FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => FE Engine Dyno Results => Topic started by: blykins on May 02, 2025, 04:43:59 PM
-
Performance Summary:
Cubic Inches: 511 Dyno brand: Stuska
Power Adder: Don't need one Where dynoed: Dale Meers Racing Engines
Peak Horsepower: 894
Peak Torque: 686
Engine Specifications:
Block brand, material, finished bore size, other notes: BBM cast iron block, 4.375" bore
Crankshaft brand, cast or forged, stroke, journal size: Scat 4340 4.250"
Connecting Rods brand, material, center to center distance, end sizes, bolts: Molnar 6.700" Power Addr
Piston brand, material (caster, hypereutectic or forged), dish/dome volume, static CR: Custom Diamond, 13.4:1
Main Bearings, Rod Bearings, Cam Bearings brand and size: Calico coated Clevite
Piston rings brand, size, other notes: Total Seal, .9/.9/3mm
Oil Pump, pickup, and drive: M57B pump, Canton pickup, ARP shaft
Oil pan, windage tray, oil filter adapter: Canton rear sump oil pan, no tray, repop oil filter adapter
Camshaft brand, type (hyd/solid, flat tappet or roller), lift and duration (adv and @.050"): Custom Lykins Motorsports solid roller
Lifters brand, type: BAM
Timing chain and timing cover: Cloyes billet, factory cover
Cylinder heads brand, material, port and chamber information: Ported FE Power Raised Exhaust cylinder heads
Intake valve brand, head size, stem size: Ferrea titanium, 5/16" stem, 2.350"
Exhaust valve brand, head size, stem size: Ferrea stainless, 5/16" stem, 1.700"
Valve springs brand, part number, specs: PAC, 300 seat, 810 open
Retainers and locks brand, part number, specs: PAC titanium
Rocker arm brand, type (adjustable or non-adj), material, ratio: FE Power, 1.75
Rocker shafts and stands, brand, material:
Pushrods brand, type, length: Trend, 7/16" exhaust, 1/2" intake
Valve covers, brand, type: M/T
Distributor brand, advance curve information: MSD Pro Billet
Harmonic balancer brand: Powerbond SFI
Water pump brand, type (mechanical or electric): Edelbrock
Intake manifold brand, material, porting information: FE Power intake adapter, with FE Power Tunnel Wedge style intake, both JDC ported
Carburetor(s) brand, type: (2) Scott Perkins 950
Exhaust manifolds or headers brand, type: custom dyno headers
-
Knocking on 900 hp turning the water pump and alternator, not too shabby.
Always have trouble with the stupid rear sump Canton pans. You have to add 2 quarts to have sufficient oil pressure to make a pull, but the extra two quarts create windage. It’s a no win situation on the dyno that goes away in the car.
I believe that if we had a better oil pan scenario, the horsepower would have been a bit higher.
-
Very nice Brent! That's a solid torque number as well ;D
-
Probably another 15 HP available with a switch to an electric water pump, maybe another few HP from the alternator. I tested mechanical vs. electric water pumps on a 428CJ, and at 5500 RPM the difference was about 10 HP, and of course it increases with engine speed. The graph is at the link below on my water pump adapter page.
https://www.fepower.net/Products/cvradapt.html
I'm kind of surprised at the torque number, my test engine with these heads made 874 HP with the same intake and a couple of 660 center squirters, but it also made 735 foot pounds of torque. Different cams, I suppose, and of course I was running an electric water pump and no alternator, plus a decent oil pan. That Canton pan is junk...
-
Junk indeed. There’s no winning with it.
On my 352, the electric water pump was worth 13 hp. Alternator should be worth about 4.
Higher hp peak rpm would take some torque away. We were turning this one 7600.
Definitely need some more cam testing with these heads. This cam had 15 degrees of split, probably could have handled a little more. It had .850” gross lift.
-
Either way, killer build.
-
I was looking forward to this one, nicely done!
-
Very stout! Is that a Canton rear sump, or a Canton Fox body rear sump? Those Fox body pans are not ideal for the FE. Joe-JDC
-
It’s the 16-870 pan.
Canton has this pan and the road race pan with a rear T-sump.
-
Fox body pan to clear the rack and pinion steering. Terrible design. Joe-JDC
-
Fox body pan to clear the rack and pinion steering. Terrible design. Joe-JDC
It is. The middle of the pan is tucked up to close to the block and then there's no way for the front sump to connect to the rear sump. Probably doesn't work too bad in the car with some acceleration, but it's a teeth-grinder on the dyno.
