FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: jayb on April 30, 2013, 11:07:29 PM
-
Information is a little sketchy on this one at the moment; Blair has promised to come on in a few days and provide some more details. But these dyno numbers are unreal for what this engine is:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/BP506.jpg)
Photo quality of the dyno sheet is poor because it was taken with Blair's cell phone camera. I have never seen an 800 lb-ft FE except for my big SOHC, and that engine was 585 cubic inches. This engine is only 506 cubic inches. That is a very, very impressive torque number. And the horsepower peak of 911 HP from 6400 to 6600 RPM is also really impressive.
I spoke with Blair on the phone tonight for a while about this engine. Apparently it is basically one of his Super Stock FEs, but with more cubic inches, less compression, and a smaller cam. His normal 427-based super stock engines turn to 9000 RPM to make this kind of horsepower. Compression ratio on this engine is 13:1, and the cam is a 270@ .050" duration cam with about .700" lift. The idea behind the engine is that the reciprocating assembly and cam can be changed and the engine will turn into a legal super stocker. The heads are Blair's pro-port Edelbrock heads, and the intake is a tunnel ram style intake with two 715cfm Holleys. Blair pointed out that the heads and intake were ported and tuned together on his flow bench, to really optimize the combination.
That's about all I know at the moment, but I'm sure we'll hear more in the coming days...
-
The further flow benches progress it just points out that "realistically" all the individual numbers for head and intake runners flow's are detoured at the plenum not carbs flange. The distribution of A:F to the individual cylinders goes all to hell in the plenum when they are only flowed individually. Smokey discussed it decades ago. No doubt Blair is one of the elite few that master the FE Super Stock motors
Blair pointed out that the heads and intake were ported and tuned together on his flow bench, to really optimize the combination.
-
Looks extremely strong.
That would be 1.58 TQ per cubic inch - pretty much twilight zone territory for me - I've never been past 1.4 something.
Looking forward to seeing some details.
-
Me too, Barry, I figured I was doing pretty good at 1.4 lb-ft per cube...
-
That is a very bad @$$ piece there. With a somewhat gentle cam and 13:1 and a realistic rpm range it should live a long and happy life... wonder what one would cost to build?... Im also curious how close a person could come with a victor or dove 4500 flange intake instead of a tunnel ram? Very impressive numbers given the displacement! Great job and thank you guys for sharing.
-
Wow! Seeing that dyno sheet gave me a buzz.
-
Wow! Seeing that dyno sheet gave me a buzz.
Me too...
-
I think that FE would do mighty well in my '68 Falcon. The horse power is right about where I would like to see it with about 200 ft.lb. of torque than I had imagined. I too wonder what it would take to reproduce this combo.
Great work Blair!
-
Wow, I'd be pretty content with half of that.... for a while. Later, Travis
-
I know all the specs , BUT , I will let Blair fill you in , we Dyno'd 3 FE's and they averaged 895 HP each , 8)
-
There's only one thing wrong with that engine.......................................it's not sitting in my shed!
Awefarkingsome! Well done guys!
-
I wish I had only half of Blair's engine building skills. That is so good getting those power numbers from that size FE. Can't wait to see more details!
-
Whew! We've been humpin' it pretty good lately, and it felt good to see some results. Jay summarized it pretty well in his post. We basically built a "normal" Super Stock 427, but took out compression, added inches, and used alot less cam by comparison to a SS camshaft. I was hoping to trade off the stock stroke, compression, and big cam for the bigger engine, less C/R, and little cam, to arrive at similar power with greater reliability from the lower operating range. The unplanned surprise was all of that torque. I was surprised about that. I think I hit the combo just right. This manifold would be too small for a 500" engine at high revs, but it worked great in the range we want to run it. We really did not set out to make big power with this thing..........we wanted to build as much of a SS engine as we could so the owner would not have to redo anything except the cam, springs, and rotating assembly. It has 2.19/1.72 diameter 3/8 stem valves, 66 cc chambers that I have spent alot of time on, and just enough of a bump on the piston to get back to 13 to 1. It has a Swartz/Patrick billet tunnel ram that we built originally for the 427 that we took out of the car, and two 715 CV/CU carbs inline in the OEM configuration. The small cam has only 250# on the seat, 750 open, and does not even have titanium retainers. We went with light tool steel just to save a few bucks, knowing that we will change them later. Same for the pushrods. It has .145 wall 3/8 one piece pushrods for the time being. It was supposed to be a test mule, but now we have to figure out how to deal with all of that torque. The clutch set up will be interesting, and we have to gear the car to operate 1500 rpm lower, so a new third member is in order.
