FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: blykins on June 20, 2020, 05:37:48 AM
-
Ok, putting up a couple of interesting builds that I thought would be worth having a GTH game with. Waiting on lifters for one and waiting on the motor plate and pump for the other, but they will be dyno'd hopefully within the next couple weeks. I'll do a game for each. Same rules, closest without going over on corrected horsepower gets some goodies. I got some shirts in a few weeks ago, so I'm planning for that to be the prize.
So several months ago I built a 447 using some Trick Flow heads, Scat crank, Scat rods, Mahle pistons, hydraulic roller, Performer RPM, etc. The results are here:
http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=8595.0
The build for game #1 is essentially the exact same engine, except for a few minor cam changes. On the 447 from April, I used a 231/239 @ .050", 114 LSA, 105 ICL, .630" lift.
On this build, I used a 231/235 @ .050", 113 LSA, 105 ICL, .630".
As you can see, the duration split was cut down, which decreases overlap, but the LSA was tightened up one degree to keep the overlap exactly the same as the cam from the engine from April.
What do you think will happen? This is essentially the only variable between the two engines, except for the 445 vs 447 displacement. All-in-all though, the 2ci difference should only net a 2-ish hp change. Same compression ratio, same intake manifold with divider modification, same oil pan, same block prep, same lifters, same spring pressures, same rocker arms, same oil pump, same clearances, same ignition, same pushrods, same carburetor, etc, etc.
Just as a recap:
*4.080"/4.250" bore and stroke
*Scat 9000 series 4.250" crankshaft
*Scat 6.700" I-beam rods
*Mahle dished pistons with 1/1/2mm ring pack
*OOTB Trick Flow cylinder heads
*Performer RPM intake with no port match, but divider modification
*Quick Fuel HR-780 carb
*Custom Lykins Motorsports hydraulic roller, 231/235 @ .050", 113 LSA, .630" lift, 105 ICL
*Lykins Motorsports non-adjustable roller rocker arms with POP stands/spacers/etc.
*MSD distributor
*Will not be turning accessories on dyno
-
My guess is 558 hp.
-
545hp/560tq
-
550
-
525 hp
-
547/588...
:D
-
How do you expect people to guess the horsepower when there aren't any pictures? ;D ;D
-
How do you expect people to guess the horsepower when there aren't any pictures? ;D ;D
Just got the heads on an hour ago, cut the divider out of the intake. Flanges will need snipped. More to follow. :D
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50010177761_186abbdfdf_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50010177766_73dd331451_c.jpg)
-
546 hp
-
555
-
541
-
What’s this one going in.
563 HP
-
This one's going in a Galaxie.
-
548hp 590tq
Out of curiosity, what was the idea behind the suttle change on the duration?
-
Just to test a theory that I've been pondering.....
-
589 HP
-
505
-
552 HP
-
551 hp
-
I didn't see total advance, are you using the same amount as before or are you moving it depending on what the engine likes?
my guess is it's going to be about the same with minor variances in the assembly and dyno conditions.
550hp 588tq
-
It is going to be interesting to see. My guess is up 10 HP and 6 TQ from the prior build
-
Tomorrow's the day (unless it thunderstorms all day) for this one. A quick eye will catch the 390 valve covers on a 445.....my customer wanted "the sleeper look".
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50097596628_677e451b4b_z.jpg)
-
Love the 390 valve covers!
-
574 peak hp.
Torque over 600 ft lbs.
JB
-
553
-
Wow I just found this one.
OK, the Gonkulator says:
EXACTLY THE SAME as the April build.
*Tighter LSA helps
* 2 fewer CID hurts
* Less exhaust duration hurts
So net result is the same.
I'll knock off 1 pony for the 390 valve covers.
I mean, everybody knows all the hot 390's were Ford Black, not Ford Blue, right?
So
Torq 587
Powr 546
Don't know if you have time on the dyno, but the Gonkulator also thinks theres a barrel of horsepower in there if you retard the cam 6 degrees to ICL=111, like over 20hp. Depends on the goals!
Thanks for posting all this data Brent it will help folks (and the Gonkulator) a lot as we enter a new era of FE heads.
Power like we never imagined back when C8OE-N was "the hot setup"
-
I'm right with 'The Werb' on this one. Particularly on the block color! ;)
KS
-
Really good data today.
