FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => Non-FE Discussion Forum => Topic started by: cjetmech on July 22, 2017, 08:43:08 AM
-
I was just over at the "other forum" reading about a certain engine build and was blown away by the comments. I just wanted to say thanks for making this forum, it's by far the best for FE info. No bickering, attacking other members/vendors, or personal bs being aired. I don't participate here because I m not racing my car anymore and it's mothballed. But I like to browse and keep up on the latest FE stuff for when I do get it back running. So anyways, I thought a thank you was in order. What's the latest on DW 2017 btw? Are you planning on going or have a secret project in the works?
-
I saw that little dust-up on the other forum, and that sort of thing is one reason I created this one, with rules to prevent that sort of stuff. It's also why I rarely post there anymore. I like and respect all the engine builders who were involved in that discussion, and of course they are going to have differences of opinion now and then. But its unfortunate when people who aren't as knowledgeable as the engine builders are get involved with a bunch of disrespectful comments. And the forum owner just lets it go on and on...
Right now Drag Week 2017 is a question mark for me. I have had several unexpected expenses this year, and also several family-related events that have taken a bunch of time I expected to have for other projects. It has delayed my billet intake manifolds for my adapters, my cylinder head project, and also some changes I wanted to make to my Drag Week engine. At this point I'm not sure if I will have the SOHC together in time to make the event. I could go with my Mach 1, but rather than do that I think I'd be better off getting my other projects moving again. So, we'll see what happens.
-
The biggest issue with the old forum, in my opinion, is that it isn't being actively moderated. Even just knowing a forum is being monitored is enough to keep most civil. BBM's post was a veiled sales pitch, with a good bit of sales "puffery", and that part of it deserved to be called out. No question of what Blair can do and the development he has put into the FE, and he wasn't the one who made the original post, too bad he and the rest of them got dragged into the mess. It was a lot of the typical misunderstandings that occur when people are communicating by text and not face to face.
-
TDC,
That sums it up most perfectly.
The original post undermined what was actually done to the heads. BBM makes some good stuff, but you can't pull their heads out of the box and expect 750 hp. The fact that there was no dyno sheet and the data was from 5500-6500 made it a little sneakier too.
I've about had my fill of forums in general. Your point about not communicating face to face was also on point: you can't hear inflection and know whether someone is trying to be helpful or is trying to be a jerk. In Perry's case, he's almost always trying to be a jerk and I was very glad to see the most excellent burn that Mr. Rabotnick put forth. 8)
And yes, thanks Jay.
-
Yes Jay, thank you!
I frequent both forums although I've noticed a gradual change over time, now I spend much more time here. Simply, the information available is much better. As much as I'd like to, I doubt I'll ever build another FE but I've had plenty of experience through the 60's, 70's, and even into the 80's so it's very interesting to follow the "rebirth" of one of my favorite as well as historically significant engine.
Thanks again,
Lou
-
As far as the BBM sales pitch , bring on the other FE manufacturers to step up to the plate but we'll be waiting for never , it least BBM Got Parts and is it least doing something
-
Well good luck Jay. It's always a pleasure reading about whatever project you have going on. And there's always something that's for sure!!
-
I like the old FE Forum. I go there every day, then I go here. There is no reason not to get information from all places possible.
As far as the BBM post debacle goes, all you need to do is actually read it to see that BBM wants you to believe that their as-cast-as-delivered head will support 700 horsepower on a 520 cubic inch motor at 6500 rpm. BP said he thought it wouldn't, so he did his "magic" to the heads. This much is in the actual text of the original post. Just the facts ma'am.
None of the post is lies. The BBM parts are good parts. BP is one of the best engine builders on the planet.
The only question I had was:
BBM sells CNC ported versions of their cylinder head on their website. Wouldn't it have been easier for BBM to put a head they actually sell on the 520 "mule" if the post was a sales add for BBM?
Maybe BP thought even that head could not deliver the 700 horsepower on that engine. Comments welcome.
-
My friend Tim Meyer is doing a 500" FE that uses the BBM CNC ported heads. He is expecting over 700 HP from it; we will see what happens. I will try to post the info, or a link to Tim's info, when the engine goes on the dyno.