I was happy to see that the chamber worked well. On the pull Jay posted, we had 30.5 degrees of timing in it. It made a little more power at 34.5 degrees, but for the intended use, I'd rather run the lower timing with this much stroke involved. The block is 4.280 bore for later use, but we stuffed in a 4.400 Crower billet crank to give it a little grunt. The cam is .700 lift, and in the 270's at .050. It is a mid-grade roller in terms of lobe profiles. On the high end of streetable, and will live forever on the drag strip. I'm still beaming about this engine..........then I start thinking about the what if's............some big 7mm stem valves, a little more plenum, a huge cam, and what about carbs............no doubt this engine could top 1000 HP with some changes. I think I would stay at 500 inches, but I would go as big as I could on the bore, and plug in the stroke that got me to 500 cubes. Then, it would feel at home at 8500 or so rpm, and the power would come. I could also open up the heads some for some 2.300 valves. These heads are "legal" runner volumes of 185 cc intake and 128 cc exhaust, but with no rules, there would be more to be gained with the same port design with more cross-section.
All in all, it was fun. Alot of times the "fun" goes away when it becomes work, but on this one, the fun factor got involved. I also had a 511 on this trip that made 880 hp and 755 torque. It had Pro Ports, a modified MR tunnel wedge, and two 850's. A stout engine, but just not as far out on the cylinder heads and manifold. I should have stuck those 850's over on the 506 just for grins..................
-
Wow!! That is massively impressive, Blair. Now the real challenge will be the ability to get the car to handle all that torque.I think they're going to need somebody equally as talented as Mr. Patrick, but specializing in chassis! I'm also amazed by the 30* of timing. I know aluminum heads require less...typically around 34*, but that is the first I've seen totals that low. Should make for a very happy engine with a long life.
A couple questions....what block is being used, and did the 4.4 stroke require any hammers to fit? Any hardblocking used? What car is going to be tortured with this engine? I'm guessing a Fairlane?
And please....pictures?!! :)
Very very impressive!
-
... is this some kind of a record for a wedge head without boost?
-
... is this some kind of a record for a wedge head without boost?
Here's one from Kuntz:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/74182/thread/1242693778/Kuntz+505+ci-+dyno+results
-
Wow!! That is crazy big torque (and power) at that rpm. Your intake-port CSA, port shape, and spot-on cam timing, must all be working very well together. Doing this with NHRA legal port volumes valve diameters really goes to show it's about quality more than quantity. Really impressive over achievement!!
>Mike C.
-
Real impressive #'s. Somewhat efficient combustion to boot. I wound if you could get it down to 32 and make its best #'s.... AWESOME engine for sure.
-
A pic of the Engine
-
... is this some kind of a record for a wedge head without boost?
Here's one from Kuntz:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/74182/thread/1242693778/Kuntz+505+ci-+dyno+results
That one is really impressive. But its also 40 pounds less torque, more cam, and nearly 1000 more RPM.
-
A pic of the Engine
I am surprised the #6 header tube right off the head does not point more rearward. Must have something to do with the shape of the heads exhaust port inside and how it flows?
