FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: CaptCobrajet on October 07, 2016, 10:29:24 PM
-
I think it is cool that there is interest in small cube FEs. I thought I would share a neat combo with the group. I have two of these in-process at the moment. One with H304P budget pistons, and one with my custom CP Bullet "390" pistons. I used 351M-400 rods. Strong, available, and inexpensive. They are safe to 600 hp in past testing. The width is very close. The 3.5 stroke crank is turned down to 2.310, and offset ground to 3.625 stroke. A touch-up at the cheeks for the width, and a nice radius, and really a nice combo. It uses a 1.760 c/h 390 piston, 6.58 rod, 3.625 stroke. 380 high rpm-capable, all economy and available stuff, and it comes out 10.152 deck height. I am working on a Small bore Pro Port head, that may end up being a small bore casting collaberation with BBM down the road, after some R&D. I have one already with a CNC program for Super Stock 352s, but I need to adjust the flange location to a stock MR much like my "Street Pro Port". The head will have 145 CC runners, 2.09 intake valve, and 315 cfm. The exhaust will be the exhaust I already have with a 1.57 valve and 230 cfm capability. Money saved on the shortblock, without having to buy " custom" pistons and costly machining of BBC rod adaptations can be spent on a killer bolt-on head for small bores. At 2.09/1.600 valve sizes, and an efficient chamber, my plan is an affordable, killer performance, small bore head, and an economical and efficient 380-ish cube combo with parts that don't break the bank, or confuse the machinist!
The small head will also be VERY good for 4.125 and 4.250 strokers in street duty cars, trucks, and 4x4s. Lots of FEs out there that all these big-ported cylinder heads have forgotten. The small head will make a torque beast out of any 352/390 based engine, strokers included. I will post in the dyno section when these are done. One will get a mild hydraulic roller, the other a solid roller bumpstick and 11:1. Stay tuned!
-
I have a set of max dome 396 pistons that might interest you, 427/361 crank
-
Thanks Gene, but I'm going to be 57cc chambers....no domes..
-
Are you saying I should start saving my 3.5 stroke cranks? I normally just scrap them, two at this moment.
-
Is that stock 351-400 rods? or is there an aftermarket rod?
-
BP would need to answer that Heo but those rods are pretty darned good and have been used in many a SBF
build. Bet it's OEM all the way with minor cleanup, maybe shot-peening and re-sizing. We'll see.
-
I have read that the 400 rod is weak I had an idea where the 400
rod had fitted but when i heard they where weak and att that time
there were no aftermarket rods for 400 so....
-
I used a set in an early 351 stroker, before there were common kits out like they are now. It was likely a 450-475 hp motor and ran for years and years. So certainly not a deep breather like these, but it got run hard for a long time with standard prep and good bolts. Of course it just dawned on me that it was likely 17 or 18 years ago :) so used parts were a bit less used back then LOL
-
I'll take your unwanted 3.5” cranks, I have two builds planned in my future. ;)
-
There is a guy who is making rods for the 400M crowd, and I'm sure they are better, but the idea was to keep costs down. Most of those stock rods spent their lives in trucks, LTD IIs, T-birds, and Lincolns with no compression, no rpm, and no power. If they mag okay, my thought is they will be fine. People used to stroke 428 cranks and use them back before the aftermarket rods came, so they will be fine in smaller, shorter stroke apps.
-
I wouldn't be afraid of them either.
Here is the aftermarket rod though, says it's a Molnar and lighter than stock.
http://www.tmeyerinc.com/product-p/tbp-400cr.htm
-
Yep, that is the rod. Now, if a person turboed the small engine......that would be the way to go, and a modified 361 truck crank............
-
Lots of small bock guys out there running high 8s and low 9s with inexpensive single turbos and factory blocks and some times even factory rotating assemblies in that cu in range. I don't see any reason an fe couldn't do it too.
-
Speed Pro makes a truck 361 piston. According to there specs it has a 21.795 cc dish.
https://m.summitracing.com/parts/slp-h994p?seid=srese1&cm_mmc=pla-google-_-shopping-_-srese1-_-sealed-power&gclid=COun6uDoy88CFQ6taQodfTMP6A
-
Okay....Then i can revalue my plan with the 400 M rods
-
Speed Pro makes a truck 361 piston. According to there specs it has a 21.795 cc dish.
https://m.summitracing.com/parts/slp-h994p?seid=srese1&cm_mmc=pla-google-_-shopping-_-srese1-_-sealed-power&gclid=COun6uDoy88CFQ6taQodfTMP6A
Pistons weigh 907g with a pin height of 1.882 Here is the specifications Federal Mogul gave me. See if I missed something on calculating the dish cc.
1st: 3.320 diameter by .045 deep
2nd: 2.524 diameter by .188 deep.
=21.795cc
-
Oh sure, but when *I* say let's do something with a small FE build everybody spits on my grave. 4 or 5 years ago I picked up two sets of 400 rods and a set of 429 CJ rods in one auction for 30 bucks off eBay with shipping, after confirming with Kadrie's Kranks over here that he could offset grind anything. I bought 1960 small chamber heads and small-bore shim gaskets. How many people were interested in any of that? None. They were too busy kicking me in the nuts and stealing my cell phone. The camaraderie in this hobby is stellar.
