanks for the to the point response.   I actually have a 2x4 BT here and will look at it again right now.  I was thinking the two carburetor locations made for slightly shorter runners, but apparently not.   I do remember that port matching the BT 2x4 made little difference.   

It will be interesting to see if more airflow at the intake will JJ or if the restriction is in the heads.

Brent, in my line of work people like you are very dangerous.  Egos and the need to be right and/or look confident all the time lead to product being let through when it shouldn't be.  It is a loss of a quarter million dollars IF it is caught after production.   10x more so if another egotisitical person lets it through the next step again and it gets to the customer.  Look up the Dunning/Kruger effect.  I don't know if I spelled that right.  Might be another "e".    I am glad you are just building engines.

paulie

Thanks, I'm glad I'm building engines too.  I really enjoy it. 

[chilly460]

It’s logical to look to the I take due to wave tuning, even though the intake has supported more power on other combos.  On the same thought, what’s the minimum CSA on the heads?  Looking at the flow numbers you’d think there’s no way they’d be the bottleneck, but any way the rpm is causing the head to go turbulent? 

[blykins]

It’s logical to look to the I take due to wave tuning, even though the intake has supported more power on other combos.  On the same thought, what’s the minimum CSA on the heads?  Looking at the flow numbers you’d think there’s no way they’d be the bottleneck, but any way the rpm is causing the head to go turbulent?

I suppose anything is possible. 

The reason I'm leaning toward the intake is that the peak hp rpm changed so drastically.  A 400 rpm change is pretty big, that's about what I saw from going from a non-ported head to the ported head.   In addition, we did gain 7 lb-ft of torque and the peak torque rpm changed as well. 

I have yet to do any wave tuning calculations.   Will try to work on that this weekend. 

I expect the camshaft to make a difference, but I don't know how much.   It has a lot of overlap for this size engine and I think I made the wrong call there.

[frnkeore]

Just looking at these numbers, my first impression is that the 2x4, did what you might expect on the torque side, raising the peak 200 rpm but, on the HP side, it did the  opposite, like it was choked off. 600 rpm is a LOT to loose, if you increase the air flow.

Was the A/F numbers about the same at 5.6k as at 6.6k?

Peak Horsepower:  465 @ 7200
Peak Torque:  410 @ 5400

Peak Horsepower:  464 @ 6600
Peak Torque:  417 @ 5600

To verify the manifold causing this, I would run it with a pair of 660's, 715's or even 750's and see what happens.

Edit:
Did you have a vacuum gauge hooked up on the 2x4 run?

[blykins]

Just looking at these numbers, my first impression is that the 2x4, did what you might expect on the torque side, raising the peak 200 rpm but, on the HP side, it did the  opposite, like it was choked off. 600 rpm is a LOT to loose, if you increase the air flow.

Was the A/F numbers about the same at 5.6k as at 6.6k?

Peak Horsepower:  465 @ 7200
Peak Torque:  410 @ 5400

Peak Horsepower:  464 @ 6600
Peak Torque:  417 @ 5600

To verify the manifold causing this, I would run it with a pair of 660's, 715's or even 750's and see what happens.

Edit:
Did you have a vacuum gauge hooked up on the 2x4 run?

A/F ratios were pretty much the same, within .2 of a point. 

I was not running a vacuum gauge, but opening the secondaries only gained us 15 hp.  Before we made them open, it was making 450 hp running on essentially the "front" barrels of the carbs.

[blykins]

Bit the bullet and bought a ported intake adapter and a ported Weiand tunnel ram from Mr. Craine.  Both brand new parts, but have been around a bit.  I think the adapter is serial number 006. 

Gonna use the TR with my vacuum secondary 600's to see what it does. 

Will be an interesting venture and even if it doesn't do stellar, it will make it much easier for me to change cams down the road. 

[1968galaxie]

The tunnel ram test should be very interesting.
Have you experimented with camshaft timing? - adjusting ICL?
I recall this cam was installed @ 105 ICL.
With the very good flowing heads (for 352 cu. inch) and reasonably large CSA (again for 352) perhaps retarding the
ICL to perhaps 108 ICL would be beneficial?
I do not recall if you had one of Jays adjustable cam gears or not.
It would certainly be interesting to test various ICL's while you are on the pump testing.

Good luck!!

[blykins]

What do you all think?  Had to do a significant amount of pushrod tube grinding and in the end moved the rockers over a hair, but finally got it all on yesterday.  Went with Tommy's suggestion and just threw the 1850's back on.

[Ghoughton]

Love it!

[turbohunter]

Schweeeeen!

[My427stang]

Who knows what it will do, but it will look mean doing it!

[KsHighboy]

Very Cool Brent! This has been fun watching.

[Tommy-T]

http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=9362.msg104736#msg104736

[blykins]

http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=9362.msg104736#msg104736

I think you meant that link for Royce’s thread.

[WConley]

Hold my beer and watch this!!   

