FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: blykins on September 06, 2018, 07:23:42 AM
-
I'll be dyno'ing a TFS headed 390 on the 14th of this month.
Specs:
*4.080" bore, block bored/honed with torque plates, square decked with BHJ fixture, align honed with ARP studs
*Factory 391 crankshaft, with shaped counterweights, BBC rod journals, stock stroke
*Scat 6.800" I-beam rods
*Racetec forged flat top pistons, with Hastings 1.5/1.5/3mm piston rings, compression ratio ~10.4:1
*TFS cylinder heads, assembled with Comp beehive springs, tool steel retainers
*Factory non-adjustable rockers with POP stands and end stands
*Performer RPM intake with some plenum and divider work
*Quick Fuel Q-850 carburetor
*Cam is one of my custom hydraulic rollers, 240/243 @ .050", .555"/.580" lift, 109 LSA on a 103 ICL, with Morel lifters.
*Running a Canton rear sump pan, MSD distributor, blah blah blah
*Cylinder heads measured at 169.8cc intake port volume, 69.8cc chambers, flowed 233/164 @ .300", 317/215 @ .500", 333/220 @ .600"
*Will be turning water pump and alternator
I did end up having to cut .200" off the bottoms of the stands for the non-adjustable rockers, in order to get the geometry correct.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1860/43500146855_8071a0bc9c_z.jpg)
And a shot of my favorite helper screwing in the spark plugs....
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1847/43687719074_0bbfc90bcb_z.jpg)
Ok, so for the rules of the game....
Closest without going over on horsepower wins. I will be posting UNCORRECTED horsepower. Winner gets some Lykins Motorsports schwag....probably a decal and a T-shirt or something.
-
468 horses 495 torq.
I like these quessing games.
-
525hp @ 6300
Very interesting build, to me, for a few reasons:
1) Have tons of 445 with BBM/Survival/Ported Ebrocks and a hydraulic roller to compare it to
2) Comparisons to 393/408 small blocks with good AFR or other CNC heads, for the Cobra guys
-
Will the Alternator belt be tight or loose ??
Is this the high rpm hydraulic you talked about earlier ??
558 HP is my swag for swag :)
Uncorrected 530 hp , I got faith in ya Brent ! :)
-
539 hp here! ;D
-
475 @6100, 500tq
-
500 even.
And it that your daughter? Dang man, she was born just a lil while ago. We getting old.
-
Without going over? Is this the Price Is Right? ;D
I wouldn't mind having a free shirt, so I'll take a stab at it.
460 is my guess.
-
Will the Alternator belt be tight or loose ??
Is this the high rpm hydraulic you talked about earlier ??
558 HP is my swag for swag :)
This is not the high rpm one, although this one will probably get up there a little bit.
BTW, the game is for *uncorrected* horsepower, not corrected. Ain't no way this thing will make 558 uncorrected. I'll let you change your answer. :)
-
500 even.
And it that your daughter? Dang man, she was born just a lil while ago. We getting old.
We are getting old man.
She turned 6 last month.
-
482
-
Will the Alternator belt be tight or loose ??
Is this the high rpm hydraulic you talked about earlier ??
558 HP is my swag for swag :)
This is not the high rpm one, although this one will probably get up there a little bit.
BTW, the game is for *uncorrected* horsepower, not corrected. Ain't no way this thing will make 558 uncorrected. I'll let you change your answer. :)
Brent, you build quite a few small blocks as far as I understand so I'll ask. A 393/408 with heads that flowed same as the TFS would likely do 550-575 with this cam, there are so many of them out there it's a cookie cutter recipe by now. Why do you feel the 390 would be down from there? If you put a Victor on it, do you think it would gain up top? I know the Victor likely wouldn't pull ahead til 5500 or 6000 on a 390, but for seems they help 20hp or so on the 445s that go to 6500 if a guy is willing to give up the low/midrange.
I'm not putting the FE down at all, just trying to solve the riddle of where the bottleneck is. My guess is the transition from intake/intake port drops flow, but I have zero data to back it up.
-
490
-
Will the Alternator belt be tight or loose ??
Is this the high rpm hydraulic you talked about earlier ??