-
Hey FElony.... don't be such a piss pot. Blair obviously liked *your* idea. :)
-
Hey FElony.... don't be such a piss pot. Blair obviously liked *your* idea. :)
Yes, but he didn't even email me a cheeseburger or nuttin'. Here it is, Saturday night, and I don't have anything to eat besides whiskey and rum and sour grapes. Now watch; his excuse for his deplorable behavior will be something lame, like Matthew swept him out to sea and he can't find any cheeseburgers in Cuba.
-
FElony, Maybe when starting with an idea, just stating what you want to do would be more effective than insulting anyone that thinks differently than you. You'll probably get better results.
I for one am really interested in people posting their progress, I simply lack the interest (or cars with which to put these engines in) to be doing this build myself.
-
Hey Belogny, all we got here to offer in Appalachia is moonshine, and pig brains on a soda cracker. You might not have the balls for token like that. I wasn't close enough to even get rained on, thankfully. I stay away from beaches. They might mistake me for a beached orca and push me out to sea. I apologize for not giving you your due credic, but hell you already have a head named after you. I'm just trying to climb out of the basket of deplorables right now, and you slipped my mind.
-
Last I heard Felony was running , hiding and ducking the EPA , something over methane gas and a shit farm without EPA approved packaging ..... jail and serious fines could be a result
-
FElony, Maybe when starting with an idea, just stating what you want to do would be more effective than insulting anyone that thinks differently than you. You'll probably get better results.
I for one am really interested in people posting their progress, I simply lack the interest (or cars with which to put these engines in) to be doing this build myself.
In the thread in the other place, *you* know I was basically just trying to drum up some interest in small displacement performance. I don't like people that can't expand their venue of thought. If that bothers you, bring it 'cuz I always like a good tussle. Otherwise, I go into a coma.
-
Hey Belogny, all we got here to offer in Appalachia is moonshine, and pig brains on a soda cracker. You might not have the balls for token like that. I wasn't close enough to even get rained on, thankfully. I stay away from beaches. They might mistake me for a beached orca and push me out to sea. I apologize for not giving you your due credic, but hell you already have a head named after you. I'm just trying to climb out of the basket of deplorables right now, and you slipped my mind.
I won't mention the guy that named the head after me (Barry R.), but after me badgering him he wouldn't spend the money having the FElony name engraved or cast into the head, nor does he often, if ever, refer to it by that name. Nor does he utilize the tag "Conspiracy to commit horsepower" that I came up with to make up for it. I bet you don't know it was me that originated the whole "Prison Break" moniker to begin with. Do I have a free stroker kit? Do I have free heads? Sheeeeiit no. God forbid I should make those heads REALLY famous. I even had to buy Barry's book from Amazon. Retail.
Am I on a bitch roll? Yes, I'm a good little bitch tonight. Look, there's room for me in the Basket!
-
Last I heard FElony was running , hiding and ducking the EPA , something over methane gas and a shit farm without EPA approved packaging ..... jail and serious fines could be a result
Sneaky of me just to hide in my old jail cell, ain't it?
-
I don't like people that can't expand their venue of thought.
It's funny, because that is how you present yourself. At any rate, I do not wish to derail the thread, so I'm out.
-
I don't like people that can't expand their venue of thought.
It's funny, because that is how you present yourself. At any rate, I do not wish to derail the thread, so I'm out.
Yep, I'm narrow-minded because I'm stacked to the ceiling with 427's and 428's, but I'd like to see a little respect for the little motors. Dastardly I am.
-
Oh sure, but when *I* say let's do something with a small FE build everybody spits on my grave......I bought 1960 small chamber heads and small-bore shim gaskets. How many people were interested in any of that? None. They were too busy kicking me in the nuts and stealing my cell phone. The camaraderie in this hobby is stellar.
Then for the 5th time I'll ask...instead of griping and complaining about why nobody does an engine like this, why don't YOU do one? Why is it always "let's", or "why don't we"? Remember that old saying...."Put up...."
I'd apologize if that sounded disrespectful, but I'm not sorry. I get tired of your whining and complaining. DO IT!
-
Speed Pro makes a truck 361 piston. According to there specs it has a 21.795 cc dish.
https://m.summitracing.com/parts/slp-h994p?seid=srese1&cm_mmc=pla-google-_-shopping-_-srese1-_-sealed-power&gclid=COun6uDoy88CFQ6taQodfTMP6A
Pistons weigh 907g with a pin height of 1.882 Here is the specifications Federal Mogul gave me. See if I missed something on calculating the dish cc.
1st: 3.320 diameter by .045 deep
2nd: 2.524 diameter by .188 deep.
=21.795cc
Anyone know how to double check the math?
-
Oh sure, but when *I* say let's do something with a small FE build everybody spits on my grave......I bought 1960 small chamber heads and small-bore shim gaskets. How many people were interested in any of that? None. They were too busy kicking me in the nuts and stealing my cell phone. The camaraderie in this hobby is stellar.
Then for the 5th time I'll ask...instead of griping and complaining about why nobody does an engine like this, why don't YOU do one? Why is it always "let's", or "why don't we"? Remember that old saying...."Put up...."
I'd apologize if that sounded disrespectful, but I'm not sorry. I get tired of your whining and complaining. DO IT!
As usual, the point goes over your head. If there is NO interest in a grassroots-level build of a common, inexpensive engine, then there is NO point in expending the time and money in doing so. For what? To hear crickets chirp when I'm done?
It's a forgone conclusion that Blair will get good power because he is Blair. But the rest of us ain't Blair.