[blykins]

R&R connecting rods came through with aluminum rods for me.   I'm going to dyno  the 352 with the tunnel ram, swap cams and dyno again, then I'm gonna go inside. 

These rods only weigh 572g.  FE rod journal diameter, SBC wrist pin diameter, and I sent them some rod bearings for them to drill for the dowel holes. 

[Joe-JDC]

If you can borrow a pair of 4224 Holleys(660s), you may find an additional 12-15 hp over the 1850s.  I have not had as good luck with the 1850s on my Tunnel Ram, or Tunnel Wedge as I did with 750s or 660s when racing.  Just something about how the metering works enough different to make a difference.  That engine looks much bigger than the cubes would indicate.  LOL.   Hope it helps.  Joe-JDC

[blykins]

Rod picture....

[XR7]

The rods look real nice Brent, and they got them done quick, sure are lightweight, wow. For some reason I always thought R&R was in Michigan, looks like Florida?

[blykins]

The rods look real nice Brent, and they got them done quick, sure are lightweight, wow. For some reason I always thought R&R was in Michigan, looks like Florida?

Yes sir, they are in Florida.  They were pretty quick about it, about 3 weeks I think, by the time I got them a factory rod to sample.

I like how the big end is pretty small in comparison to other FE aluminum rods I've seen.  They used 3/8" ARP 2000 bolts which helped on the big end size.  I did give them a 600 hp number though, because there's no way I'll ever be anywhere near that with the 352. 

I did ask them about street use because Bill Miller said that they have customers that daily drive with aluminum rods.  They told me it would be no problem, just use some common sense about operating temperatures, setting up bearing clearances, etc. 

They also drilled some bearings for me.  I was planning to come up with a fixture to drill them since no one offers shelf FE rod bearings that are dowel drilled, so I mentioned that.  He said, just send me some bearings and I'll knock them out for you.

It was a good experience overall. 

[Drew Pojedinec]

If you can borrow a pair of 4224 Holleys(660s), you may find an additional 12-15 hp over the 1850s.  I have not had as good luck with the 1850s on my Tunnel Ram, or Tunnel Wedge as I did with 750s or 660s when racing.  Just something about how the metering works enough different to make a difference.  That engine looks much bigger than the cubes would indicate.  LOL.   Hope it helps.  Joe-JDC

Seems that is roughly what my customers who upgrade from my 1850's to 660's always seem to see.
For the street, 1850's are really cheap and easy.  For racing, 660's cannot be denied, jokers just work as is, with no real changes, great design.
I know they are a step up in cost, but for a dual 4160 use dyno mule, I would think mechanical secondaries would be much more repeatable.

[blykins]

If you can borrow a pair of 4224 Holleys(660s), you may find an additional 12-15 hp over the 1850s.  I have not had as good luck with the 1850s on my Tunnel Ram, or Tunnel Wedge as I did with 750s or 660s when racing.  Just something about how the metering works enough different to make a difference.  That engine looks much bigger than the cubes would indicate.  LOL.   Hope it helps.  Joe-JDC

Seems that is roughly what my customers who upgrade from my 1850's to 660's always seem to see.
For the street, 1850's are really cheap and easy.  For racing, 660's cannot be denied, jokers just work as is, with no real changes, great design.
I know they are a step up in cost, but for a dual 4160 use dyno mule, I would think mechanical secondaries would be much more repeatable.

Do you take trade ins?  I know the guy who built these.  Should be worth something.

[Drew Pojedinec]

I've got a stack of people that want 1850s. Want me to put you in touch with a few?
660's wouldn't be ready until fall if you wanted some.

[WerbyFord]

Brent, can you remind me again of a couple things on this 352:
* The LSA=106 but I cant find, where it the cam installed? ICL=???

* What does the exhaust look like? Pipes? Dyno mufflers? Backpressure measurements?

The Gonkulator thinks it should be making more power than it's making (with the new heads & dual quads), trying to figure out why.
Maybe it really DOES want to be Black, a proper Ford 352 color?

[BattlestarGalactic]

That's the catz azz right there.   That will be the last upgrade I want to do to the wagon motor.  Time will tell if I get to dyno it when I do the switch or just bolt it on and go?  I've been running my trusty old 1850's, but I could steal the 660's off the blower motor and try them?  Though the blower motor really likes them and finding/buying another pair is not really in the cards. 

I do have one question.  Can someone get me an overall height to the top of the carbs(or intake for that matter) so I could see if it will clear the teardrop hood on the wagon with no air cleaners.  I'll likely end up cutting a hole and doing a pair of vintage gold velocity stacks to finish off that 70's look.  Maybe I look at getting a fiberglass flat hood and have it painted?

[Joe-JDC]

Larry, when I was measuring the TR for a shipping box, it was 12" tall.  There are several knorbs on the bottom for bolt bosses that protrude, but overall, I think it is right at 12".  Joe-JDC

[blykins]

Brent, can you remind me again of a couple things on this 352:
* The LSA=106 but I cant find, where it the cam installed? ICL=???