-
Blair asked me to post this update on the engine, which is now in the car and has had some track testing:
Had a "fun" day last Monday testing. We rented the track at Steele, Al last Monday to make a few passes on a tamed down Super Stock T-Bolt. My friend and customer Rich Allen came down from NJ to yank the handle on the Liberty, and Joe Cunningham, who helps Richard with his car, came to tweak the clutch. The car is the bright red one that sold at Mecums last year. After some conversation, the new owner had me do a 500" stroker capable of making some laps so he can learn to drive the car without using up the legal engine. (Edit - the 500" stroker is the engine described earlier in this thread - Jay) We ended up doing a SS legal top end, legal bore size in the block, and a stroker rotating assembly, with a little cam (.700 lift). This engine can be changed into another SS bullet with a cam change, and a 427 rotating assembly. It has big tires(106 rollout), and I put a 4.86 in the rear to keep the rpms low at the finish line with the stroker combo. After reading the data, it would pick up notably with a 5.14, and also with a little bit less clutch than we left in it. The tight clutch will last longer for the learning curve of the new owner. After a few short hits to tune the clutch, Richard made a couple of full runs......a 9.07 and a 9.08 at 148+ in the heat of the day. The track was marginal by that time, and the car was spinning the tires through high gear. The car is legal SS/B weight, and never got past 7100 rpm on the runs. We were all smiles that it ran 9.00's in the 3000+ DA, in a fairly detuned state (not talking about Alabama). I had a local witness to the occasion who posts here, and happens to own a SS Fairlane himself! We all had a good time and a good visit among FE friends. Richard went back home and ripped off a 9.22 with his own SS/F Cobra Jet last Friday also, at the D1 points race. I need to stay away from the racetrack! The burnt tires and fuel will have me putting my junk together if I am not careful!
You could honestly put tires and mufflers on the car and drive it around. It has fairly light valve springs normally used in late model dirt engines. A set of those big M/T DOT tires, and it would make a heck of a drag week N/A beast......but then it would need a trailer hitch also.
Blair Patrick
-
Neat! Very cool what they did with the engine specs. to save the NHRA-legal motor yet retain the option to still change over the one in the car.
Funny, when I read this the first time, it brought me back to a day long ago at Great Lakes Dragway @ Union Grove, WI . We were having some issues with our 10.90 doorslammer and went to the track to figure it out (we did luckily). While I was checking out our ride, my bro' wandered over to a car coming out of a trailer we'd never seen before. Turns out, it was a brand new 1972 Pro Stocker Duster with a destroked 396 Hemi, Lenco, etc. The car was heavily acid dipped were were told and was built IIRC by Dick Landy's west coast shop. The destroker was due to the ever changing NHRA weight breaks at the time and methinks this one was at about 2,400 lbs., ready to run.
Anyway, bro' was excited to scope out all the tricks on this car and although the owners didn't allow the times to be called out over the loudspeakers, he got them to flash him each e.t slip after a run. The last run after a few easy break-in passes was exactly a 9.00 e.t at somewhere just under 160 MPH. This, a top-of-the-line NHRA legal Pro Stocker!
Amazing though that an FE powered SS car that could be street legal is now turning the same e.t.s.......just amazing.
-
If you believe in the various online calculators there is still a bunch more left in that car too...
The 148 MPH is "only showing" around 850ish HP at 3200 pounds...
-
You are right Barry..........we went 151 mph with the same car, with a little LESS power, with the optimum gear in the car. It has a 4.86 in it for the sake of durability with the stroker, but a 5.14 would wake it up a bunch. It was also spinning the tires about half way through third gear all the way to the end. We could hear it turning the tires from the starting line, and also saw it on the graph. We left the clutch kinda tight for the learning curve also. It was pulling the engine back 1400 rpm on the launch. A little base out of it would have cured that, and probably a little more counterweight for the upper end of the range. It was also about 4000 ft DA that day. I can see realistic 8.60's from that engine if it was tuned to do that. For now, it just needs to make laps so the gentleman that bought it can learn to drive the car.
-
Looks like a solid running piece. It certainly makes a big tq number. My experience is that it takes a really good exhaust system and ignition timing tricks to pull off 1.6 ft lbs per inch. Ive never seen it play out on the track though.
The times look good for 4000 ft altitude I think you lose about 2.5 percent power per 1000ft.
Nice looking engine got some sweet pieces on it. I wanted to see the collector a little better :D.
Definiltey a lot of r&d.
