FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: JohnN-1BADFE on December 13, 2016, 08:04:43 PM
-
Brother is building a 462 and engine builder wants to go with KC Stage III heads and I think that is too much and Stage II would work better.
Looking for input from much more knowledgeable FE folks here. Looking for 550-600 HP. (As always, more is better) ;)
Here are some details, not a lot but...
1966 Fairlane
462 FE
C-6 automatic
Power steering / manual brakes
Currently has a 3.89 gear
11:1 - 11:5 compression
Performer RPM intake
Custom Bullet Hydraulic Roller just under .650 lift and intake duration between 250-260 @ .050
T&D rockers
850 Holley
CVR water pump / electric fan
-
At that power level and cubic inch, stay with the Stage II heads. The ones I have flowed are in the 330+cfm range, and for the price the additional flow with Stage III heads would only help with a camshaft over .700" lift. Also, the larger ports would more than likely be down on torque for any street duty. JMO, but you asked. Joe-JDC
-
I'll back Joe on that.....Stage 2's would be the way to go for a 460 inch street engine.
I would also advise that you either change the camshaft or you will have to do some specialized work on the valvetrain to be able to take advantage of it. FE's with hydraulic rollers aren't in favor of higher revs and a 250-260° @ .050" camshaft with 462 cubes will not even start to come on hard until the valves are getting ready to float.
You will need to manipulate the lifter travel and you will also need to keep everything as light as you can, including the valves/springs/retainers/etc.
That's my only gripe with contacting a cam company directly and not speaking with someone who builds FE's. I would venture to say that there's not one guy at Bullet who has worked on an FE before and they're just not familiar with how the hydraulic rollers function with FE valvetrain.
-
Thanks for the input guys
What if we go with a solid roller ?
-
It just depends on the goals and the rpm range that you want to be in. Nothing wrong with a hydraulic roller, but for you to take advantage of the one you have, you will need to take that into consideration and implement it into the build.
Solid rollers will let you rpm easier, but they also come with the risks of using a solid roller lifter. Since the lifters are under increased spring pressure and lash, they take quite a beating and just don't have the longevity of a hydraulic lifter. Now, with that being said, lots of guys are out there running solid rollers, so don't let it spook you, but you just have to know the pros/cons of each setup.
-
Brent/Joe, how much different is the volume with a set of Stage 2 vs Stage 3? Seems like when you add the volume of the intake, the percentage would be small. I run a set of KC's Stage 2s that were worked over afterwards, but haven't had a set of KC's Stage 3s in my hand
-
Thanks for the input guys
What if we go with a solid roller ?
Well I've been driving around for little while with the solid roller.
Mix of street/strip.
Seems rock solid for me, so far. ;)
It is the 288r and use about 620lbs on the springs and reinforced the 4 stud bosses. Gap at 18 Hot.
I've done a few road trips, one over 600 miles.
Probably around 1500 miles and about 35 passes over the last two seasons.
Looks ok so far.
-
Howie, if you have good lifters, you'll be able to stretch that out quite a bit. If they're not pressure fed, I would plan for an inspection in the near future.
Ross, I've used one set of the KC Stage 3's. I didn't pour them, but they were noticeably bigger. Flowed around 370. Maybe Joe has poured a port.
-
FWIW, the Stage 3 head has a 215cc port volume......
-
On my Survival heads that I hand ported, they flowed 352 cfm @ 196cc. The Stage II heads from KC flow 338 cfm @ a listed 195 ccs. I have not poured a set of the Stage III heads but the ports are considerably larger, very similar to the BT MR port size which flows 360 cfm. Joe-JDC
-
All of those heads are way wrong for the use. A streetable hydraulic roller/stroker combo with pump gas compression is not going to want to turn more than 62-6500, and will spend it's life mostly at or below 3000 rpm. A 300-315 cfm @ .600 lift head with around a 170 volume will drive away from all that cavernous cnc stuff from 2000-6000 rpm, especially at 5000+ elevation where the car will be used. My advice would be to go smaller, not bigger ports, use the right valve job, and not get caught up in BIG internet flow numbers at the expense of missing the right combo for the job. Great big ports need huge engines, huge cams, and high rpm to work. I just finished a set of BTs that went 335 @ .700 and are just under 170 cc.......and they are going on a 511 cube, drag only engine. The FE port is very short, and cc values are misleading as compared to other stuff.