I was going to petition Jay to form a Grassroots subforum here. Anyone that has read sbftech for a few years may recall that it had been little more than a shooting gallery for a couple vendors who dealt in "custom" cams and "stroker" short blocks. Virtually anybody that asked for advice was channeled straight to the vendors to spend on new and shiny. They finally got wise and added a grassroots section so people with used/off-the-shelf parts could participate without being denigrated for not buying into the status quo. It has worked well for them.
I had made a detailed list of topics for that DIY subforum idea that I was going to send to Jay after Drag Week. After the last go-around in the other place, I pitched the list and have been looking around for another site that may not be so much Ford-specific, but dealt with the concept in general. I have a couple possibilities, but they will be strangers dealing with a newbie using a new name. May not be a bad thing, that.
OK, I'm done.
-
The world needs crazy people. Otherwise we'd all be driving LS powered hotrods. :P
-
Yep, that is the rod. Now, if a person turboed the small engine......that would be the way to go, and a modified 361 truck crank............
I promise I'm going to do this. I've been too busy spending my Dad and Uncle's money on their FE builds rather than spending my own (which is a much smarter way to approach the hobby ;D ). The engine I have brainstormed is basically the same bore/stroke as a 340 Mopar. My goal is probably unimpressive to most who visit this site, but I want to build a gas sipper engine that still has plenty of power on-tap when you hit the pedal.
I have a few cars to sell, a 390 to put in a Galaxie, and a 428 to put in my Dads Mustang before the turbo project can take place.
Here's the recipe that I posted on a different thread:
I've had a similar thought going through my head as this and Brent's build.......only with some changes.
~Run a standard 390 block, 4.06 bore or so.
~361T steel crank, offset ground to hopefully a 3.3" stroke (I'm not sure how much those cranks can take).
~Combination would be somewhere between 340 and 350 cubes
~Long rods, 6.8" or even 7.1" if the pistons aren't crazy
~Proport Edelbrock heads, ported with very small ports
~Not sure what intake, fuel injection though
~Turbo
The goal would be to make a 500 horse gas sipper motor that could go in my Galaxie for road trip use, and maybe even the power tour? The gas mileage would be the most paramount design consideration, power output would be secondary.
I like seeing this small displacement stuff, it keeps my mind churning.
-
I think it is cool that there is interest in small cube FEs. I thought I would share a neat combo with the group. I have two of these in-process at the moment. One with H304P budget pistons, and one with my custom CP Bullet "390" pistons. I used 351M-400 rods. Strong, available, and inexpensive. They are safe to 600 hp in past testing. The width is very close. The 3.5 stroke crank is turned down to 2.310, and offset ground to 3.625 stroke. A touch-up at the cheeks for the width, and a nice radius, and really a nice combo. It uses a 1.760 c/h 390 piston, 6.58 rod, 3.625 stroke. 380 high rpm-capable, all economy and available stuff, and it comes out 10.152 deck height. I am working on a Small bore Pro Port head, that may end up being a small bore casting collaberation with BBM down the road, after some R&D. I have one already with a CNC program for Super Stock 352s, but I need to adjust the flange location to a stock MR much like my "Street Pro Port". The head will have 145 CC runners, 2.09 intake valve, and 315 cfm. The exhaust will be the exhaust I already have with a 1.57 valve and 230 cfm capability. Money saved on the shortblock, without having to buy " custom" pistons and costly machining of BBC rod adaptations can be spent on a killer bolt-on head for small bores. At 2.09/1.600 valve sizes, and an efficient chamber, my plan is an affordable, killer performance, small bore head, and an economical and efficient 380-ish cube combo with parts that don't break the bank, or confuse the machinist!
The small head will also be VERY good for 4.125 and 4.250 strokers in street duty cars, trucks, and 4x4s. Lots of FEs out there that all these big-ported cylinder heads have forgotten. The small head will make a torque beast out of any 352/390 based engine, strokers included. I will post in the dyno section when these are done. One will get a mild hydraulic roller, the other a solid roller bumpstick and 11:1. Stay tuned!
Neat builds! I'm anxiously awaiting the torque numbers.
-
I'm excited to see how these heads turn out.
I have held off deciding on heads for a couple months because Blair mentioned he might be doing something like this.
Mine will not be a small motor though, 520-537 ci for a dayly driver F250.
315cfm should support the HP i am hoping to get, but those small cross section ports aught to make some rediculouse torque numbers. If he uses the BBM head as a starting point, even better. I like the combustion chamber and plug location on the BBM heads a lot more than the EDs, though I'm sure Blairs regular Proports have a much better cumbustion chamber than what edelbrock offers.
I'm hoping to build a similar, but larger version of this fine motor:
http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=2809.0
With a slightly larger cam and a bit more compression. I don't plan on doing any heavy towing, just joyriding around town and messing with the kids, and all the noisy black smoke billowing obnoxious diesels that are everywhere.
-
I'll have a small build soon and will document it soon. It will be a fairly budget build though, 372ci (4.110 x 3.5), 10.5:1, custom cam, somewhere around 290 adv & .580 lift, stock home ported head castings, thinking a Weiand 351C Tunnel Ram on Jay's adapter and dual 500 CFM Edelbrock Thunder AVS carbs.
I'm still kicking around if I can spin 6.54 rods to 6500RPM. I am considering BBC rods but that will up the cost significantly. Should be starting early December, hopefully completing in April.