* What does the exhaust look like? Pipes? Dyno mufflers? Backpressure measurements?

The Gonkulator thinks it should be making more power than it's making (with the new heads & dual quads), trying to figure out why.
Maybe it really DOES want to be Black, a proper Ford 352 color?

Cam is installed on a 105 I think.  Exhaust is my normal dyno stuff.

I don't think it's making the horsepower it should either, that's why I'm trying different stuff.   For one, I think I spec'd the existing cam with more overlap than I need, so that's why I have another cam here waiting.   I also think the engine needs a different intake manifold layout (plenum, runner length, etc.) than the ones I've tried. 

[WerbyFord]

Brent, can you remind me again of a couple things on this 352:
* The LSA=106 but I cant find, where it the cam installed? ICL=???

* What does the exhaust look like? Pipes? Dyno mufflers? Backpressure measurements?

The Gonkulator thinks it should be making more power than it's making (with the new heads & dual quads), trying to figure out why.
Maybe it really DOES want to be Black, a proper Ford 352 color?

Maybe degree the cam again just as it's been run in the dyno?
It fits better with about a 101 ICL in the Gonkulator but again just hunting.
For an intake maybe try something good but small like that 390HiPo intake IIRC you have on hand already?
small intake but it's such a small engine.

Take all the plugs out & check the turnover torque?
Then take the rockers off & try same? Ie is something "tight" in there?
Cam is installed on a 105 I think.  Exhaust is my normal dyno stuff.

I don't think it's making the horsepower it should either, that's why I'm trying different stuff.   For one, I think I spec'd the existing cam with more overlap than I need, so that's why I have another cam here waiting.   I also think the engine needs a different intake manifold layout (plenum, runner length, etc.) than the ones I've tried.

[blykins]

Brent, can you remind me again of a couple things on this 352:
* The LSA=106 but I cant find, where it the cam installed? ICL=???

* What does the exhaust look like? Pipes? Dyno mufflers? Backpressure measurements?

The Gonkulator thinks it should be making more power than it's making (with the new heads & dual quads), trying to figure out why.
Maybe it really DOES want to be Black, a proper Ford 352 color?

Maybe degree the cam again just as it's been run in the dyno?
It fits better with about a 101 ICL in the Gonkulator but again just hunting.
For an intake maybe try something good but small like that 390HiPo intake IIRC you have on hand already?
small intake but it's such a small engine.

Take all the plugs out & check the turnover torque?
Then take the rockers off & try same? Ie is something "tight" in there?
Cam is installed on a 105 I think.  Exhaust is my normal dyno stuff.

I don't think it's making the horsepower it should either, that's why I'm trying different stuff.   For one, I think I spec'd the existing cam with more overlap than I need, so that's why I have another cam here waiting.   I also think the engine needs a different intake manifold layout (plenum, runner length, etc.) than the ones I've tried.

Werb, I've had the rockers off and on about a dozen times since the engine was built, even switching from my non-adjustable rollers to T&D streets.   

When it was new, it took 7 lb-ft of continuous torque to keep the rotating assembly moving.  I would imagine it's a little less now.   Nothing wrong with the bottom end, I watch the oil temps and check the filter every time it's dyno'd. 

The cam is going to stay where it is until I change to the new one.  I can't go 101 because I run out of piston/valve clearance.  I degreed it at several positions when I installed it. 

I don't have a 390 Hipo intake here. 

It's certainly an induction system issue and I'll find it sooner or later.

[BattlestarGalactic]

Larry, when I was measuring the TR for a shipping box, it was 12" tall.  There are several knorbs on the bottom for bolt bosses that protrude, but overall, I think it is right at 12".  Joe-JDC

Thanks Joe.

[jayb]

Brent, FWIW I have always picked up power with the 660s on a tunnel ram.  This has been the case with 450 Holleys, BJ-BK Holleys, and run of the mill 1850s.  You should try to find some 660s to test with - Jay

[blykins]

I'll see what I can do.  Plan to dyno on the 1st, I'll see if I can find a set before then.

[WerbyFord]

Brent, FWIW I have always picked up power with the 660s on a tunnel ram.  This has been the case with 450 Holleys, BJ-BK Holleys, and run of the mill 1850s.  You should try to find some 660s to test with - Jay

Just for the dyno I wonder if a pair of re-bowled & metering-plated 650 double-pumpers would work?
Same venturi & throttle, mechanical secondaries, you'd lose the secondary pump shot but probably no need for that on the dyno.
Maybe an idea if 660s are hard to find.

[428kidd]

Brent i have a 390 Hipo intake and a set of 660s that would need kits if you would want to borrow them.

[blykins]

I appreciate all the offers and help.   Jay is sending me a pair of 660's and I'll also have a pair of 715's coming for a Tunnel Port build that I can try if I get frisky.