FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: blykins on December 24, 2019, 06:26:19 AM
-
Taking a couple engines to be dyno'd this Friday. One of which is kind of a "resto-mod" 428CJ deal for a local Thunderbird build. Rules are the same for this one: closest without going over, on *corrected* numbers, will get some free goodies.
*Factory 428 block, 4.140"
*Factory 428 crank, .010"/.010"
*Scat 6.490" rods
*Racetec forged pistons, 1.5/1.5/3mm standard tension ring pack
*Federal Mogul main/rod bearings, rod bearings Calico coated
*One of my custom camshafts, 227/235 @ .050", .600/.612" lift, 112/106 LSA
*Morel hydraulic roller lifters
*9.5:1 compression ratio
*Factory C8OE-N heads, 2.09/1.65 11/32" SI valves, Comp Cams valvetrain, no port work, just good valve job
*Performer RPM intake manifold with plenum divider modifications
*Quick Fuel HR-750 carburetor with choke horn
*Lykins Motorsports non-adjustable roller rockers with POP billet stands, end stands, and spacers
*MSD distributor
*Canton rear sump pickup and pan, Melling standard volume pump
*Edelbrock water pump
Engine has no accessories that will be turning on the dyno.
So, closest on that one without going over with win some free Lykins Motorsports decals.
BONUS:
I'm also taking a 289 that's destined for an ERA Slabside 289 Cobra replica.
Whomever guesses the closest on BOTH engines (this means you have to make a guess for both to be eligible), will win a new set of my rocker arm stand shims that should be arriving next week.
Here's the specs for the 289:
*Factory 289 block, 4.030" bore size
*Factory 289 crankshaft, .010"/.010"
*Scat 5.325" I-beam SBF connecting rods
*Racetec forged pistons, 1.5/1.5/3mm standard tension ring pack
*Compression ratio is 9.7:1
*One of my custom hydraulic rollers, 219/227 @ .050", 110 LSA, .560"/.560"
*Morel hydraulic roller lifters
*Milodon stock style pan and pickup with extra capacity
*World Products Windsor Jr. cylinder heads, no port work, 1.940"/1.600" valves, Comp Cams valvetrain
*Comp Cams full roller rocker arms
*Blue Thunder "Cobra" dual plane intake
*Holley 650 DP carb
*Factory style distributor, recurved, converted to Pertronix
*This engine will be turning the water pump and alternator with an accessory belt
Have fun and happy guessing! (And Happy Holidays to everyone!)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49257657628_957f66cb75_z.jpg)
-
410
281
8)
Those are some nice looking engines for sure.
-
428--422
289--315
-
428-455hp 289-340hp
-
428- 470
289- 317
-
CJ - 457 HP
SBF - 364 HP
-
CJ 456 peak hp
JB
-
440 Hp - 428
352 Hp - 289
JWR
-
BB-468
SB-368
-
444 on the 428.
369 on the 289
-
428 - 430HP
289 - 325HP
-
Boy, I musta missed something on the Windsor because folks are thinking that thing is a real hero...
-
Boy, I musta missed something on the Windsor because folks are thinking that thing is a real hero...
The SBF has decent cylinder heads. Windsor Jr's.
-
410 hp for the 428
330 hp for the 289
-
415 for 428
300 for 289
-
475 and 315
-
460
365
-
447
412
-
464
357
-
I looked at the specs and guessed before scrolling down to see several already have my guesses.
I'll go with 425hp on the 428 and 377hp on that 289.
-
428 = 435 hp
289 = 307 hp
-
441
318
-
428-394HP
289- 292HP
-
428—�—419
289—�—359
Merry Christmas guys
-
289==332hp
428==432hp
Merry Christmas
garyv
-
428: 437hp
289: 309 hp
-
428-441hp and 289-359hp
-
I'm anxious, rip Brent away from that turkey and get on the dyno today!
-
I'm anxious, rip Brent away from that turkey and get on the dyno today!