558 HP is my swag for swag :)
This is not the high rpm one, although this one will probably get up there a little bit.
BTW, the game is for *uncorrected* horsepower, not corrected. Ain't no way this thing will make 558 uncorrected. I'll let you change your answer. :)
Brent, you build quite a few small blocks as far as I understand so I'll ask. A 393/408 with heads that flowed same as the TFS would likely do 550-575 with this cam, there are so many of them out there it's a cookie cutter recipe by now. Why do you feel the 390 would be down from there? If you put a Victor on it, do you think it would gain up top? I know the Victor likely wouldn't pull ahead til 5500 or 6000 on a 390, but for seems they help 20hp or so on the 445s that go to 6500 if a guy is willing to give up the low/midrange.
I'm not putting the FE down at all, just trying to solve the riddle of where the bottleneck is. My guess is the transition from intake/intake port drops flow, but I have zero data to back it up.
I build a lot of small blocks too , but it takes a healthy 393/408 small block to make 575 hp. FWIW, a 408C with 208cc 3V CHI heads with a 248/254° .680" lift solid roller will make about 600 hp here. My 408C's with 3V heads and hydraulic rollers will be around the 525-550 hp mark.
I don't expect the 390 to be anywhere near that.
I *really* shaped the divider of that Performer RPM and spent quite a bit of time on it. I feel that it's really the most optimal intake for this combination, unless it was maybe a ported Port-o-sonic or a Street Master. I will most likely try a 1" and a 2" Super Sucker on the dyno.
Here's how the Performer RPM port opening matched up with the TFS port opening after a little work and some flange milling:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1849/29467614537_afd6d6e67c_z.jpg)
-
Sorry, realized I worded that poorly. I wasn't referring to port match, I was looking at how FEs basically have a large continual curve to the intake tract. My hunch is that the flow numbers for the heads are good, but bolt up the intake and the overall flow drops more than a small block (assuming the intake is good as well and is not the bottleneck). Again, no data there, just the only bottleneck I can think of would be the intake tract turning as a whole.
Don't want to get too far with this discussion as it feels negative when that's not the intent, focusing on the opportunity to have OOTB CNC'd heads for the FE to play with. Hope this 390 kicks ass.
-
487 hp
Was going to go 480 but figured the quality control little girl found some of your screwups and pointed them out.
-
487 hp
Was going to go 480 but figured the qualty control little girl found some of your screwups and pointed them out.
She's still young for that, but I'm sure it's coming.....ROFL
I think the TFS heads will do ok. Their biggest hang-ups are that the chambers are small-ish and the rocker stands need work. You can't just slap a set of rockers on. I've talked to Garifo about it and maybe he can start offering some reduced height stands if the heads turn out to make good power.
-
Sorry, realized I worded that poorly. I wasn't referring to port match, I was looking at how FEs basically have a large continual curve to the intake tract. My hunch is that the flow numbers for the heads are good, but bolt up the intake and the overall flow drops more than a small block (assuming the intake is good as well and is not the bottleneck). Again, no data there, just the only bottleneck I can think of would be the intake tract turning as a whole.
Don't want to get too far with this discussion as it feels negative when that's not the intent, focusing on the opportunity to have OOTB CNC'd heads for the FE to play with. Hope this 390 kicks ass.
It wasn't your wording, I was just making conversation about the intake manifold choice for that combination. I understand your point though.
-
Price is right huh? 461
-
493 more if you let your daughter tune it.lol
-
474 hp
Those shiny covers excite me. Right purty.
-
Doug took my 460 thought so I’ll say 455 hp 485 tq.
-
anybody already got 496 hp
BTW, I am an XL for my T-shirt
-
499 BOB!
-
499 BOB!
You ruined my 500hp without going over guess..... thanks BOB :P
-
500 even.
And it that your daughter? Dang man, she was born just a lil while ago. We getting old.
We are getting old man.
She turned 6 last month.
My 2nd GRANDSON is 8 - old my azz. 8) Oy, just realized I may have lost my EA installation when I had to re-install Windows 7 on my home machine. Uh oh. Wonder if there are any 3.5 floppy drives left on earth...
-
550 hp
-
Im going with 465 HP since CJ took the 468. Very interested in the outcome of the 390 build.