Torque is king, and toilet bowl-sized ports that "flow" a big number mean nothing in my shop. One might be surprised just how small a port can be as long as it flows well and has high airspeed. A good street head should never be over 170 cc to do the best, and if you put the small heads in the right environment, they will run and make power anyway. I consider 195 cc a HUGE port for an FE. Ports that big should approach 400 cfm, and be on "max effort" mills. Everything I said here is just my opinion based on many FE builds, of many types, over many years.
I flowed a pair of grand canyon heads for a good customer once......380 cfm, 210 cc runners. Flowed good all the way. 820 hp, 600-ish torque. The next year, I replaced those heads with some of mine, 183 cc, flowed 10 less on my bench. Made 75 more hp and about 180 ft-lbs of torque. Same cam, same dyno. Bigger ain't better.
Okay, rant over....sorry, lol.
-
Thanks Blair , the rant made the day .. IM happy with my BBM s that flow 300 @.600 lift with 2.15 intake , 1.68 exhaust and all seems to work well together at 434 inches .. happy friday
-
But that's a 180cc head with 434 inches :)
I agree with what Blair is saying, but finding a 170 cc head that flows 300 means you build a head.
I never measured the volume of my D2s, but they flow 277 cfm and a stock D2 is likely sub 150 ccs to start, maybe 165 now? and that 445 seems to be punching way above it's weight. I suppose with 11/32 valves we could have got a bit more out of them too.
However a 20cc change in intake port volume is likely at most close to 5% volume of the whole runner on an FE single 4 barrel, so it still seems odd to me that if you don't go too big of a CSA on the intake manifold runner, that it could kill the port with so little length before the short turn.
Can't argue with results, but surprises me just the same
-
All of those heads are way wrong for the use. A streetable hydraulic roller/stroker combo with pump gas compression is not going to want to turn more than 62-6500, and will spend it's life mostly at or below 3000 rpm. A 300-315 cfm @ .600 lift head with around a 170 volume will drive away from all that cavernous cnc stuff from 2000-6000 rpm, especially at 5000+ elevation where the car will be used. My advice would be to go smaller, not bigger ports, use the right valve job, and not get caught up in BIG internet flow numbers at the expense of missing the right combo for the job. Great big ports need huge engines, huge cams, and high rpm to work. I just finished a set of BTs that went 335 @ .700 and are just under 170 cc.......and they are going on a 511 cube, drag only engine. The FE port is very short, and cc values are misleading as compared to other stuff.
Torque is king, and toilet bowl-sized ports that "flow" a big number mean nothing in my shop. One might be surprised just how small a port can be as long as it flows well and has high airspeed. A good street head should never be over 170 cc to do the best, and if you put the small heads in the right environment, they will run and make power anyway. I consider 195 cc a HUGE port for an FE. Ports that big should approach 400 cfm, and be on "max effort" mills. Everything I said here is just my opinion based on many FE builds, of many types, over many years.
I flowed a pair of grand canyon heads for a good customer once......380 cfm, 210 cc runners. Flowed good all the way. 820 hp, 600-ish torque. The next year, I replaced those heads with some of mine, 183 cc, flowed 10 less on my bench. Made 75 more hp and about 180 ft-lbs of torque. Same cam, same dyno. Bigger ain't better.
Okay, rant over....sorry, lol.
