FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => FE Engine Dyno Results => Topic started by: blykins on February 24, 2018, 07:33:53 AM
-
Performance Summary:
Cubic Inches: 431 Dyno brand: Stuska
Power Adder: Where dynoed: Dale Meers Racing Engines
Peak Horsepower: 422 @ 5500
Peak Torque: 488 @ 3000
Horsepower and Torque Curves: Yes, they were curved.
Engine Specifications:
Block brand, material, finished bore size, other notes: Factory 428, 4.150". Square decked to 10.160", align honed with ARP main studs/bolts.
Crankshaft brand, cast or forged, stroke, journal size: Factory 428, ground .010"/.010"
Connecting Rods brand, material, center to center distance, end sizes, bolts: Fomoco C7AE-B, 6.490", ARP 13/32" bolts.
Piston brand, material (caster, hypereutectic or forged), dish/dome volume, static CR: Custom Racetec, 4032, 1.670", 11cc, 1.5/1.5/3mm, 9.7:1
Main Bearings, Rod Bearings, Cam Bearings brand and size: Federal Mogul 125M10, King CR809-010, Durabond F-33
Piston rings brand, size, other notes: Hastings, 1.5/1.5/3mm, standard tension
Oil Pump, pickup, and drive: Melling M57, factory style pickup, Melling drive
Oil pan, windage tray, oil filter adapter: Scott Drake CJ repop, no windage tray, factory Ford oil filter adapter
Camshaft brand, type (hyd/solid, flat tappet or roller), lift and duration (adv and @.050"): Custom Lykins Motorsports hydraulic flat tappet, 227/229 @ .050",
276/283 advertised, 110 LSA, 103.5 ICL, .532"/.541"
Lifters brand, type: Crower cam saver lifters
Timing chain and timing cover: Ford Racing cast iron double roller, factory timing cover
Cylinder heads brand, material, port and chamber information: Factory C8OE, SI 3/8" valves, no port work, 78.8-79cc chambers
Cylinder head flow in cfm at inches of lift (28" H2O pressure drop):
Intake Exhaust
.100 .100
.200 .200
.300 .300
.400 .400
.500 .500
.600 .600
.700 .700
.800 .800
Flow bench used, location:
Intake valve brand, head size, stem size: SI, 2.09", 3/8"
Exhaust valve brand, head size, stem size: SI, 1.65", 3/8"
Valve springs brand, part number, specs: Comp Cams 972, set up at 1.800". 115/280 spring pressure
Retainers and locks brand, part number, specs: Comp 740, Comp 612
Rocker arm brand, type (adjustable or non-adj), material, ratio: New factory non-adjustable
Rocker shafts and stands, brand, material:
Pushrods brand, type, length: Trend, 5/16" ball on lifter end, 3/8" ball on rocker arm end, 9.500"
Valve covers, brand, type: El-cheapo chrome ones for dyno
Distributor brand, advance curve information: Dyno'd with MSD, 36° total, all-in by 2500
Harmonic balancer brand: Dorman street
Water pump brand, type (mechanical or electric): Driven by electric motor
Intake manifold brand, material, porting information: Fomoco PI intake, no port work
Carburetor(s) brand, type: Holley 750 mechanical secondary, dyno carb
Exhaust manifolds or headers brand, type: Dyno headers
-
What's interesting is the similarity in horsepower, torque, and hp peaks between a similar build, except with hydraulic roller camshaft.
I dyno'd the twin of this engine a few years back. It had a cast iron CJ intake and a 227/233 @ .050" hydraulic roller, 112/106 with .570" lift. Horsepower was essentially the same, hp peaks were the same, but the flat tappet made about 10 more lb-ft of torque at peak, which I attribute to the tighter LSA and ICL.
-
Nice build, shows what careful choices and good assembly will give you.
Perfect street CJ
-
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4703/27872684139_4797b69868_c.jpg)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4766/24971328547_9fa9ea117c_c.jpg)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4624/39841855031_fe99467d63_c.jpg)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4753/28196400709_593dccf154_c.jpg)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4702/39078082125_304af4ef6f_c.jpg)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4740/28339625359_732f29d120_c.jpg)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4703/25585519507_7664afb24c_c.jpg)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4657/39560571375_bc97b68095_c.jpg)
The MSD distributor has already been swapped out for a factory piece:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4650/38646130260_4355b3c4d6_c.jpg)
-
Nice build, Brent. It's nice to see some results from what basically amounts to all stock hardware and design. A nice spread on the power output also. Having the peak torque at 3000 should make for a very happy and efficient engine at cruise speeds.
A couple questions: you didn't list the static CR. I'm curious what that came in at, because about the only 2 variations from a totally stock engine are the CR and your cam.
Also, why only 36* timing? Just curious because in my experience, all the old iron stuff wants at least 38* and upwards of 40* if the gas and compression can take it. The only reason I could see stopping at 36* would be if it were destined for a heavy vehicle with questionable fuel quality available.
And thanks for attaching pictures. I'm a "visual" guy and like to see stuff :)
-
Whoops, I forgot to add the compression ratio on the corresponding line. It's 9.7:1.
It most certainly would have liked around 40 degrees total. However, I set it up conservatively because it's going to Finland to be set down inside of a '68 Mustang. He has the actual carburetor there, as well as the actual exhaust manifolds and other parts, so there was no reason to chase every single pony here.