-
518hp, sounds like a nice build. Jim
-
518hp, sounds like a nice build. Jim
I think it's going to be a nice piece. It belongs to forum member Dennis Towle. It's going in a 64 Fairlane.
-
Looking for 494.
-
Price is right huh? 461
Dude, that was just mean ;D
-
I looked up the weather in Louisville for next Friday. Now figuring he should have it on the dyno before the hottest part of the day say 10:30 - 11:00am and figuring he is at 466' elevation but there will be 74% humidity next Friday, My guess is 541hp.
-
538hp uncorrected. Joe-JDC
-
504
-
My Wag for Swag is 445 HP uncorrected. Curious as a cat to see the results, win or lose. 8)
-
510 HP
-
511 497 tq
-
uncorrected 458 TQ
uncorrected 488 HP
-
I think Barry has it pretty darned close. I'm going to bracket his numbers in favor of a bit more power. You should be able to keep those hydraulic rollers in control long enough to squeeze out some more ponies:
448 TQ
496 HP
-
Uncorrected 483HP
Was going to guess lower but Avery putting in the plugs is worth a few ponies in my Gonkulator ;D
garyv
-
I think a few of you guys are gonna be really, really, close.....
-
511 497 tq
Thanks a lot Heo. ;-) My guess (510HP) has to be right on the money now. LOL
-
Ill take a crack 521 HP
Torque 511
Maybe a little high hoping the heads help
-
499 BOB!
You ruined my 500hp without going over guess..... thanks BOB :P
Drew you are still good for 500-509 HP. It's when someone guesses 501 that you will be screwed (that already happened to me). Then you have to be dead nuts on target.
-
501 HP
As that was the power my last FE was.
-
485
-
478 uncorrected
-
503.5 uncorrected
I wear a xl shirt and a large hat.
-
494
-
518
-
473
-
Since Drew got 500 before I read this thread, I'll go for 499. :)
KS
-
Since Drew got 500 before I read this thread, I'll go for 499. :)
KS
Am I the only one who watched "The Price is Right"? LOL
-
(https://s6.postimg.cc/bs6w269oh/one-million-horsepower.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
478 hp if it’s not spoken for, and I kinda hope I’m way low...
-
507 at 6200 if uncorrected and knowing the heat and humidity this time of year, I'd expect corrected to be significantly higher
-
Silly inefficient Americanskis. I send spetnaz team to this Comrade Lykins you speak of, and soon all swag and bling are belong to me. Perhaps steal gasoline propulsion device also. I have Lada with bad engine.
-
Perhaps steal gasoline propulsion device also. I have Lada with bad engine.
I think it needs more than an engine. LOL!!
-
Altered wheelbase!
-
505.i dont know if anyone else has guessed 505,but that is what its going to make!!
-
539
-
Well, since this is really similar to the engine that you spec'ed for me (other than the stroker crank), I hope it makes 1,000,000 horsepower. Since that ain't gonna happen, I'll go with 506.
-
534 hp
512 torq
-
I'll be dyno'ing a TFS headed 390 on the 14th of this month.
Ok, so for the rules of the game....
Closest without going over on horsepower wins. I will be posting UNCORRECTED
horsepower. Winner gets some Lykins Motorsports schwag....probably a decal and a T-shirt or something.
Um, are you really going to be taking guesses for another week?
-
Sure. There's only so many choices.
-
Roughly 477.3 .... or thereabouts.
-
Sure. There's only so many choices.
Oh. In that case, I'll take 666 horsepower. It's the number my abacus came up with after feeding in all the data. It's an old, very old, abacus. Of course, you realize if I lose, I will throw you to the wolves.
Uh, hold on here [tap tap tap tap etc]. Checking eBay, it seems the price of wolves has gone up ridiculously, so I may have to modify this threat. Let's see here...[more tapping]. OK BRENT, if I don't win, and I don't care if you have to TURBO it, I'm gonna throw you to the chihuahuas!!!
-
Awe cmon Felony, everyone knows you gotta use freakin ill tempered sea bass.
-
513
-
Awe cmon Felony, everyone knows you gotta use freakin ill tempered sea bass.