-
My 332 thinks your plan is a huge engine.
Since it looks like i'm doomed to keep my stupid wagon I have been fixing it up, did a whole load of welding to replace the floors .
I plan to keep the 332 since it is worthless to sell and I don't have space to store it. I'd stick on a bunch of parts I've got laying around that may be way overkill on less than a 390. I made up some 1 7/8" tri-Y headers when a 390 was in the car. I've got that solid cam and the Holley Street Dominator still. Since that may not be slushbox-friendly I may have to scare up clutch pedals and linkage. Tranny may actually be a Toyota six speed if the one I was offered is still available.
Nothing to ruin the pretty good gas mileage but something to help the dismal power.
-
I'll be interested in hearing how it goes. If you take the overall weight of an FE out of the picture, I just keep looking at these small engines and thinking, they've got a small block bore and stroke but big block heads. :) I've got to think that they have the same power potential, if not better, than a 302 or 351.
-
Speed Pro makes a truck 361 piston. According to there specs it has a 21.795 cc dish.
https://m.summitracing.com/parts/slp-h994p?seid=srese1&cm_mmc=pla-google-_-shopping-_-srese1-_-sealed-power&gclid=COun6uDoy88CFQ6taQodfTMP6A
Pistons weigh 907g with a pin height of 1.882 Here is the specifications Federal Mogul gave me. See if I missed something on calculating the dish cc.
1st: 3.320 diameter by .045 deep
2nd: 2.524 diameter by .188 deep.
=21.795cc
Anyone know how to double check the math?
Apparently the transition starts at the widest point and goes inward. The starting point was what I was unsure of. I spoke with a different tech and got the correct specs. According to Federal Mogul the H994P has a 16.02 cc dish.
-
There's nothing really "big block" about a factory FE head....at least the ones that came on 352/360/390 engines. A GT40P head off of a 302 out of a 2000 Ford Explorer would come within a few cfm of most of them.
-
GT-40 P intake flow 184-189 cfm stock. C6AE-r/R 220-232 cfm stock 2.020-2.030 intake valve. Joe-JDC
-
Just going off of Stan Weiss' site for quick reference....GT40P's are doing 190-195, GT40X are around 220-230. C1's are doing 230's, C4's are doing 230's, C8's and C6FE heads, 200-210. Boss 302 and Cleveland 4V heads are in the 270's. So if you compared that GT40P head to some of the C8 heads, they are certainly close to each other.
Regardless, my point is that a factory FE cylinder head is certainly not a big power-maker and we all understand that....they are not like "other" big block head offerings....
-
Regardless, my point is that a factory FE cylinder head is certainly not a big power-maker and we all understand that....they are not like "other" big block head offerings....
Hard to dispute that, 200 cfm for the vast majority of surviving heads out there, 230 for the best non-CJ, non-427, of course they have decent potential, a common FE was never known for its breathing
-
My goal was not to make fun of the FE, but I wasn't as diplomatic as I should have been either...
However, my reply was supposed to have been an innocent aim towards eric.....a small bore FE is pretty close to a small block in terms of bore and stroke, but the heads are not typical of what we think of when we think of big block heads.....BBF's, BBC's, etc.....or even some factory SBF heads either (Ford really knocked one out of the park with the 351C head...)
-
On a street engine you don't want to get too hung up on flow numbers. For a street driven carburerated engine or a mild small cubic engine you want fuel atomization and velocity. Keeping fuel suspended from idle to 3000 rpm is what gives your vehicle street manners. Take a look at the designs of the fuel injected intakes vs a carbutated intake. A fuel injector will spray a mist close to the head, given that you can see how Ford can get away with making a dedicated fuel injection head. The same large port head used on the street and a high flowing performance head.
-
I guess my thought is more to non-cubic-money heads as well and of course 40 years of development has left the FE behind. And I understand that Cleveland and 385 series heads are much better than the FE, I'm mainly just looking at valve sizes alone compared to standard SBF heads and doing some bench racing. I have no real world evidence to back that up (yet :) ). Part of hot-rodding, I have a theory, now I need to go prove it. Stay tuned, I'll document what I'm doing as I go along.
-
The size is not the problem, it is the shape of the port, and the awful dogleg so close to the short turn of the valve seat. Airflow wants to take the shortest distance between the carburetor and the chamber, which causes the air/fuel to shear over the short turn if it is misshaped the least amount. The short turn makes or breaks the FE intake port. Get it right, and the ports can go to 320+ on the R head with large valve, and 310 on CJ is possible with larger valve. Not easy, but can be done. I have ported hundreds of the sbf heads, and I have yet to find one that will go 190 cfm with stock valve size and stock valve job from the factory. JMO, but it is from my experience. Joe-JDC
-
189 is awfully close to 190, Joe..... ;)
-
The size is not the problem, it is the shape of the port, and the awful dogleg so close to the short turn of the valve seat. Airflow wants to take the shortest distance between the carburetor and the chamber, which causes the air/fuel to shear over the short turn if it is misshaped the least amount. The short turn makes or breaks the FE intake port. Get it right, and the ports can go to 320+ on the R head with large valve, and 310 on CJ is possible with larger valve. Not easy, but can be done. I have ported hundreds of the sbf heads, and I have yet to find one that will go 190 cfm with stock valve size and stock valve job from the factory. JMO, but it is from my experience. Joe-JDC
Exactly what my headguy told me. And he put the major work on the short turn radius.