In the past, I've always correlated duration splits with intake/exhaust flow ratios. Today's data proved that more of a duration split in conjunction with an exhaust port that isn't up to snuff in comparison to the intake port is necessary if you're looking at making horsepower and torque.
I kept everything the exact same as the last engine, including the timing, carb spacer, you name it.
As a recap, both engines that we have examined have been relatively common 445 cubic inch engines. Trick Flow heads. Performer RPM with the divider cut down. Same rods. Same pistons. Same crankshaft. Same distributor. Same timing. Same carburetor. One engine had a 231/239 @ .050" hydraulic roller on a 114. This engine had a 231/235 @ .050" on a 113. Both cams had .630" lift. Both cams were on a 105 ICL.
The previous engine made 547 hp @5750.
If we compare apples to apples (the previous engine used a 2" Super Sucker") the engine today made 527 hp.
However, it would be unfair if I didn't try to tune for optimal setup, just in case this camshaft "liked" something else. We did a few tweaks here and there but the engine really responded when we changed from a 2" HVH Super Sucker to a 1" HVH Street Sweeper. We gained 9 hp there.
So at the end of the day, where were we? We ended up with 536 hp @ 5500 with 575 lb-ft of torque at 4500.
What was the difference between the two engines? 11 hp and 13 lb-ft of torque.
So who won?
-
Brent,
Glad it went well.
Had you tried the 1" HVH sweeper on the April 447 engine?
Also, do you know the weather (ie uncorrected conditions) for the April dyno vs this one?
In other words, what was the correction factor for the April runs vs these runs?
The differences are only ~2%, probably significant but if the correction factors were VERY different, that would add scatter.
These are both with your 2" dyno headers? Both with engine turning the water pump? Same pulleys?
-
Brent,
Glad it went well.
Had you tried the 1" HVH sweeper on the April 447 engine?
Also, do you know the weather (ie uncorrected conditions) for the April dyno vs this one?
In other words, what was the correction factor for the April runs vs these runs?
The differences are only ~2%, probably significant but if the correction factors were VERY different, that would add scatter.
These are both with your 2" dyno headers? Both with engine turning the water pump? Same pulleys?
Not sure on the correct factors, I'd have to dig it up. But in theory, the dyno should make both sessions "even".
Same headers, 2". Neither engines were turning any accessories.
I don't believe this is out of reason at all. Most FE heads have a poor exhaust flow in comparison to the intake....even these TFS heads. I've never seen an instance where a single pattern or small split was beneficial on an FE. Sometimes we have to do it to crutch some overlap issues, but if I have full license on a camshaft, I split it quite a bit.
FWIW, this camshaft had 15" of vacuum. The owner asked me to check as he's buying a souped up C6 that has to have a minimum of 15" to make it work. We squeaked by.
-
Totally agree on the split pattern cam.
I tried every factory FE setup I could in the Gonkulator - they all like a split pettern, usually 6 degrees, give or take a couple.
I think the 428CJ with a 14 degree split was a bit too much, but its better than straight pattern.
I pulled this airflow data off the TFS website.
Is this pretty accurate or is there more realistic data?
This shows Ex/In flow about 75%, which is better than most FoMoCo stuff.
Airflow Results
PowerPort 175
Lift Value Intake Flow CFM Exhaust Flow CFM
.100" 72 63
.200" 151 117 = 77%
.300" 238 171 = 72%
.400" 284 219 = 77%
.500" 317 239 = 75%
.600" 332 245 = 76%
.700" 338 249
Tests conducted at 28" of water (pressure).
Bore size: 4.250"; exhaust with 2" pipe.
https://static.trickflow.com/global/images/chartsguides/t/tfs-56417001-c00_pv.pdf
Brent's values from Stan Weiss site for comparison:
4.155 bore, no pipe: (pretty close to TFS numbers except exhausts about 10% lower)
.100" 96 66 = 69%
.200" 159 120 = 75%
.300" 233 164 = 70%
.400" 283 197 = 70%
.500" 317 215 = 68%
.600" 333 220 = 66%
-
Werb, check Stan Weiss' site. I gave him actual TFS flow numbers a year or so ago.
-
So who was closest on this one ?
-
Looks like Greg Williams.
Text me, Greg!
-
Yay! ;D
-
What is split duration, rather than 250-250, is it something like 250-260 ?