-
Not to sidetrack the OP's post about thanking Jay for this great site, which I agree with 100%, but about the BBM post; Blair already did a pump gas 482 that made 666 peak HP, and made over 600 from 5000 to 6500 RPM. Link here: http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=2829.0
That was advertised as "very minor hand blending immediately under the valve seat" and no other port work of any kind. Of course it was probably a very professional blend, but with 40 more cubes to feed, and a bit more experience on BP's part with the BBM heads, I've no reason to doubt the numbers posted on the 520 engine. This is JUST a guess, but I would assume that Blair informed them that with a minor blend, HP numbers would be noticeably increased. That stands true for just about ANY head. No intake was mentioned on the 482", and this was before the BBM Tunnel wedge intake was produced, which one could safely assume helped with the power production of the 520".
BBM has a tendency to state things with a bit of sales hype which doesn't always go over well with the older "experienced" guys in the FE community, but all the facts seem to back up those claims. Nobody has said one bad word about their products except for availability of certain parts, which is common among ALL parts producers of FE products (except for maybe Jay's parts), and everyone who has used them praises their quality. Maybe the 520" would have lost 20 HP with no blend, maybe 30...or maybe 15, I don't know, but the fact that their products make some seriously STOUT power with minimal work seems to be obvious to me.
I have no BBM parts and have not seen any, so I'm not trying to hype a product. I got my SOG block just before BBM announced their new block, so I don't have a use for one either. I do believe that Blair probably squeezed more power out of it than most builders could get with the same work, which is why Werby has what he terms "The Blair Factor" for his Gonkulator. For some people, that's just a hard pill to swallow.
-
I'll admit, I'd have to see it on a common dyno before I swallow it whole. And thats not a dig on just Blair, but goes for a lot of different builders.
I see lots of people claim lots of things and after almost two decades of doing this, I've learned to not believe everything I read or hear.
-
I "tried" not to get into the post on the other forum other than simply stating a torque per cubic inch number. That value is a reasonably clean representation of engine efficiency and combination development. When queried I indicated that the values assigned to the engine in question were indeed "achievable".
Then we had one person poke in a comment trying to initiate arguments where none were made nor implied. This has been a repeated behavior by that individual, who otherwise adds nothing to the discussions. He needed a "correction" and I was in the mood to give him one.
There is no question that Blair is a master of his craft. But stating that the heads are completely unported minimizes the opportunities for him to showcase those skills from a percentage of gain perspective. The 482 referenced above reaches 1.32 TQ per cubic inch, a value notably higher than the 520 inch engine in the Network54 thread. The EMC big block winner and runner up from last year - both big block Chevy entries - had +/-1.42 TQ per cube, with the remainder of the field dropping into the 1.3-1.4 ranges.
I am one of the few FE guys that owns his own dyno, his own cylinder hone, line hone, balancer, etc, and who annually runs on other testing machines as well for comparison sake. I observe such strong "unported" numbers with a bit of skepticism considering the amount of porting and development that goes into those EMC engines. That does not mean that it cannot or did not happen. It just means that I am looking at a very impressive result and commenting on that fact. I have and will continue to have an open offer for anybody with a fresh dyno tested engine who wants to do a comparison run on my dyno. Bring the engine, the fuel, and you can calibrate and run the machine while I watch. Keep the results to yourself or post them afterwards - your choice. At least I would know...
-
The winning Y Block at EMC last year had a torque value of 1.508 lbft/cubic inch, and 1.608 hp/cubic inch. 375 cubic inches, 565.5 tq/ 603.2 hp. If you listen to Jon Kaase, he claims it will always take at least 1.5+tq/and 1.6+ hp/cubic inch to win. I know EMC is a whole different set kind of competition, but it requires a lot of skill to build any engine NA to achieve those numbers within the parameters of the competition. It cannot be done with "close to stock" parts. Joe-JDC
-
There is no question that Blair is a master of his craft. But stating that the heads are completely unported minimizes the opportunities for him to showcase those skills from a percentage of gain perspective.