He said on my C4 he wanted to fill up the floor of the intake port because that would
give me some gains in fuel consumption + some torque.
And he dint like the exhaust runner under the valve were there is a "cave" for some reason.
I shall give him another set that he can go "all out" on
What is the biggest valves you can run in a 390 bore before It starts to shroud them
or hit something?
-
My own, off-the-cuff answer is that you are safe enough with 2.100 with most available head castings so long as you also stay with a 1.65 exhaust valve.
KS
-
On a street engine you don't want to get too hung up on flow numbers. For a street driven carburerated engine or a mild small cubic engine you want fuel atomization and velocity. Keeping fuel suspended from idle to 3000 rpm is what gives your vehicle street manners. Take a look at the designs of the fuel injected intakes vs a carbutated intake. A fuel injector will spray a mist close to the head, given that you can see how Ford can get away with making a dedicated fuel injection head. The same large port head used on the street and a high flowing performance head.
That's certainly a true statement, but at some point you need to fill the cylinder. Remember, at a give a/f ratio, part of that equation is air. Of course, nobody wan't to see a tunnel port 352 on the street trying to idle around, but a good fast head, prepared for the demands of the build, makes a LOT more power than a stock head with it's sharp turns and places for fuel to come out of suspension at port transition, guide bossess, slag, etc. On an FE in particular, I'd rather see a guy "over" head and run the proper intake, than the other way around, which is generally more common
-
A small, happy head with a properly sized manifold will ALWAYS perform better than an oversized head and/or manifold, regardless of flow bench numbers. The 400 inch and smaller crowd NEEDS a small high velocity head with good flow, and the stroker crowd would find the results interesting even on the bigger engines in street apps.
-
A small, happy head with a properly sized manifold will ALWAYS perform better than an oversized head and/or manifold, regardless of flow bench numbers. The 400 inch and smaller crowd NEEDS a small high velocity head with good flow, and the stroker crowd would find the results interesting even on the bigger engines in street apps.
Ain't gonna happen, Blair. I tried to make a case for a small chamber (like the '60) version of the new stuff coming out a few years ago, just for smaller FE's. Much like my pitch for a run of high-deck pistons and long rods, I was kicked in the balls and left to fight demons on the parapet. But that's another story.
-
Ahh but it IS going to happen. I have the ports to do it now, but to cast it, rather than mill the Pro Ports, is a short time away. The 4.6,5.4, 6.8 two-valve mod heads flow about 250 at .500 lift. To make street power like a V10 with a small FE, we need 1.25 times the flow of one port in a 10 cyl, to move the same air at the same cubes, so 312 cfm give or take. It's a pet project for me.....I just have to work it in.
-
Ahh but it IS going to happen. I have the ports to do it now, but to cast it, rather than mill the Pro Ports, is a short time away. The 4.6,5.4, 6.8 two-valve mod heads flow about 250 at .500 lift. To make street power like a V10 with a small FE, we need 1.25 times the flow of one port in a 10 cyl, to move the same air at the same cubes, so 312 cfm give or take. It's a pet project for me.....I just have to work it in.
Nah, they'll all just beat you up, tell you to buy a stroker kit, and send you emails about the stupidity of running a 6-liter FE. And there will still be the issue of pistons and rods. By the time you buy new heads AND custom pistons AND custom rods... cha ching, build a 445.
If you do that head anyway, though, test it on pump gas with Singh grooves, and make that an option. If you are going to get lynched at high noon, you might as well be a pioneer.
-
Robbed this post from another site. The engine is basically built from what the internet calls junk. Although a decent cast piston would improve petformance, mileage and power in the 352's current form there is no mention of crafty machine work or expensive forged pistons.
This 352 is a stock OEM piston and OEM 4v camshaft 66 Galaxie engine. D2TE-A heads, Edelbrock SP2P-390 intake and a Quadra Jet. Cam is advanced 4° and the carburetor could use some tweaking. The factory deck and .038" head gaskets give it .091" quench. With machine work, dished zero deck pistons it would be a responsive engine. As of now it gets 13.3 running 80 empty. It was able to pull this load up I-35 between 60-68 mph. The wind would start swaying the motor home at 70. Staying out of the secondaries it got 6.3 mpg.
(http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff469/white65ford/65%20Fleet%20Bed/20161023_183715.jpg) (http://s1237.photobucket.com/user/white65ford/media/65%20Fleet%20Bed/20161023_183715.jpg.html)
-
A quadrajet! Someone go beat that guy up too! ::) Small primaries and chunnel sized secondaries?! Blasphemy! ;D ;D ;)
-
A quadrajet! Someone go beat that guy up too! ::) Small primaries and chunnel sized secondaries?! Blasphemy! ;D ;D ;)
I live in Waco TX. I am 41 with crushed nerves in the lower 3 disc. Bring couple of MIA fighters, should be about even.
-
A quadrajet! Someone go beat that guy up too! ::) Small primaries and chunnel sized secondaries?! Blasphemy! ;D ;D ;)
I live in Waco TX. I am 41 with crushed nerves in the lower 3 disc. Bring couple of MIA fighters, should be about even.
In reality it is only L5S1 the two up top are mere encroachments and you'll need to come on a rare day I feel like it. Another reality is two hills slowed me to 50 mph. Would have been ok on a third but a 50 mph drunk got in front of me. With no distance to get back up to speed everybody but a box truck passed as I topped the hill at 42.