If you all would look through the dyno results section, you’d get pretty close on the 428 lol
The 289 will surprise a couple of you all I think.
-
I'm anxious, rip Brent away from that turkey and get on the dyno today!
If you all would look through the dyno results section, you’d get pretty close on the 428 lol
The 289 will surprise a couple of you all I think.
That's because you forgot to tell them it's a corn-fed Nebraska seasoned block :) That's 30 HP of american beef right there!
-
FE 466
SBF 363
-
FE 420
375
-
398 and 246
-
428 @ 437 hp, 289 @ 370 hp Joe-JDC
-
Had a little scheduling setback, will have to wait until after the weekend.
-
398 and 246
Not real optimistic! 246? Did all of us except Mark miss the 2V carb part or something?
-
428 - 445hp
289 - 366hp
food for thought - a buddy of mine's 302 pump gas motor very similar to Brent's 289 with Edlebrock heads. 11.70's at street car weight (about 370 hp)
-
moved up to 383w with AFR heads 10.70's. still pump gas but about 100 more hp.
-
Who gets the closest without going over? Doesn't seem like enough cam to go over 1hp per cube. Eh, what do I know? "Under promise, over deliver" is a good strategy.
398 and 246
Not real optimistic! 246? Did all of us except Mark miss the 2V carb part or something?
-
466hp for the fe and 355 for the 289
-
I'm hoping the 428 falls around 460-470hp. We have a 428 in the shop ready to go together that's almost exactly the same, dang near the same cam specs too. Only difference is it will have BBM heads. With ours I was wishing it would make 490-500. If yours makes 460-470 then I'll be optimistic about the one here.
-
I'm hoping the 428 falls around 460-470hp. We have a 428 in the shop ready to go together that's almost exactly the same, dang near the same cam specs too. Only difference is it will have BBM heads. With ours I was wishing it would make 490-500. If yours makes 460-470 then I'll be optimistic about the one here.
Mike, the BBM heads are 30-40 cfm over the factory CJ heads.
If you'll look back through my dyno results on this forum, you'll see two CJ engines with very similar camshafts. They both made 420-425 hp. This one made 434 with the Performer RPM intake, but it was knocking on 500 lb-ft of torque.
-
Ok, so a frustrating day at the dyno. The 289's distributor decided to roll smoke out from under the distributor cap because a Pertronix module died right off the bat. Then the distributor cap had the terminals so far down that two of the plug wires wouldn't reach and I had two dead cylinders. Fun stuff. That's why we dyno.
The 428 went perfectly and basically fell in line with the horsepower that my factory-ish 428's usually make. This one made quite a bit more torque though.
The 289 made 309 hp @ 5750 with 316 lb-ft of torque.
That build should have been built with Dart Iron Eagle heads, which usually flow around the 270-280 mark. However, Dart is redesigning their IE heads and kept pushing back the release date. My customer finally told me to pop some World heads on and let's go. Obviously they are a little better than factory, but they are not Dart heads....
The 428 made 435 hp @ 5250 and 482 lb-ft of torque. I think we had a couple of 490 lb-ft pulls, but we ended up tuning and catching a little more horsepower.
Who are the winners?
-
Nice work Brent. The FE did what I thought it would do but the 289, I thought with the cylinder heads and a better cam it would make more than a stock 289 K code. I could be wrong but didn’t they make 306 HP. I know one of them made 271 HP right.
-
The Shelby engine made 306 k engine made 271
-
I don't know if the 306 Shelby had larger valves but, the HP 271 engine, had only 1.67 intakes, originally.
-
Who are the winners?
It looks like "fastF67" with 435hp and 307hp, or "1968Galaxie" with 437hp and 309hp, depending on how you want to score it.
Compared to actual results of 435hp and 309hp, I think?
-
fastF67 looks like the winner. Can't go over with the guess and 1968Galaxie went over on the 428 guess.
fastF67, shoot me your address via email (brent@lykinsmotorsports.com) and let me know what thickness of stand shims you want. I'll get those in the mail to you as soon as they arrive.