I used to employ ill-tempered sea bass for intimidation purposes when I lived near the California coast. I used to pick them off the pier, just like getting manual laborers at Home Depot. However, now that I am in Arizona, all they do is carp about the long bus ride. They get downright stinky about it. It just fries me that I can't find good bass anymore. Oh well.
-
511 annular
504 down leg
Edit: Totally spaced the uncorrected HP factor. I read it 3 time before casting my vote. :-[
-
577 hp
Hopefully you will ship T-shirt to Canada should I be closest.
Looks like a very nice build!
Cheers
-
Uncorrected numbers only, guys...
You can change your guess up until the dyno but there ain’t no way this thing will make 550-575 uncorrected horsepower.
-
I think the guesses are covered, but a question if you don't mind.
What are your typical correction factors?
thanks,
paulie
-
Varies from season to season and month to month, but in the most nasty and humid summer months, it will be over 10%.
-
Just so everyone knows the stats, here's where we are as of right now:
Low guess - 445
High guess - 577
Mean - 500.79 (24038/48)
-
Oh, so like Price is Right we can win this thing guessing 1hp if it makes 454.9 :)
-
Ha funny Tom but we know it’s gonna make more than that. I think the wild card on this build is the heads
-
Just so everyone knows the stats, here's where we are as of right now:
Low guess - 455
High guess - 577
Mean - 500.79 (24038/48)
Not that anyone is ever happy with their guess but I guessed 445 on page 3....oh this is gonna be tough to keep up with!
-
Just so everyone knows the stats, here's where we are as of right now:
Low guess - 455
High guess - 577
Mean - 500.79 (24038/48)
Not that anyone is ever happy with their guess but I guessed 445 on page 3....oh this is gonna be tough to keep up with!
Whoops, must have missed that. I did write down every reply though so I could calculate the average.....must have been low on caffeine yesterday. I'll edit the post.
There's a 132hp swing on guesses!
-
I'm surprised nobody guessed 0. Just in case it explodes on the dyno. :o
-
So using your local weather? Time of Day? Using the DA at Ohio Valley right now, I get 391 @ 6200
Your current DA is 1035, air we'd kill for here LOL
https://airdensityonline.com/track-results/Ohio_Valley_Dragway/
-
542 is my guess
-
So using your local weather? Time of Day? Using the DA at Ohio Valley right now, I get 391 @ 6200
Your current DA is 1035, air we'd kill for here LOL
https://airdensityonline.com/track-results/Ohio_Valley_Dragway/
We are having a day or two of fall weather. When I dynod a week or so ago the DA was about 5000.
-
I'll run it again with parameters closer to that - 5000 DA will knock the wind out of it for sure.
-
Just so everyone knows the stats, here's where we are as of right now:
Low guess - 445
High guess - 577
Mean - 500.79 (24038/48)
My 501 guess is looking good! lol
-
Did you run that motor today Brent. Just Curious. Ok I thought it said Wednesday I see its the 14th.
-
Only a couple days away, let er rip!
-
471hp @ 6100, 507 tq @ 4800.
-
It's dyno day! Good luck and make some power! Somebody is about to win!
-
Hold on, still working on it......
-
We put about 12 pulls on the 395 today.
In the end, I was very pleased with the performance of it. Even though it peaked at about 6200, it pulled to 6500 each time flawlessly, with no complaints from the valvetrain.
One thing I want to note is that this is the first time I have used one of these Canton rear sump oil pans. I was kinda gun shy about using it because I had heard of several guys losing oil pressure at the top of the pull. But with a standard volume/standard pressure pump, ~150 degree oil temp, ~175 degree water temp, and 8 quarts of oil in the complete system, it gained oil pressure all the way to 6500 rpm, with 6500 rpm showing 77 psi of oil pressure. This was with a snoot full of Valvoline VR1 10W-30, non-synthetic.
So, I feel like I need to be up front in saying that the carb was a Q-750 instead of a Q-850. However, I don't want everyone to think that their guesses were invalid because of that, because with a 1050 Dominator, it only gained 2 hp at peak.
We started at 34° total timing and checked it at 36° and also 32°. It liked 34° total. Horsepower didn't change much between the 3, but the 34° produced the most average horsepower and the most peak torque.