-
Could you run an automatic trans comp c4 or c6 with it?
-
You certainly could. I'd want the C4.........from Joel's on Joy..........and the "right" converter. It would be quite a bit less effort to make the automatic work. It takes a level of clutch expertise to make that happen with a stick shift. I'm an automatic guy by neccessity, but I know who to go to for a clutch, LOL.
-
i dont have the clutch expertise to make it work
-
I love shifting the car, if my times suffer I think its still more fun...
-
Blair did you ever consider using a vacuum pump?
-
Not on that particular engine. The car it is in is actually a Super Stock car. We did that engine so the new owner could get some seat time and make some passes without wearing out a bunch of expensive and high maintenence "legal" parts. It is not allowed to run a vac pump with the legal engine, and there were no brackets or provisions for mounting the pump or the separator, so we just ran pan-evacs on the stroker. It is externally an identical twin to the 427. There would probably be modest gains from a pump, but well placed pan evacs will pull on the crankcase also. If it were an aluminium block, the pump is worthwhile, and needed, in my opinion. Aluminium blocks, with all of the correct prep, just do not seal as well as iron. The power vs. weight is just about a wash, although a vehicle will tend to work better on the track with an aluminium block due to the weight reduction on the front of the car.
-
Not on that particular engine. The car it is in is actually a Super Stock car. We did that engine so the new owner could get some seat time and make some passes without wearing out a bunch of expensive and high maintenence "legal" parts. It is not allowed to run a vac pump with the legal engine, and there were no brackets or provisions for mounting the pump or the separator, so we just ran pan-evacs on the stroker. It is externally an identical twin to the 427. There would probably be modest gains from a pump, but well placed pan evacs will pull on the crankcase also. If it were an aluminium block, the pump is worthwhile, and needed, in my opinion. Aluminium blocks, with all of the correct prep, just do not seal as well as iron. The power vs. weight is just about a wash, although a vehicle will tend to work better on the track with an aluminium block due to the weight reduction on the front of the car.
I get that aluminum blocks produce less power and maybe Blair has partially answered my question: why? If the deck was flexing, they'd lose head gaskets. The ductile iron liners are pretty stout as is the modern aluminum block material. Yet, is it mainly the greater heat rejection of aluminum or moving liners that actually cause the power loss or maybe both? Something else?
I've never really heard why.
-
The wealth of knowledge you guys have is the reason i keep reading this forum
Its great that you guys freely pass it along.
Thank all of you
Sean
-
Not on that particular engine. The car it is in is actually a Super Stock car. We did that engine so the new owner could get some seat time and make some passes without wearing out a bunch of expensive and high maintenence "legal" parts. It is not allowed to run a vac pump with the legal engine, and there were no brackets or provisions for mounting the pump or the separator, so we just ran pan-evacs on the stroker. It is externally an identical twin to the 427. There would probably be modest gains from a pump, but well placed pan evacs will pull on the crankcase also. If it were an aluminium block, the pump is worthwhile, and needed, in my opinion. Aluminium blocks, with all of the correct prep, just do not seal as well as iron. The power vs. weight is just about a wash, although a vehicle will tend to work better on the track with an aluminium block due to the weight reduction on the front of the car.
If the car has a 50 50 weight distribution, could an iron block be an advantage to lower the center of gravity for around a track, it seems most FE builders I have talked to all prefer the iron block over aluminum...
-
I have always heard that aluminum blocks make less power than iron in comparable applications. The folks that I speak with who have done the back to back comparison say the difference is noteworthy - on the order of 20HP. They attributed the variance to the dimensional changes that occur with heat - aluminum expands at a far greater rate and in oft unpredicted directions dictated by the metal's mass and cross sections.
One thing worth noting is that the guys I referenced are racing in categories that limit compression ratio to a fixed value. If you build both an iron engine and an aluminum version to say - 12:1 and get them warmed up you will find that the aluminum engine will develop .005 or so more valve lash. Now consider what that same dimension does to compression and quench volume.