-
That's pretty good performance from (junk). That trailer has to weigh close to 5000 and the motor home has to no close to 8000. What transmission and rear end gears are in the truck. Also wondering if the sp2 intake is holding power back a bit?
-
NP435 and Dana 60 4.10:1 open diff. For my use the intake is perfect. Although the engine is bacily done at 4900 rpms. My engine speed is 3000 at 70 mph where most dynos start. A tow trucks torque towing power is more important than a street/strip car/truck horse power.
-
A quadrajet! Someone go beat that guy up too! ::) Small primaries and chunnel sized secondaries?! Blasphemy! ;D ;D ;)
I live in Waco TX. I am 41 with crushed nerves in the lower 3 disc. Bring couple of MIA fighters, should be about even.
I'll bring my grandma, she's mean and loves quadrajets too. Joking aside, I love quadrajets. I'm not surprised you're approaching mid-teens for mileage with one. I've seen close to 20mpg on a worn out 390 with one.
-
My thoughts on the low - mid torque also are in the design of the Holley carb to QJ intake adapter. I modified it to flip the other way so I could have a dual plane adapter. Look at how part throttle flows in a line to the center of the intake.
(http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff469/white65ford/Carburetor%20Adapter/KIMG1220.jpg) (http://s1237.photobucket.com/user/white65ford/media/Carburetor%20Adapter/KIMG1220.jpg.html)
(http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff469/white65ford/Carburetor%20Adapter/KIMG1216.jpg) (http://s1237.photobucket.com/user/white65ford/media/Carburetor%20Adapter/KIMG1216.jpg.html)
-
A quadrajet! Someone go beat that guy up too! ::) Small primaries and chunnel sized secondaries?! Blasphemy! ;D ;D ;)
I live in Waco TX. I am 41 with crushed nerves in the lower 3 disc. Bring couple of MIA fighters, should be about even.
I'll bring my grandma, she's mean and loves quadrajets too. Joking aside, I love quadrajets. I'm not surprised you're approaching mid-teens for mileage with one. I've seen close to 20mpg on a worn out 390 with one.
We had similar experiences. My grandmas love was hard but genuine. If I had parents and grandparents that handed me things and looked the other way when I was wrong I probably would be confined to a cell or casket. I am glad they were tougher than I was.
NO DOUBT! If this intake and carb were set up on the 68-70 Galaxie 2v 390 power, torque and mileage would all be up.
-
My thoughts on the low - mid torque also are in the design of the Holley carb to QJ intake adapter. I modified it to flip the other way so I could have a dual plane adapter. Look at how part throttle flows in a line to the center of the intake.
Love the tough truck pic, but it seems to me that the secondaries are restricted with that spacer flipped over. Is there really much advantage over an Autolite 4V in this situation?
-
My thoughts on the low - mid torque also are in the design of the Holley carb to QJ intake adapter. I modified it to flip the other way so I could have a dual plane adapter. Look at how part throttle flows in a line to the center of the intake.
Love the tough truck pic, but it seems to me that the secondaries are restricted with that spacer flipped over. Is there really much advantage over an Autolite 4V in this situation?
Not sure. My 1.12 ran too lean on the right side and I have not put a kit in it yet. Maybe someone can print out the venture differences between the 66 Autolite 1.12 and the 76 Oldsmobile Quadra Jet pictured. I am running the 68 QJ.
(http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff469/white65ford/Carburetors/20161026_113301.jpg) (http://s1237.photobucket.com/user/white65ford/media/Carburetors/20161026_113301.jpg.html)
-
AHH! Secondaries. Yes they are restricted. Latter on I am going to buy a couple more of these spacers and blend in the secondaries to match the carburetors.
(http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff469/white65ford/Carburetor%20Adapter/KIMG0161_1.jpg) (http://s1237.photobucket.com/user/white65ford/media/Carburetor%20Adapter/KIMG0161_1.jpg.html)
-
Not sure. My 1.12 ran too lean on the right side and I have not put a kit in it yet. Maybe someone can print out the venture differences between the 66 Autolite 1.12 and the 76 Oldsmobile Quadra Jet pictured. I am running the 68 QJ.
Not an expert, but thinking about it, if it were mine, I'd try a single 1" open spacer between the manifold and the QJ. Allows for a little plenum above the four holes to equalize the flow from the carb without restricting the secondaries. ?
-
I hogged my 4-hole into a 2-hole. The casting on this one wasn't quite up to snuff and the secondaries wouldn't actually open all the way before I modified it. Still a restriction on the secondary side width-wise, but you can only go so far there due to the square bore intake underneath being narrower. http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=384.msg2976#msg2976
-
That lowest spacer cost me a couple hundred rpm off idle grunt. The air cleaner spacer giving the carb a straighter shot helped also.