I was really happy with the way the engine performed. Filter was clean and it made excellent horsepower and torque.
So, for the moment you've all been waiting for....
Numbers with the Q-750:
TQ HP
3500 386 275
3750 394 281
4000 402 306
4250 414 335
4500 426 365
4750 436 395
5000 443 421
5250 443 442
5500 430 451
5750 418 458
6000 405 463
6250 388 461
6500 369 457
So peak uncorrected horsepower was 463 hp @ 6000 with the Q-750 carb.
The winner of the game was.................................................SHADY
If you've ever wanted to try a 1050 Dominator on a 390, here's what you would see:
Peak uncorrected horsepower was 464 hp @ 6250. Peak uncorrected torque was 443.
I think Jay is gonna come through and give us a "third-party" correction factor. I know what the dyno was telling me today, but we'll let Jay be the "official" factor calculator.
Gratuitous Dominator photo!
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1857/44681492051_50f645411e_c.jpg)
-
Thanks Brent. Enjoyed the contest and the build. Always nice to see different builds and dyno results.
-
I calculate the correction factor the same way that SuperFlow does with its dynos, so I will go through that here. The correction factor takes the raw torque and HP numbers and corrects them to standard barometric pressure at sea level (29.92 inches of mercury) and 60 degrees Fahrenheit.
First, I looked up the weather conditions for Buffalo, KY 42716 on the NOAA site. I assume that these are close to the same for the dyno that Brent used. NOAA reports the barometric pressure as 30.06, the dewpoint at 63 degrees, the relative humidity at 46%, and the temperature at 86 degrees Fahrenheit. Using Google Earth, I went to Buffalo KY and found the altitude as 760 feet; again I assume that the dyno location is the same as this.
(Note: Brent mentioned to me earlier that he was seeing 91 degrees for temperature; if that is accurate, then the numbers I got from the weather service could be different than what the weather actually was at the dyno. The reason that most dynos have a weather station built in is to record the weather data at the same time as the engine is run on the dyno, so that the correction can be accurately calculated).
First we need to find vapor pressure from this information. If you don't have the dewpoint, but do have the relative humidity and the air temperature (like most dynos), go to this site and move the sliders around to set air temp and relative humidity, and you will get the dewpoint:
http://www.dpcalc.org/
Next, with the dewpoint you can get the vapor pressure, at the National Weather Service site here:
https://www.weather.gov/epz/wxcalc_vaporpressure
A dewpoint of 63 degrees gives a vapor pressure of 0.58 inches of mercury.
Now we need to find the actual barometric pressure, because all barometric pressures reported by the NOAA and the National Weather Service are corrected to sea level. Barometric pressure is given in inches of mercury, and conveniently 1000 feet of altitude is almost exactly 1 inch of mercury in pressure. So, at an altitude of 760 feet above sea level, the pressure will be lower by 0.760 inches of mercury. This means that the actual barometric pressure at the dyno, assuming the weather data is accurate, is 30.06 - 0.760, or 29.30 inches of mercury.
Now we have everything we need to calculate the correction factor. The formula is:
(Square Root of ((459.7 + T)/519.7)) X (29.92/(BP - VP)
where T is the temperature in Fahrenheit, BP is the barometric pressure, and VP is the vapor pressure. Solving for the first term, (459.7 + 86)/519.7 is 1.050; the square root of that is 1.0247. The second term is 29.92/(28.3 - 0.58), which is 1.0794. Now multiplying the terms together, the correction factor is 1.106, or 10.6%. So, uncorrected peak HP for Brent's engine is 463 HP, and corrected peak HP is 512. Uncorrected peak torque is 443, and corrected peak torque is 490 lb-ft.
Pretty strong 390...
Edit: OOPS! A typo got me. I originally had put 28.3 in the second term equation above, not 29.3. Bad mistake. The second term, with 29.3 used instead of 28.3, is 1.0418. Now, multiplying the terms together you get a total correction factor of 1.0675, or 6.75%. This means that corrected peak HP is 494, and corrected peak torque is 473. Sorry guys... :-[ :-[
-
Thank you Mr. Brown.