You're right, the only real differences in comparison to a factory piece are the forged pistons with a modern ring pack, the camshaft, and a lot better valve/valve job setup.
-
Nice Brent, there’s always talk about what a stock 428 made and it’s usually Gonked at about
375-385. You think the little bit extra cam and you putting it together gets the extra 40. And you did put the compression down which is less than a 428cj. Nice a motor like that should have been in a lot more mustangs back in the day. The chebby guys wouldn’t know what to do with themselves.
-
What would you guess the electric water pump and headers did for the engine compared to the installed setup with manifolds? 30 HP?
-
7-8 hp for the water pump.
Not sure on the headers. Possibly not much at all at this level.
-
Thanks for the replay, Brent. I figured there had to be a good reason for the conservative timing.
-
I think the headers made a BIG difference. On the 425 HP 428CJ dyno mule in my book, the engine picked up 15 peak HP from the CJ exhaust manifolds to the Hooker Super Comp headers, and 20 peak HP with the FPA tri-Y headers. The torque gain with headers was even more pronounced, with the Hooker headers beating the 428CJ exhaust manifolds by almost 40 lb-ft peak. The 428CJ exhaust manifolds are just not that great...
-
I've never had any exhaust manifolds on the dyno, so I was not sure of their capability on a stock-ish hp engine.
-
Oil temp was at 192-193 on the dyno sheet that I have here. Water temp was at 180. Oil pressure started out at 51 psi at the beginning of the pull and continued up to about 53 psi at 5500. This was with a standard volume/standard pressure pump, no rocker drip tins, etc.
It's interesting to see the effects of a small oil pan with factory style oil capacity. On the dyno, a water thermostat is not used, so we can control the water temperature. This is very valuable in situations like camshaft break-ins. On the engines that use the Milodon/Canton/Moroso 7-8 quart pans, I routinely see oil temperature top out at about 185-190° during break-in. On this particular engine with a 5 quart pan, 6 quart total capacity, oil temperature ended up at about 205° at the end of the cam break-in session.
-
Pretty sure that 335hp rating was a bit low. The better heads, intake , cam and carb and exhaust cost 10hp! I suppose if they rated them at a more honest 375hp they could have sold more. Might have been a tougher deal to race in Super Stock but
-
edit:
oops. Wrong place.
-
Jay,
Your results show the 85 lb iron intake is worth a few HP too. "Back in the day" , Doug's or Jardine's were worth a couple of tenths when we installed them on stock CJ's. There was a pretty good Erson cam ( hydraulic) that was more like Brent's hydraulic roller that most of the guys used and it got the cars into the 11's with a 4.30 or 4.57 gear.
Randy
-
Very cool Brent! Thx once again.
-
Brent,
Glad this thread bumped, I missed it the 1st time.
Are those the same headers as on the "twin" build from just over a year ago?
I guessed 2x31 primaries, and a 3.5 x 24" collector/extension. (Sometimes exhaust details matter, sometimes they don't)
The headers Gonk to add +13 Torq and +22 HP vs the iron CJ unibody manifolds - so far anyway.
-
It looks alot better than it did when it left my hands Brent. Great job!
-
Brent,
Glad this thread bumped, I missed it the 1st time.
Are those the same headers as on the "twin" build from just over a year ago?
I guessed 2x31 primaries, and a 3.5 x 24" collector/extension. (Sometimes exhaust details matter, sometimes they don't)
The headers Gonk to add +13 Torq and +22 HP vs the iron CJ unibody manifolds - so far anyway.
Werb, yes, they are the same headers. You're pretty close on the dimensions.
-
Has anyone here ever dyno the 62 375 hp 390 to see what it really made pretty funny that with a shorter stroke and smaller bore also smaller valves that engine made the same as a 428CJ really did
Just s thought
-
I think the headers made a BIG difference. On the 425 HP 428CJ dyno mule in my book, the engine picked up 15 peak HP from the CJ exhaust manifolds to the Hooker Super Comp headers, and 20 peak HP with the FPA tri-Y headers. The torque gain with headers was even more pronounced, with the Hooker headers beating the 428CJ exhaust manifolds by almost 40 lb-ft peak. The 428CJ exhaust manifolds are just not that great...
The ring package is probably worth something too, even at 5500 rpm.
-
Has anyone here ever dyno the 62 375 hp 390 to see what it really made pretty funny that with a shorter stroke and smaller bore also smaller valves that engine made the same as a 428CJ really did
Just s thought
That's a dyno test I'd like to see too but never have.
Based on other dyno tests of the parts though, how the cars ran, and the Gonkulator, here is what I come up with:
455 T@ 3400 370 P@ 5200 390/375 HiPo
476 T@ 3200 380 P@ 5000 428/335 CJ
The 390 is down 38 cubes (actually 37) but has a bigger solid cam, higher compression, a better chamber, way better exhaust iron, BUT smaller valves, a worse intake, and a smaller carb.
All that stuff offsets each other so inch-for-inch the 390HP wins, but still loses out a little due to the 428CJ extra inches.
That's the best I can describe it.
Of course a PROPER shootout of all the old iron would be fun, but whenever the magazines do it a lot of revisionist history results.