(http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff469/white65ford/Carburetors/20161026_115422.jpg) (http://s1237.photobucket.com/user/white65ford/media/Carburetors/20161026_115422.jpg.html)
-
the trouble with Q-jets is on heavy vehicles , primary aren't big enough to feed a heavy load cruising and the big secondary is like a "trip hammer" trying control it is much harder than a square bore carb .... a light vehicle that can cruise on the primary they work better ..... another bad thing on Q-jets are that they only have one needle and seat assembly that has to feed 8 cylinders along with a small fuel bowl and a tiny float that has trouble controlling it
-
the trouble with Q-jets is on heavy vehicles , primary aren't big enough to feed a heavy load cruising and the big secondary is like a "trip hammer" trying control it is much harder than a square bore carb .... a light vehicle that can cruise on the primary they work better ..... another bad thing on Q-jets are that they only have one needle and seat assembly that has to feed 8 cylinders along with a small fuel bowl and a tiny float that has trouble controlling it
Common complaints against this carb. Once you've set them up correctly, they are great. I have the APT set on mine so at cruise down the highway, the primary is feeding my 428 just fine while the secondaries are closed getting decent mileage. If I need to pass or climb a steep hill, the secondaries are cracked open and off we go. I did have a fuel issue with mine, but it turned out to be the line size from the tank to the pump to the carb. Once all that was addressed, it will run full bore til I float the valves with no fuel starvation using a carter mechanical pump. I do have a windowed seat assembly in mine, but still using the stock plastic reservoir and told I can take that out if I need more volume should that arise. The only thing I do not like is that you've got start doing modifications like drilling emulsion passages if you're going to run these on a motor that has low vacuum. That I don't like at all. But up til that point, they are a fine carb. Second to fuel injection, it would be choice on a tow rig.
-
I plan on getting a tuning kit from Daytona Carbs. Does there needle design correct the fuel supply issue?
On that 42 mph hill in Salado's I-35 road construction I did have to back the secondaries off to 1/2 throttle due to predetonation.
-
Not sure. My 1.12 ran too lean on the right side and I have not put a kit in it yet. Maybe someone can print out the venture differences between the 66 Autolite 1.12 and the 76 Oldsmobile Quadra Jet pictured. I am running the 68 QJ.
Not an expert, but thinking about it, if it were mine, I'd try a single 1" open spacer between the manifold and the QJ. Allows for a little plenum above the four holes to equalize the flow from the carb without restricting the secondaries. ?
When I ran a Quadra Jet and a spread bore Motorcraft in my F-100 I used a Mr Gasket open adapter. You could hear and feel the secondaries open like they should. The spacer mods I want to test are opening up the secondaries similar to the Holley 3 barrel design, another would be blending them forward which would take advantage of Edelbrock's intake design.
I am no expert either. Just a broke guy trying to get the best out of a pile of old parts.
-
"another bad thing on Q-jets are that they only have one needle and seat assembly that has to feed 8 cylinders along with a small fuel bowl and a tiny float that has trouble controlling it. "
Yes, exactly. I do remember that Stock class Chevy NHRA racers who were required to run a Q-Jets had fits not at launch but down track when the engine was starved for fuel near the finish line. Don't remember exactly how they overcame the fast emptying fuel bowl but it likely had to do with a massive increase in pressure.
-
To take this one step further, just use a Thermoquad. All the advantages of the QJ without the problems. Mopar guys have been very successful with them in stock classes. Used on 318 through 440 engines from the early '70s to the mid to late '80s. Pretty simple once you learn what not to do.
-
I must disagree on the tow rig Quadrabog idea, I think unless you are talking a CobraJet Mustang towing a Jet Ski the thing will be running with the secondaries open getting the 4 mpg that Chevy trucks get.
I think a better idea is a 4180 carb like used on 302's and 351's in the mid 80's. Annular discharge primaries. I am going to stick one on my stupid wagon's stupid 332. It gets excellent mileage already (over 20) but has dismal power. I did try a top speed run with the car but ran out of clear highway before 90mph and that took forever. The stock Holley 2V carb is tiny, like the primaries of one of those 390cfm 4 barrels.
-
Blair! Hurry and get that thing on the pump and get us some data before this becomes a Holley/Autolite/QuadraCrap holy war!
-
And most of the early blocks will only bore 4.080" safely. A decent 4" + bore cast piston will make a less expensive use of parts already there.
I was partly guilty of making my post wonder off topic. My point was all you need is a set of decent cast pistons to make a small cube FE run and perform fine on the street. Using stock rods and stroke will be more than adequate to drive the Interstate, town or pulling a trailer. From what I have seen a builder or salesman will try to steer you into spending money that you may not need to spend. It is probably from lack of personal expexperience instead of any sinister intent to rob the customer.
-
My test may not cure the carb debate. Mine is a 70mm EFI throttle body on a Streetmaster with injector bungs angled in right at the valve cover rail. I'm not a guy who will try to sell anybody anything if I don't know it will work, from experience. I hold the opinion that that a tightly clearanced, coated, hypereutectic piston is probably the best choice for an endurance tow rig. JMO.
-
I hold the opinion that that a tightly clearanced, coated, hypereutectic piston is probably the best choice for an endurance tow rig. JMO.
That is the type of response needed. An inexpensive piston to use with what you have. Adding an extra $200 for off set crank grinding then buying rods or an extra $350 for custom pistons defeats the economy build idea. I would like to see a 1.86-1.875 piston produced for the same cost as the low compression 1.816".
$50 crank polish or $175 turn, $150 pistons and $175 bore will get the foundation for a basic build done. Then look at rod prep, decking, line hone ect.
-
I'll go for the $175 bore, but then you gotta hone it. A correct hone job is $350 minimum. The cylinder hone job is HUGE, even if you use cheaper parts. I used the Mod rods and dime-a-dozen crank so I could get a zero deck using 390 pistons without cutting the deck to death. If you had to buy a 390 crank, turn it, and resize the rods, a zero value core with an offset and 400 rods ain't much different. I believe in being cost effective, but some major items have to be good for a real good piece.