The dyno corrected a few percent higher, but I have never been a fan of where the weather station is pulling data from with this particular dyno. The engine is pulling shop air, but the shop is not air conditioned or cool air....it's just warm ambient air.
It was indeed 91° outside when I was dyno'ing. I would imagine that the shop was a few degrees cooler than that, but there again, there were no air conditioning units, or even any fans.
We started at 11% correction factor, which jives with Jay's calculations, but as the day went on, the dyno here corrected to 14%. So the dyno sheets show the engine making 538 hp with the 750 and 540 hp with the Dominator.
Lots of numbers to throw out, I know......
But the bottom line is that Shady won the game and it is a pretty stout little 390.......not bad for a pump gas engine turning the water pump and alternator.
-
That's a pretty stout 390 Brent. I overshot it by 20HP LOL.
I really like the hydraulic roller with non adjustable rocker setup.
Great job.
garyv
-
A few of us were close. Glad it did more and good to hear it ran smooth and held on long. Definitely a strong package. Are all the details going to be posted in the dyno section we hope?
-
i was 12 years old in 1975 when i got my first 390 fe experience. my dad bought a 63.5 Galaxy.first time i rode in it he kicked the four barrel in and passed 3 cars at the same time on a 2 lane road,i was a fe fan from then on.i have owned several 390s but never one that stout.i would have loved to had something like that back in the day to pick on sbc and mopars.
-
"Shady" is right, seeing as how he upped my guess by ONE horsepower to win. Those damn Price Is Right rules that you employed, Brent ;)
-
Evidently, Brently, you chose not to heed my earlier command to assure my victory in this matter. I have only one thing to say: RELEASE THE HOUNDS!!!!
-
Well done, that'll be blast of a street/strip build.
-
Great looking engine!! Performed equally well.
The question I have - and maybe others is How does this TFS headed engine output compare to Barry's heads or BBM's or pocket ported Edelbrocks?
I am sure you may have examples of 390's (396) with a similar hydraulic roller and the other cylinder head offerings.
Would be interesting to have a comparison.
Again, well done!!!
Can't wait for the 8000 rpm 390.
Cheers
-
It would seem the hype about the trick flow heads might be valid although can’t understand why they missed the mark on the rocker pads.. I wonder what the output might be on a 445?? Maybe the massaging of the intake is the secret...... but it doesn’t matter cause it’s a damn fine engine..
-
I was 30hp off but it still looks like a fun motor for the street. Great build. What is it going in?
-
I wouldn't protest if you put it back to dyno and dig another five ponies more....
Just saying ???
-
It would seem the hype about the trick flow heads might be valid although can’t understand why they missed the mark on the rocker pads.. I wonder what the output might be on a 445?? Maybe the massaging of the intake is the secret...... but it doesn’t matter cause it’s a damn fine engine..
We will have to wait until there are more dyno tests done I suppose. I think Blair has one coming up, although he may have massaged his heads to get rid of the point where they backed up and went turbulent. I didn't touch mine, just bought them bare with valves, checked the valve job, cc'd a port, cc'd some chambers, and assembled valvetrain for the camshaft. I have another set up of TFS heads here, but they're going on a 465ci bracket engine.
Keep in mind that this was quite a bit of camshaft for a 390, 240/243 @ .050". To be honest, that's within a few degrees of what I use in my 482's for a 5500-6000 rpm peak. I put the cam on a 103 ICL. I felt that it was necessary to do that for street car operation. It may have made more power with the cam retarded from that position and then again, it may not have.
All of the engines that I've used BBM and SM heads on have been stroker 390's, 428's, and 427's. I haven't put any on a 390. I will say, that on the dyno here, the street 445's and 462's are usually around the 525-535 hp range. So, on this dyno, the little 390 equaled the horsepower.
The engine is going in a Thunderbolt "clone", minus the 427. :) Last I heard, the owner was going to stab a TKO 600 behind it and deepen the rear gear. I think it's going to be an absolute blast.
"How much horsepower does your engine make?"
"It made over 500 hp on the dyno."
"445?"
"No, it's just a 390."
What's interesting, is that even using Jay's ~10% correction, it still had about 425 lb-ft of torque at 3500.