-
From what I can tell, the diff on a modern FE iron casting and aluminium is about 30 hp. The diff between an OEM block and aluminium is 15-20 hp. We have done several engines that have identical or nearly identical parts, and those are the margins that show up, over and over. The Ford OEM 427 is not as much better, but the Pond, Gen, BBM iron blocks are "more" better, just because of the more rigid cylinders. As far as "in car" goes, you can chase a dyno figure, and an iron block will show more, but the power is just about exactly offset by the weight difference. It takes about 30 horsepower to overcome the 150 lbs. In a drag car, 150 lbs off the nose is ALWAYS better. The chassis can be better optimized with less weight on the nose..........always. I remember when we were allowed to replace the OEM seats in Super Stock with lightweight race seats. Even at the same total weight, my car picked up about .03 in the 330 ft time from taking 80 lbs out of the middle of the car and relocating the weight to the rear. That was in the middle of the car, and about half the diff in the iron and alum blocks.....
To Barry's point on aluminium....I totally agree on the growth. I always run the deck a little tighter, and also bump the static C/R a little, to allow for the growth. The last Shelby block we did had .008 cold lash, and about .025 at running temps. They definitely grow more. As long as you know that, and allow for it, it is no problem. Aluminium engines just need to be massaged a little different than the iron.
If you are traction-limited, or nose-heavy, the aluminium block offers added benefits to getting the car to hook and "work". Small tires and/or leaf sprung Cal-Trac cars with big engines will like the benefits of the lighter block more than they like the power diff of the iron and the weight it puts on the front tires. A tenth gained in the 330 ft is a "mile" in high gear..............
-
Thanks Barry and Blair! :)
-
Thanks Barry and Blair! :)
No kidding.
Thank all of you FE guru's that qive us mere mortals your insights and knowledge.
That's pretty darn cool of you, and it IS appreciated.
-
X3 :)
-
X4. It is amazing the information shared on this site!! ;D
-
I wish this was around when i was running a 390 Cougar at MIR in the late 80's early 90's
-
Blair,
Have you ever tried the Blue Thunder FE Heads on any of your engines?
Interested in the flow numbers on your Edelbrock heads.
PinnaclePeak
-
Appreciate your interest. I choose not to publish flow numbers out on the interweb. There is a lot more going on with a good working pair of heads than the max flow number. I generally try to get a feel for what a customer is trying to accomplish, and then try to provide a cylinder head/manifold combo to reach the goal. Sometimes a well suited combo will run and hide from a "big numbers" head........it really depends on what a person wants to do. A couple of years ago, a fine gentleman had me build an engine with heads he supplied. About one year ago, we freshened the engine and put on some of my heads. With less max flow, we made almost 100 more hp, and almost 100 ft/lbs torque. Working strictly from flow numbers, he would have never tried my heads. The port and the prep vary depending on the end-use. Flow numbers are a much better tool when tweaking a combo, and taking note of all of the variables that affect the results. Comparing head "X" with head "Y" from two different sources, only by flow numbers, may or may not tell you what you need to know.
-
Just when you think you understand motors it all goes up in smoke. I'm laughing at my first thought to Jay's quote:
" I have never seen an 800 lb-ft FE except for my big SOHC, and that engine was 585 cubic inches. This engine is only 506 cubic inches. That is a very, very impressive torque number."
So I'm thinking this baby of Blair's must have 14:1 CR!
Then in the next paragraph Jay writes:
"Apparently it is basically one of his Super Stock FEs, but with more cubic inches, less compression, and a smaller cam."..........
............Doh! there goes my high compression idea flying out the window. But there is saving grace Jay continued: "Apparently it is basically one of his Super Stock FEs, but with more cubic inches, less compression, and a smaller cam. His normal 427-based super stock engines turn to 9000 RPM to make this kind of horsepower. Compression ratio on this engine is 13:1,"
IF 13:1 is "less compression" then a Super Stock what the heck CR's do they run in Super Stock?......
-
BB, it depends on the OEM specs. In Stock and Super Stock, the blueprint specs submitted to NHRA by the OEMs govern the compression ratio. Some may have 14.5:1 while others may have 7.5:1, depending on the factory dems.