-
The cylinder hone job is HUGE, even if you use cheaper parts.
Very curious about this, I know that a "propper" cylinder hone is crutial, but I have a feeling that that the gurus are doing something different than the standard "plateau" finish that most machine shops use.
Not expecting anyone to give up trade secrets here, but if there is substantial HP to be had by a specialized home job, I may very well bite the bullet and ship the block off to get it machined, rather than taking it to my local guy who will just throw a run of the mill power home on it.
-
First thing is: use a honing plate. Most shops have never seen one for an FE. Next, know what to torque it at, then take the CARE to get it straight and round........VERY straight and VERY round. Then you gotta put the proper crosshatch in it, both for the "underneath" and the plateau. Depending on the use, I use different profiles on the finish. Some stuff needs to seal instantly and run fast for the short term. Some stuff needs to seal before burnish and run forever. The method is different. That is as specific as I will get here, but if you never believe anything else I ever post here, believe that a hone job can make or break a successful build. Not just power wise, which is real, but in terms of the long haul. Ring seal, ring life, and piston life are all affected by the cylinder prep and finish.
-
The $175 included hone. A smaller shop with less overhead can get away with that. $350 seems about right when I lived in DFW, at that time customers or my stuff didn't get the attention or knowlage your shop would probably provide.
-
Hmmmm. You should poke a bore gauge in one and see what you have sometime. Sometimes stuff will get by, but it can be much better. Some machine shops really get it......some never do.........
-
I just would add to what Blair has stated here. If you ever get the chance to look at a cylinder wall freshly honed under a scanning microscope as I have, you would not believe the difference in a honed cylinder and a correctly honed cylinder. It is night and day and easy to see why. Also you are able to understand why piston ring manufacturers specify that one follows their directions for correct honing.
-
I trust the man doing my next cut work. If he does says something I think is wrong I will more than likely try it at least once.
-
Bore gauge will tell you something - but nowhere near everything. An incometer will tell you a great deal more about bore geometry - and will show you a lot about the limitations of even a very good bore dial tool. A profilometer will tell you a good deal about bore finish, an acetate "print" from the bore and a microscope will tell you even more in three dimensions. You can spend your career studying cylinder wall characteristics - and some folks have done just that at the OEM and supplier levels. At the machine shop level the best we can generally afford are the bore gauge and profilometer. In a past career I got to see the better equipment in service and it was eye opening to say the least.
Bore geometry and surface finish are two different inter-related things. With common hone processes and equipment (like the fairly new Sunnen SV10 I own) you are faced with two options. You can run vitreous stones which break down and give a nice bore finish - and you "chase" the geometry. Or you can run diamond stones which give a nicer geometry and "chase" the bore finish. They use different coolant in the machine, so its difficult to swap from one to the other unless you own multiple hone machines. I chose to run the diamonds since FE engines are very thin walls and consistent geometry is harder to achieve. We use a multi-step hone process to get to the desired finish. All of our engines get two torque plates installed before honing.
-
Real world translation=get it VERY straight and VERY round (bore geometry), and get a proper finish for the task (diamonds, traditional , whatever gets you the right finish for the intended use). I would like to have two hones.....one diamond, and one old school.....but I can't justify both sitting here most of the time. If a person takes the time, and the right method, you can get there without a diamond head. I choose the old stones, and extra time. The diamonds get the hole straight quicker, but then you have to do a lot of honing to justify the cost. I don't like the finishes with the diamonds as well, JMO, so I do it how I do it, and it works. My stuff is not fancy. I rely heavily on method. I use the A/Stock crowd as a meter. We seem to get our stuff as good or better than the other guys who run A/SA, and money or machine is no object to some of those guys.
-
If using a 390 crank with rod journals turned to 2.310 and offset ground the same amount as the 352 crank
It would increase the 390 crank .125 making it a 3.905 stroke ... correct ??
Resulting in 1.6375 comp. height if the deck is 10.17 .... ??
Ricky.
-
The problem there, Ricky, is that would put you in the custom piston department. The turn-on for me in using the 352/360 crank is that you can machine the crank to enable use of shelf 390 pistons. On another note, I changed my induction plan....I'm going to use a Jay B adapter and 351C EFI upper and lower set-up from Trick Flow. At 380 inches, I'm going to use the 75mm (1500-5500) upper. I'm aiming for a usable truck combo, and I think that is the best way to get a broad, flat band out of it.
-
Thanks Blair :)
Ricky.
-
On another note, I changed my induction plan....I'm going to use a Jay B adapter and 351C EFI upper and lower set-up from Trick Flow. At 380 inches, I'm going to use the 75mm (1500-5500) upper. I'm aiming for a usable truck combo, and I think that is the best way to get a broad, flat band out of it.
Well, This is getting more exciting ( for me anyway ), this is exactly the intake set-up I am planning for my large truck motor.
-
Are you still having pistons made for the thin core 58-64 blocks? Usually only .020 to .030 more safe bore left after a 4.050 bore.
-
We've got 4.035 bore stroker kits on the shelf. I am still pondering 352 pistons, but I am liking the 400 rod deal also, which can use standard bore 390 shelf pistons as a +.050 for a 4" block. Still have not ruled out 352 stock replacements, but really looking at the demand.....