Good guessing, everyone.
-
I don't know if the 306 Shelby had larger valves but, the HP 271 engine, had only 1.67 intakes, originally.
my 289 hipo had 1.78 intakes bone stock , I had 1.90 and 1.6's installed
-
It was a good guess!
Congrats to fastF67!
Imagine being that close on 2 different build. I guess I am not all that clueless.
Thanks for the details on the two builds Brent.
You are lucky to have the chance to build so many cool engines!
-
I don't know if the 306 Shelby had larger valves but, the HP 271 engine, had only 1.67 intakes, originally.
my 289 hipo had 1.78 intakes bone stock , I had 1.90 and 1.6's installed
Note that I said "originally". I had three, 5 bolt, 271 HP, factory engines. 64 Fairlane Sports Coupe, 65 1/2, 2+2 and another one, I bought another with 2/4's. Both cars had top loaders and 9" rears. All those 5 bolt engines had 1.67 intakes. They all had the factory, screw in studs, 3/8 rod bolts and the counter weight on the front of the crank.
-
I very much appreciate the offer of the shims but will have to pass at this time as I'm in the middle of putting a full frame set-up in my 67 s-code fb and a long way away from needing engine components. Please sell them to someone and advance yourself, family and business to the next level. I would very much like your help in building the 482 I have in mind such as choosing the correct cam and the combo of parts needed when the time comes. I put a high value on the info that you, jay, blair, barry and others have and sure that all will play apart in some way and already have just by reading this forum.
-
The 289 is a minor surprise. "I" would have thought even the World head would have made more power than the original 289 HP head. Which BTW got the 1.78 intake starting in '64 along with all other 289's. The 'R" model heads ( originally) got port work by Valley Head Service or Mondello's and 1.875 x 1.625 valves. I still have one set left.
Nice work Brent , good to see real numbers.
Randy
-
310 hp and 320 lb-ft with essentially almost a full point of compression less than the GT350 engine, turning all accessories, doesn't make me feel that bad. Wasn't Hipo/Shelby cam 228° @ .050" as well?
All-in-all, the World heads aren't Dart heads, but we were clueless as to when we'd ever get a set of the new Dart heads in stock, and the customer was eager to get his engine down in his 289 Cobra replica.
-
Yes a surprice. A friend a while ago built a 302 for a 54Ford dont remember what heads
think it was dart or mayby tfs mild hyd cam for a stock converter XE 262H flat tops
weiand stealt intake made 345 with a edelbrock 600 carb started to run fat
on higher rpm would probably
made more wtih a holly 750. but the customer was satisfied and dont wanted
to continue dyno it
-
Yes a surprice. A friend a while ago built a 302 for a 54Ford dont remember what heads
think it was dart or mayby tfs mild hyd cam for a stock converter XE 262H flat tops
weiand stealt intake made 345 with a edelbrock 600 carb started to run fat
on higher rpm would probably
made more wtih a holly 750. but the customer was satisfied and dont wanted
to continue dyno it
I would consider that a kosher comparison. Even the difference between a 292ci engine a 306ci engine would be ~15 hp by itself. If the heads were indeed either Dart or TFS, then either one would be head/shoulders above World Windsor Jr's.
-
Yes a surprice. A friend a while ago built a 302 for a 54Ford dont remember what heads
think it was dart or mayby tfs mild hyd cam for a stock converter XE 262H flat tops
weiand stealt intake made 345 with a edelbrock 600 carb started to run fat
on higher rpm would probably
made more wtih a holly 750. but the customer was satisfied and dont wanted
to continue dyno it
I would consider that a kosher comparison. Even the difference between a 292ci engine a 306ci engine would be ~15 hp by itself. If the heads were indeed either Dart or TFS, then either one would be head/shoulders above World Windsor Jr's.