The owner fell about 25' off a ladder a few months back and completely busted up his shoulder. Unfortunately, we may not hear about how it works in the car for quite a while.
-
Just as a comparison....
If we compare dyno results to dyno results, this is a 427 with ported medium riser heads:
http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=4613.0
-
1.19 tq/cube is a good solid number for a street performance engine. Just under 500 should make for a fun 390
-
Dang, i was off by 15 HP, uncorrected anyway.
Great build, and is it safe to say the TFS heads are pretty good?
-
Brent did you use 93 octane fuel ?
-
Forgot to say thanks for sharing, you gave us really nice pictures and detailed specs, as well as a photo of the best ( and cutest ) shop helper ever.
-
That is a stout 390. It is a good comparison between your average machine shop built
300-350 HP 390 and a pro engine builder. Double the price, but almost double the HP.
This thing should run mid to high 11’s in a light Fairlane.
-
Well i was just 1 hp over Jays corrected Hp.....well i live at sea level so...thats my excuse
-
I think I nailed the corrected hp? Strong street engine. Joe-JDC
-
"Shady" is right, seeing as how he upped my guess by ONE horsepower to win. Those damn Price Is Right rules that you employed, Brent ;)
I almost feel guilty. Maybe I ought to have Brent send the goodies to you just for me being a dick. Nah, I never ever win anything so I'll relish in my victory. I did win the engine, right? ;)
-
Will the Alternator belt be tight or loose ??
Is this the high rpm hydraulic you talked about earlier ??
558 HP is my swag for swag :)
This is not the high rpm one, although this one will probably get up there a little bit.
BTW, the game is for *uncorrected* horsepower, not corrected. Ain't no way this thing will make 558 uncorrected. I'll let you change your answer. :)
Brent, you build quite a few small blocks as far as I understand so I'll ask. A 393/408 with heads that flowed same as the TFS would likely do 550-575 with this cam, there are so many of them out there it's a cookie cutter recipe by now. Why do you feel the 390 would be down from there? If you put a Victor on it, do you think it would gain up top? I know the Victor likely wouldn't pull ahead til 5500 or 6000 on a 390, but for seems they help 20hp or so on the 445s that go to 6500 if a guy is willing to give up the low/midrange.
I'm not putting the FE down at all, just trying to solve the riddle of where the bottleneck is. My guess is the transition from intake/intake port drops flow, but I have zero data to back it up.
If you want to compare what this engine did against other engines, we can do that...
Even if a dyno corrects 87%, it's still valid to compare against other builds on the same dyno. The reason for the uncorrected numbers was so that the engine could be compared against other engines from other builders, on different dynos. Most everyone will have access to the uncorrected figures.
So this engine made 538hp @ 6000 here, with 515 lb-ft @ 5000. With the Dominator, it made 540 hp @ 6250 and carried it to 6500, with 515 lb-ft available @ 4750.
Other engines in my records that have similar horsepower to this one:
1. 445FE, Survival Motorsports heads, as cast, 235/241 @ .050", .613/.575, Performer RPM, 10:1, 525 hp @ 5500.
2. 433FE, ported C5AE-F heads, Sidewinder intake, 235/241 @ .050", .600/.600, 10.5:1, 526 hp @ 6000.
3. 438W, AFR 220cc heads, RPM Air Gap intake, 240/246 @ .050", .586/.590, 10.3:1, 535 hp @ 5700.
4. 408C, Edelbrock 351C heads, Performer RPM Air Gap intake, 240/244 @ .050", .622/.628, 10.5:1, 522 hp @ 6100.
5. 347 Clevor, CHI 185cc 3V heads, CHI 3V intake, 223/227 @ .050", .628/.635, 10.5:1, 517 hp @ 6250.
6. 347SBF, AFR 185cc heads, Victor Jr. intake, 230/236 @ .050", .600/.600, 11.25:1, 538 hp @ 6500.
I think the 390 did pretty stinkin well.
-
Looks good to me when looking at same dyno comps. Nice to have another good option out there, this along with other info is making me lean to the TFS for the 462 build.
Those 347s are making some power, trending head flow and cam size it looks like the single planes help them out quite a bit.