I am in total agreement. (Blair, rant on, please!) I place a lot more faith in my pitot tubes than I do in raw cfm. Pitot tubes and port shaping/sizing. I like to check air-speeds at various locations in the port to evaluate it's effectiveness. The port integrity is also "put to the test" with higher flow depressions to see if the SSR is too abrupt.
Airspeed management and air quality through the port is crutial to an efficient energy transfer. I feel very strongly that with the shallow valve angle and low port entry that most of us have to contend with is that it is imperative that we raise the port and further shrink it down to deliver to the intake system the airspeed and airflow needed to develop maximum efficiency within the engine's operating range. The system-demand port airspeed for the application will demand a much smaller port than the internet will say you need. When cfm becomes the primary focus the ports become larger.
Another often overlooked area is the combustion chamber. It's effectiveness is difficult to determine without a more in-depth analysis. There are a few methods available to flowbench operators and port developers to be able to evaluate the port , valve seat and chamber communication. Measuring perimeter air speeds from the valve side is just one.
Now, charging for that extra time and effort is another animal...... >:(
-
Thanks Ross , i guess i just agree that bigger is nt always better . and i also live 5500 ft above sea level
-
No worries, I was just teasing, hard to beat the BBM combo for value nowadays.
In the end which head is the guy who posted supposed to buy? BBMs seem to be the only option for a hot street/strip machine based on the conversation, at least until the Trick Flows come out and we see what they do.
As I said, I have KC's Stage 2 heads, but not defending them because:
1- We ended up putting more work into them because in 2006 I was less than impressed with the valve job and resulting airflow. Understand size does matter, but airflow does too, otherwise we'd be running SP2Ps.
2- I think there are better pieces out there now for the price. BTW, I look at these parts as "converting money into fun" it isn't an investment, you always lose in the end. The goal is to find the balance of spending and how much fun.
3 - At least my set, bough complete, had no parts inside that I considered worth the additional cost. Springs, valves, and setup (in late 2006 min you) were sloppy, even after returned once, and aside from the valves, I still had to swap springs and had a nicer valve job done. The shop has changed hands, Keith did work with me back then, so no personal issues with him, and it has been 10 years, so take that with a grain of salt.
However, they really run well on mine now, but with such a time difference and the work we did, not sure if it applies. I do have 20 more cubes, less cam (high 240s, .600 lift), and it is SEFI now with a Victor and 4.11s, but it did run for years with a ported RPM and a 1000 cfm Holley with 3.70s. Regardless, I can't imagine, even with postage twice and the money i put in them at the time, that anything in the same price range at the time would have made more power, and stock castings didn't flow that well and often had valve job issues early on
That being said it seems to me, looking at this build, I'd be looking at performance per dollar. With that, I think a set of stock Edelbrocks with a touch up would be a bit short for his HP goals. I'd go with a BBM as a minimum, especially with the valve job and prep Brent offers, and easy decision to a FElony head, and my hunch is power would rise in that order, although honestly I have never had a FElony head in my hands, Barry does have some very similar builds over there to show that that combo will hit his horsepower number. FWIW, Brent did prep a nice set of beehive BBMs for a similar build I'll do for a buddy of mine if he stops moving and building houses LOL and our target is right around the same as yours.
I also would try the Trick Flow head in a heartbeat if it hits the street in time, especially if it is primarily street use, and depending where the price falls. Again though, I think the Stage 2 KC would run real well and would be amazed if it lost any power, lost money maybe....I also would buy 10 sets of FElony's before one KC head just because of prior experience, but, one PIA sample doesn't make the business bad, I just trust others more to deliver what they advertise.