I usually try to dyno stuff the way it's going to be setup for the car. I know everyone always says, "I think there's more left in it", so I'll say, I think there's more left in it. I think we would have been at around 910 hp with an electric water pump and no alternator and I think a better/deeper oil pan would have netted a considerable bump. We also were running it a hair on the rich side. When we ship engines across the country, I'd rather it be conservative than on the edge when they fire it up.
I think if we had been setting this one up here for a local NSS car, or something like that, it would have been a ~950 hp engine.
-
Hello guys, $25-$30,M filters sold and retired Yet this dual sump oil pan issue screams WRONG
1) the existence of a reservoir (front sump) that is not actively/seriously engaged in the lube system's volume . Sorry to say the
front sump's oil is actually in the realm of having a few bottles of oil secured to the side of the motor. Potentially even worse in that the few times the front sumps oil "adds" to the oil "working" inside the motor likely are not near when the addition volume are actually engaged in the lube system's volume dynamics.
The old yet still here Accusump's seemingly address adding/subtracting somewhat selectively oil to the engine's oil volume though again is this addition/subtraction at the truly optimum time?
2) A elementary rule of filtration is if you have a body of lube and you wish to bypass filter said oil body, then ten-times filtering the lube out and back-in will provide a high 90's probability you've filtered all the lube...LOL just imagine how much that stuck-in-front-sump gets mingled into the "working" lube oil?.......
2A) Reason for adding/increasing oil volume is to assure uninterrupted oil to the pump. Then of course as a heat sink. Funny God intended for a running wet-sump system to drop the oil level ... Is it the end of world if a cranks static rod journals are parked in oil .....
3) the HP figures on this beast look like they would be well served by a dry-sump for the half-dozen reason's we all should know, but what do I know?......Today's 11,000+ HP Top/Fuel motors are just fine on a wet-sump oil pan/pump LOL
-
Hello guys, $25-$30,M filters sold and retired Yet this dual sump oil pan issue screams WRONG
1) the existence of a reservoir (front sump) that is not actively/seriously engaged in the lube system's volume . Sorry to say the
front sump's oil is actually in the realm of having a few bottles of oil secured to the side of the motor. Potentially even worse in that the few times the front sumps oil "adds" to the oil "working" inside the motor likely are not near when the addition volume are actually engaged in the lube system's volume dynamics.
The old yet still here Accusump's seemingly address adding/subtracting somewhat selectively oil to the engine's oil volume though again is this addition/subtraction at the truly optimum time?
2) A elementary rule of filtration is if you have a body of lube and you wish to bypass filter said oil body, then ten-times filtering the lube out and back-in will provide a high 90's probability you've filtered all the lube...LOL just imagine how much that stuck-in-front-sump gets mingled into the "working" lube oil?.......
2A) Reason for adding/increasing oil volume is to assure uninterrupted oil to the pump. Then of course as a heat sink. Funny God intended for a running wet-sump system to drop the oil level ... Is it the end of world if a cranks static rod journals are parked in oil .....
3) the HP figures on this beast look like they would be well served by a dry-sump for the half-dozen reason's we all should know, but what do I know?......Today's 11,000+ HP Top/Fuel motors are just fine on a wet-sump oil pan/pump LOL
I’m having trouble understanding what point you’re trying to make.
-
I’m having trouble understanding what point you’re trying to make.
Don't worry, Brent, that's the norm when dealing with BB.
Nice build. What is it destined for, 1/4 mile, pulling?
-
I’m having trouble understanding what point you’re trying to make.
Don't worry, Brent, that's the norm when dealing with BB.
Nice build. What is it destined for, 1/4 mile, pulling?
Thank you, Doug. Appreciate it.
Believe it or not, it's going in a '64 Ford Falcon street car. LOL He's running a TKX, which I think will decide to go the way of the world if he ever hooks it up on slicks.
-
Hello guys, $25-$30,M filters sold and retired Yet this dual sump oil pan issue screams WRONG
1) the existence of a reservoir (front sump) that is not actively/seriously engaged in the lube system's volume . Sorry to say the
front sump's oil is actually in the realm of having a few bottles of oil secured to the side of the motor. Potentially even worse in that the few times the front sumps oil "adds" to the oil "working" inside the motor likely are not near when the addition volume are actually engaged in the lube system's volume dynamics.
The old yet still here Accusump's seemingly address adding/subtracting somewhat selectively oil to the engine's oil volume though again is this addition/subtraction at the truly optimum time?
2) A elementary rule of filtration is if you have a body of lube and you wish to bypass filter said oil body, then ten-times filtering the lube out and back-in will provide a high 90's probability you've filtered all the lube...LOL just imagine how much that stuck-in-front-sump gets mingled into the "working" lube oil?.......