Nowhere did BBM state that the heads were completely unported. They freely admitted that some blending and a very good valve job were done, and that the heads were "not exactly as cast". Same with the 482". Not saying you were one of them, Barry, because you weren't, but most people seemed to be upset that the heads were not 'box stock', which seems a petty argument. And to be fair to BBM, most heads that I have seen, that are showcased by producers in a dyno build, have a "minor clean-up" after a valve job. I agree it would have been interesting to see the before and after changes though, strictly from an informative view.
-
I agree, if you don't want to list what was done, at least give some flow numbers to show how much was changed. Maybe that would have been a more productive argument for what Blair improved upon "over stock".
I know flow numbers are just "numbers", but for the layman at least they can see it was improved by "X" amount.
-
I doubt Blair's wanting to post any more Dyno results after the Fiasco over there , I imagine the full CNC will do better than bowl blend , I'm sure Blair has a sweet cam in there most of us can't get/or know what to get , so if you can't post dyno numbers why don't every body start posting ET's ??... since ET is really what it's all about , Barry , Brent , any numbers ?? ... not a dig on you guy's but who races a Dyno ?? let see some numbers to back up the Dyno
-
Unfortunately, ET's all depend on the driver, the chassis, the weather, the traction, etc. There are as many variables with drag racing as there are with engine dynos.
The best solution overall would be for a hand-full of guys to use the same dyno in one day. However, it's a severe pain in the hindend to take a day or two off from a work schedule, pack up, and drive multiple hours both ways to accomplish that. I think Barry's dyno may be the tightest of the ones that I see. Maybe we should all dyno an engine at our home location, then meet at Barry's for a thrashing session.
I will guarantee you this: not all dynos are the same and I'm not even discounting the fact that the one I use on a regular basis can be 5% happy sometimes. I seem to have similar horsepower to the others, but my torque numbers are a little higher. ??? It used to be pretty rock solid in my eyes until the guys from DataMite came in and moved the weather station location when they did an upgrade. Now, I think it picks up a little too much header heat. To account for this, for the past year or so, when I post dyno results, I have been posting weather conditions, uncorrected numbers, and the correction factor. Barry has been doing this as well, it may have even been his idea. It allows for transparency and a common ground for comparison. It's not all about "calibration", but I think the biggest factor is where the computer is pulling weather data from.
Getting back to my idea....maybe we need our own FE EMC? Or at least a dyno bash day.
-
As a few others stated, idk why they wouldn't have used there cnc heads. Does anyone know who developed there cnc heads ? Did they develop there own program ?
-
Keith here you go
Kunitz and Co. and Jeff Colvert.
Here's the initial thread
http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=2852.0
-
Back to the initial post, Jay I value your site for performance and Tech. issues.
For more mundane FE info I use the 332-428 FEForum (aka old site) for measurements and random FE questions, which I have many.
Interesting is Wes Adams Facebook FEFanatics page has over 14,000 members. Seems like Wes is always"putting his foot down" to keep the posts on subject.
Agree that a site needs a moderator.
Thanks Jay.
Richard
-
Would be great if you could access the face book fe site without being a Facebook member. I follow alot of bands that allow access to there facebook pages without being a member. At least you can look.
Hands down Jay has a great sight. I like the fact that theres alot more full on performance type subjects here. Cant wait to see some of Jays projects come to be. Really hoping he makes a 2×4 carb top for the intake he is making. I been dropping nickels in my piggy bank for a while now lol..
The BBM CnC heads above would have no trouble making the 750 hp in that build. Prob another 100hp on top of that. I suppose that was the point though, showing what a set of BBM's with some hand massaging from someone that knows what there doing could accomplish.
-
Great site Jay. Have never been on the network forum. Found this first and it have been great enough to me. I was on the yblockforever forum a couple off years ago, but somehow it was shut down for a couple of years. Was also a good site :)
-
Yes, Thanks, Jay! Have always enjoyed this site and the information that is shared with most folks. Hard not to take issue sometimes when something sounds fishy, but so far your work is documented and not questioned. Joe-JDC