One last comment, a little careful rubbing on the stock RPM intake, a good ignition curve (especially if street/strip) as well as focusing on suspension on that car will make it run real strong. Hard to go wrong with the combo he picked
-
I think cost is a factor for the OP's brother. My Street Pro Port is right at 170 cc, and flows more air everywhere than the BBM or Felony with no porting to either, which just makes them bigger still. The Felony head on my bench, with the as-shipped prep, flows 264 at .500. The BBM with the prep I send them out with, unported, flows 290 at .500. I think they are about the same price, and the BBM port is definitely smaller. The BP Street Pro Port is smaller than both, flows a touch over 300 at .500, but does cost a little more than those as-cast units. The beauty of the Pro Port casting is we can design a port to flow without just hogging out a casting that is on the edge.
My order of progression, in terms of value per effectiveness, for street builds, would be 60057 Ed's with my prep, then BBMs, then Street Pro Ports. On .600 lift or less street builds, the 60057 with a little work flows more here than a Felony head, and is 165-ish cc when I'm done, although I need to put my prep on a Felony unit and test it to be fair. It is still bigger and more money. The next step up for me is BBMs, then BBMs with a $400 hand upgrade, and then the Street Pro Ports. It is hard to beat the 60057s for a super budget deal, and hard to beat the BBM in the $2500-3K budget range. I don't see a $2500 head from anyone that bolts on as good as the BBMs, the way we send them out. I am heavily involved with them at this point, but facts are facts, and I call them like I see them, whether it is a feather in my cap or not. If someone rolled in here with something better, I would say so.
-
I actively try not to get into arguments on the forums. . Way too busy trying to get work done to invest effort and energy into pointless arguments with others where we have no way to defend our positions. I will just say that my local flow bench and graduated cylinder do not agree with Blair's.
I have enough data on my heads to be pretty comfortable with the published numbers.
-
I new you were teasing Ross , keep us in the loop on that build for sure .. Bud
-
I'm not knocking anyone's effort. I am just commenting on what I see here on my flow bench, when comparing various heads and prep. My "graduated cylinder" is surely accurate, medical grade glass, and has measured many a chamber and runner that have passed NHRA inspection. Testing different heads on the same flow machine under the same conditions is a pretty fair comparison, and I will not alter the numbers, even if my junk doesn't flow......I just go in the other room and work some more to make it flow. No argument or gouge intended, just taking part in a discussion and sharing data. Not trying to hurt anyone's feelings. I know the OP pretty well, and just trying to give him and others interested my opinion based on my finding. As long as this particular flow bench I have survives, I am pretty sure no one will ever flow a head on a Superflow someplace and see smaller values. The comparison is what I am talking about....not just a number.
-
Well here is the chosen & finished product
462 Stroker FE
Scat Forged rotating assembly
11:1 comp
Crane Cam custom grind
Craft Stage II heads
T&D Rockers
Jay Brown FE Intake Adapter
Edelbrock Air Gap Intake ( Ported)
Holley 850 Carb
Jay Brown water pump adapter
CVR Electric Water Pump
MSD Billet Dist
Motor built by Dennys Racing Engines
Ready for dyno !!
-
Engine looks great, Chris. Let us know how it does on the pump - Jay
-
Thanks Jay!
Will do
-
Well i have to chime in here..I run a 477 in fe street deal..I had a set of well preped edelbrocks. On the bench 290s at 600. Engine came off dyno at 582 at 6000. Your run of the mill hot sreet deal. I had B/P build me a set of his PRO PORTS . The car on my butt dyno is about a 75 or more hit on H/P.It pulls harder everywhere.... Fron idle to 7000 rpm it just keeps pulling..Big time difference..By the way it got a soild flat tappet deal ...Jones cam..600-240-248..The edelbrocks were a set of barrys
-
If the KC II heads are still in the $2500.00 price range, they are by far the best bang for the buck in flow. I have had several sets through my shop, and after the first few, they have been very good in flow. I have no reason to give out numbers, but when they hit 338 cfm at .750" lift, that is decent for the price and with a 2.190" intake valve, .700" lift springs, etc.. I don't thing flowing them to .900" is productive for bragging rights. Just my opinion. He asked, I answered. Joe-JDC
-
If the KC II heads are still in the $2500.00 price range, they are by far the best bang for the buck in flow. I have had several sets through my shop, and after the first few, they have been very good in flow. I have no reason to give out numbers, but when they hit 338 cfm at .750" lift, that is decent for the price and with a 2.190" intake valve, .700" lift springs, etc.. I don't thing flowing them to .900" is productive for bragging rights. Just my opinion. He asked, I answered. Joe-JDC
They are. I just bought a set. $2500
-
But that's a 180cc head with 434 inches :)
I agree with what Blair is saying, but finding a 170 cc head that flows 300 means you build a head.