Well Brent it was not to criticise you, i was just surprised. The heads he used must be much better. I dont thought it was
that big differece between different aftermarket heads. I must ask what heads he used but he is in Thailand now
-
Yes a surprice. A friend a while ago built a 302 for a 54Ford dont remember what heads
think it was dart or mayby tfs mild hyd cam for a stock converter XE 262H flat tops
weiand stealt intake made 345 with a edelbrock 600 carb started to run fat
on higher rpm would probably
made more wtih a holly 750. but the customer was satisfied and dont wanted
to continue dyno it
I would consider that a kosher comparison. Even the difference between a 292ci engine a 306ci engine would be ~15 hp by itself. If the heads were indeed either Dart or TFS, then either one would be head/shoulders above World Windsor Jr's.
Well Brent it was not to criticise you, i was just surprised. The heads he used must be much better. I dont thought it was
that big differece between different aftermarket heads. I must ask what heads he used but he is in Thailand now
I certainly didn’t take it as a criticism. Just bench racing here because I’ve never used those heads before and was trying to make comparisons.
I’ve seen flow numbers for them all over the place, from 214cfm at lift to 235. A 214 cfm head isn’t much over a prepped hipo head.
-
I got answer form Thailand TFS 170 cc CNC ported heads so that is
a bit different. Used those heads beacuse the customer had them
The friend wanted to use much bigger cam and a 750 carbBut customer just wanted a
engine for cruising so thats what he got. Runs real nice in the 54 Ford
-
310 hp and 320 lb-ft with essentially almost a full point of compression less than the GT350 engine, turning all accessories, doesn't make me feel that bad. Wasn't Hipo/Shelby cam 228° @ .050" as well?
All-in-all, the World heads aren't Dart heads, but we were clueless as to when we'd ever get a set of the new Dart heads in stock, and the customer was eager to get his engine down in his 289 Cobra replica.
I would find it hard to believe that the 289/271 and 289/306 were really that powerful. All brands were very good at "advertising HP" back then. My gut says on the same dyno, they'd be much lower, even with the big compression.
-
Longer rod, lighter piston, lower tension rings, better intake, better carburetor, and the original heads only flowed in the 160-170 cfm range. The WP Jr.s that I have worked over the years start off better than the best ported old style 289/302 heads. The WP Sr is nearly equivalent of the Dart iron heads at ~280 cfm as cast. Joe-JDC
-
Brent the full point drop in compression is likely the key for the HP #. Yes the original 289HP cam was 228@ .050 and had a .300 lobe on a 109 lca.
I had SAI dyno sheets for a '65 engine that showed 305 and 308 hp from a "stock" GT350 engine @ 6,200. The "test" engine was an "out of the crate" 289 hipo. Stock carb , intake and iron exhaust manifolds making 265 observed HP on SAI's antique Henan Froude dyno. After adding the 715 Holley , Cobra intake and triY headers , they saw 305 and 308 but settled on 306. Interestingly , the carb and intake were only good for 18 hp but the headers made the 22-25 extra. Might have been different if they tried the headers first. "Mondello" ported big valve heads ( milled for another 1/2 point of compression) and an Engle cam created the 350HP "R" model engine.
Randy
-
Brent the full point drop in compression is likely the key for the HP #. Yes the original 289HP cam was 228@ .050 and had a .300 lobe on a 109 lca.
I had SAI dyno sheets for a '65 engine that showed 305 and 308 hp from a "stock" GT350 engine @ 6,200. The "test" engine was an "out of the crate" 289 hipo. Stock carb , intake and iron exhaust manifolds making 265 observed HP on SAI's antique Henan Froude dyno. After adding the 715 Holley , Cobra intake and triY headers , they saw 305 and 308 but settled on 306. Interestingly , the carb and intake were only good for 18 hp but the headers made the 22-25 extra. Might have been different if they tried the headers first. "Mondello" ported big valve heads ( milled for another 1/2 point of compression) and an Engle cam created the 350HP "R" model engine.