2A) Reason for adding/increasing oil volume is to assure uninterrupted oil to the pump. Then of course as a heat sink. Funny God intended for a running wet-sump system to drop the oil level ... Is it the end of world if a cranks static rod journals are parked in oil .....
3) the HP figures on this beast look like they would be well served by a dry-sump for the half-dozen reason's we all should know, but what do I know?......Today's 11,000+ HP Top/Fuel motors are just fine on a wet-sump oil pan/pump LOL
I’m having trouble understanding what point you’re trying to make.
Brent, the problem is not on your end lol :o
-
The solution to this problem, is to run a small single stage, dry sump pump, from the front to the rear sump.
It wouldn't cost very much, because it needs no pressure regulation, just a 2 timing pulleys and a belt.
-
Thank you, Doug. Appreciate it.
Believe it or not, it's going in a '64 Ford Falcon street car. LOL He's running a TKX, which I think will decide to go the way of the world if he ever hooks it up on slicks.
I had "street" on that list, but removed it when I saw the 13:1 ratio. Traction would definitely be your enemy with a TKX.
-
Sorry for confusing the dual sump pan issue I only wanted to point out that a second sump is near as useless or even worse then mounting a couple bottles of oil to the side of motor to add to lube system's capacity. Thought I'd be courteous and not trash-can Brett in any way for installing such a huge mistake of a pan to begin with on such a magnificent state of the art example of a FE.
-
Seems this fellow is back in circulation after a long hiatus? Been a while. Joe-JDC
-
Sorry for confusing the dual sump pan issue I only wanted to point out that a second sump is near as useless or even worse then mounting a couple bottles of oil to the side of motor to add to lube system's capacity. Thought I'd be courteous and not trash-can Brett in any way for installing such a huge mistake of a pan to begin with on such a magnificent state of the art example of a FE.
Brent installed the pan that the customer asked for, in order to fit the intended chassis - Jay
-
In the real world (where some folks have just never dwelled) the front part of that pan is not really a functional "sump", it's just a little house for the oil pump to live in, that fills up with oil, to fit a particular engine in a car that was not designed around it, without major surgery to the car. It's a compromise at best, but lets you put together a low cost, fun car. Unfortunately, the thread became infested by an obfuscator from the past
-
Pictures of said engine...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54494143859_3abe0c209d_z.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54494306185_501171aa44_z.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54493957781_c168027353_z.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54494306165_8bc1dd2a6a_z.jpg)
BTW, I need to give credit where it's due. Joe did the port work on the intake adapter and the intake manifold both. As always, he did a fine job.
-
So the pick-up screen on the end of that seriously long tube resides in the smaller rear-sump?.........
Let's not dare question IF a windage tray is even possible.
https://www.jegs.com/i/Canton-Racing-Products/074/16-870/10002/-1?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=17800750488&gbraid=0AAAAAD6OBRGwvMCfZ1QlPvJxEDQzitpDP&gclid=CjwKCAjwiezABhBZEiwAEbTPGBwmQaW_QpumbmA-oGITfhBy_M_aB1iZBN0WQko3yAJeN2hrDH7CJRoCVgoQAvD_BwE
https://www.jegs.com/i/Canton-Racing-Products/074/16-871/10002/-1
Posted by: MeanGene:
In the real world (where some folks have just never dwelled) the front part of that pan is not really a functional "sump", it's just a little house for the oil pump to live in, that fills up with oil, to fit a particular engine in a car that was not designed around it, without major surgery to the car. It's a compromise at best, but lets you put together a low cost, fun car. Unfortunately, the thread became infested by an obfuscator from the past
-
BB, the rear sump is the larger one. And I have put a windage tray with a custom rear sump pan on my Mach1, the pickup tube goes up against the bottom of the windage tray. Only a slight modification to the windage tray was required.
I have worked with that pan before and know it's disadvantages. A while back I did an engine for one of our forum members that had to use that pan in a Fox body Mustang. I modified the pan by making both sumps deeper, using kickouts on the rear sump to increase the oil capacity even further, and then running a #12 AN line between the front sump and the rear sump, so that oil from the front sump would remain at the same level as the rear sump. I was able to get the capacity up to 8 quarts and still keep the oil level an inch and a half before the windage tray, if memory serves. That pan really needs modifications like that.
-
Believe it or not, it's going in a '64 Ford Falcon street car. LOL He's running a TKX, which I think will decide to go the way of the world if he ever hooks it up on slicks.
[/quote]
It will shell TKX, ask me how I know. Bought 3 for a street car.
-
Believe it or not, it's going in a '64 Ford Falcon street car. LOL He's running a TKX, which I think will decide to go the way of the world if he ever hooks it up on slicks.
It will shell TKX, ask me how I know. Bought 3 for a street car.
[/quote]
Yep, I warned him of that.