I never measured the volume of my D2s, but they flow 277 cfm and a stock D2 is likely sub 150 ccs to start, maybe 165 now? and that 445 seems to be punching way above it's weight. I suppose with 11/32 valves we could have got a bit more out of them too.
However a 20cc change in intake port volume is likely at most close to 5% volume of the whole runner on an FE single 4 barrel, so it still seems odd to me that if you don't go too big of a CSA on the intake manifold runner, that it could kill the port with so little length before the short turn.
Can't argue with results, but surprises me just the same
Ross this post about heads and associated port volumes, sparked enough curiosity for me to get out in the shop and pour a few heads I ported and a ported edelbrock head from my buddy's car... just to compare port volumes and flow numbers..
my ported C8-H's with factory 2.03/1.56 valves flowed a average (8 ports) of 255@0.500, 259@0.600 I only poured one intake port it was 138cc's and I'd be afraid to grind anymore anywhere on them. Exhaust was 167@0.500 and 175@0.600
my ported C1-A's with 2.09/1.65 3/8 stem valves flowed average of 271@0.500, 283@0.600 again poured one intake port and it was 157cc's again I'd be afraid to grind anymore anywhere on them... exhaust was 188@0.500 and 194@0.600
The ported edelbrock head I poured was 177cc's and flowed 263.5@0.500 and 280@0.600 with the factory supplied edelbrock valves
The heads were tested on superflow sf600 bench with a 4.310 bore sleeve, 1/2 radius flow guide on the intake sized to the victor reinz medium riser gasket, also didn't use a pipe on the exhaust.
Anyway I thought I'd add a few more data points. I don't think you can port a H head to 165cc without hitting water. I think you would be hard pressed to even port a early head to that big of volume without hitting water. When you start comparing volumes versus flow the iron FE head don't look too bad..
-
The 150/165 was a guess for mine for discussion sake, I know that we ended up with 1247-sized port entry and a nice steady taper to a clean throat for the 2.09/1.67s. So it's opened up pretty well, but good to hear you have real numbers. They check with the very few port volume numbers posted here
http://users.erols.com/srweiss/tablehdc.htm#Ford_Big_Block
My point was not that mine were a specific volume though, my point is that an FE is a bit of a different animal IMHO from anything short of an Olds V-8 or something like that with very long intake manifold runners. Especially with a dual plane intake, the percentage of port volume in the head vs head and intake port total volume, is smaller than something like a SBF, SBC, or most other engines. (Although I only used my calibrated eyeball for that assumption)
That's why I believe that in most street motor cases, there will be less of an affect on torque with "too much" head port volume, than with other engines. In essence, a fast intake manifold port will still have momentum as it enters the head because of it's volume and length. The question is, will that additional 10-20 ccs in the head cause turbulence at the turn or would a smaller port cause it? I suppose the answer depends on how good the small port is and how bad the big port is.
I also believe that volume is one thing, but runner length also contributes to the curve, and if you look at some resonance math from the old Ramchargers, etc, most intake manifold runners are too short for intended use. That's why all of the modern cars have the long shaped runners (much easier to do when you don't have to carry fuel through it)
However, on the other side of the fence. Also, I have to say, my 445 seems to make a lot more power everywhere than I expected it to, so if a small port flowing 280-ish is more effective than a bigger port doing the same, I'd believe it. :)