Randy
Just to clarify, Randy your definition of LCA is the same as our commonly used ICL correct? Because I believe the 271 HP cam was 114 LSA. Only mentioning it because although everyone argues about LSA over the entire interweb, LCA is extra misunderstood because it is regularly used to describe either LSA or ICL depending on the person. I would be surprised with 114/109 as well, because Ford loved late intake centerline on high compression engines back then. 302 J-code 4 barrels were in the 114/114 hyd cam range. Ran well too surprisingly.
The power numbers you post though are interesting, no doubt through the 60s HP numbers were all over the map, but after your comments above and then digging around for other tests out there, it does seem like the 289s were pretty accurate, unlike a lot of the other production ratings.
What is wild to me, is that the World Products heads didn't run everything up significantly with dyno headers and a decent intake, even without the compression. Looking at some of the flow numbers out there, one - they are all over the map, and two - most are pretty low, stock head low. I think the World Products heads, at least that version, aren't all that. I can only imagine the jump if he would have been able to use a modern AFR head and a better intake, but build requirements were what they were, still a stout little zero maintenance motor that will love a VERY long time knowing Brent's attention to detail
-
A little known secret is the 289/271 camshaft is the same specs as a stock Boss 302, just different rocker ratios. I ordered a Boss 302 cam for my build from Ford, and it came in a 289 tube with 289hp part #. I did the math, and it matched. Not the LeMans camshaft. Joe-JDC
-
FWIW, these are the original cam specs for both the original 271 HP 289 and the Boss 302.
The 289 cam had 114 LSA with a ICL of 109
Boss 302 was a wapping 116 LSA with a ICL of 111
The cam lift, is the same and the 302 Ford data, has a misprint, they used the 289 lift, it should be .502.
The pictures are from dated Ford publications.
Randy, I wish someone would have told the guys on the Ford assembly line, that both my 64 Fairlane 271 HP and my 65 1/2, 2+2 Mustang 271 HP were suppose to have those 1.78 valves. I would have loved to have had them. Also, I believe they should have been told to put a 6 bolt block in my Mustang, too but, they forgot that, also.
My 3rd 271 HP engine, I put in my Mustang. I don't know what year it was, as I pulled it from a 63 Falcon Sprint. It had a after market, 2/4's (AFB'S) on it and I sold the car with that engine but, I did tear down the other two, original engines and sold them both to a Cobra collector, in the early 80's.
-
Sorry Ross , typed LCA instead of LSA. The note on the dyno sheet was 109*. It is "possible" this was the ICL "as they checked it". SAI was trying to put "real" hp numbers out there to impress. For NHRA drag racing it made the GT350s non competitive against the cars that used the "low" factory ratings. NHRA based it's classes on power to weight ratio at the time. That is why "most" GT350s ran AHRA where there were "more friendly" class designations. I ran AHRA with my GT350 for just that reason.
Joe-JDC
The Boss 302 cam may have used the same lobe as the 289HP but the cam timing was different. The one I checked from a production short block was 111LSA and 114ICL , so 3 retarded. Ford would not sell the exact same cam with 2 different part numbers. Yes we used to substitute the 289 hp into the Boss because of the 109* ICL before we figured the difference was the ICL . Don "Sully" Sullivan (rip) has MANY listings in my SK log book where he simply changed the timing events while using the same lobes.
Randy
-
Randy, are you saying the Ford factory specs are wrong?
The lobes can't be the same, as the Boss is 290 deg duration and the 271's are 306. Also, note the the overlap is to different for them to have the same LSA.
-
Randy, are you saying the Ford factory specs are wrong?
The lobes can't be the same, as the Boss is 290 deg duration and the 271's are 306. Also, note the the overlap is to different for them to have the same LSA.
It's all in "where" the advertised duration numbers come from. .228@ .050 with a .299( or.300) lobe is the same lobe ( from back then). So yes 306@ .006 is the same as 290@ .020. These "factory" grinds were available through Melling , Wolverine, and others with "slight" changes to purposely lead people to think they were different cams. I spent more than a few years in the aftermarket cam industry. Back then there was allot of "copying" of other companies lobes.
Randy