-
Looks good to me when looking at same dyno comps. Nice to have another good option out there, this along with other info is making me lean to the TFS for the 462 build.
Those 347s are making some power, trending head flow and cam size it looks like the single planes help them out quite a bit.
That last 347 is in a little bracket car that will run 10.90's and needs the smallest restrictor plate available to run a 7.50 index.
-
From Jays correction to his correction factor.
Pretty strong 390...
Edit: OOPS! A typo got me. I originally had put 28.3 in the second term equation above, not 29.3. Bad mistake. The second term, with 29.3 used instead of 28.3, is 1.0418. Now, multiplying the terms together you get a total correction factor of 1.0675, or 6.75%. This means that corrected peak HP is 494, and corrected peak torque is 473.
Almost 500 hp, still an extremely well done 390!!!
Well done!!
-
If you want to compare what this engine did against other engines, we can do that...
Even if a dyno corrects 87%, it's still valid to compare against other builds on the same dyno. The reason for the uncorrected numbers was so that the engine could be compared against other engines from other builders, on different dynos. Most everyone will have access to the uncorrected figures.
So this engine made 538hp @ 6000 here, with 515 lb-ft @ 5000. With the Dominator, it made 540 hp @ 6250 and carried it to 6500, with 515 lb-ft available @ 4750.
Other engines in my records that have similar horsepower to this one:
1. 445FE, Survival Motorsports heads, as cast, 235/241 @ .050", .613/.575, Performer RPM, 10:1, 525 hp @ 5500.
2. 433FE, ported C5AE-F heads, Sidewinder intake, 235/241 @ .050", .600/.600, 10.5:1, 526 hp @ 6000.
3. 438W, AFR 220cc heads, RPM Air Gap intake, 240/246 @ .050", .586/.590, 10.3:1, 535 hp @ 5700.
4. 408C, Edelbrock 351C heads, Performer RPM Air Gap intake, 240/244 @ .050", .622/.628, 10.5:1, 522 hp @ 6100.
5. 347 Clevor, CHI 185cc 3V heads, CHI 3V intake, 223/227 @ .050", .628/.635, 10.5:1, 517 hp @ 6250.
6. 347SBF, AFR 185cc heads, Victor Jr. intake, 230/236 @ .050", .600/.600, 11.25:1, 538 hp @ 6500.
I think the 390 did pretty stinkin well.
[quote Brent
Totally agreed !! the 390 holds up well against the others listed !! Brent what is the Torque comparison between the 347 AFR185 and this 390 ?? curious if the 347 holds up against the 390 on the torque for similar power
-
No sir, it doesn't. It was a wilder cam, so the powerband was shifted up. Horsepower went up, but torque went down. That 347 makes about 450 lb-ft, corrected, on this dyno.
-
I was looking at the build plan and was wondering why the stock rockers instead of roller rockers with larger ratio??
-
I was looking at the build plan and was wondering why the stock rockers instead of roller rockers with larger ratio??
The larger ratio would have just added about .009" lift.
The important issue here is the weight of the non-adjustable rocker versus the adjustable rockers with the large adjusters and nuts hanging off the back. This build, from the get-go, had a plan to try and peak the horsepower at around the 6200-6300 rpm mark. In times past, with other builds, we have often had trouble getting there without issue; the lifters usually want to give up at around the 6000 rpm mark because of the size of the FE valves and valvetrain components. The non-adjustable rocker arms help in that respect, as reducing the weight gives us some extra "rpms". This one pulled to 6500 with no issue, even though it didn't have the cam to keep it going up that high.
The non-adjustable rockers are the bees' knees IMO, so much that I have contracted a US company to make non-adjustable FE rocker arms for me, with roller tips, and with both bushing/bearing fulcrums, so that we can use them with some higher spring pressures and smaller stemmed valves.
-
Is there any reason you can't/shouldn't gun drill the stems on normal valves and run lash caps to remove some weight?
-
Ferrea sells hollow stemmed valves that are relatively light and strong that are a viable option for titanium. Joe-JDC
-
Is there any reason you can't/shouldn't gun drill the stems on normal valves and run lash caps to remove some weight?
You theoretically could.
The drilling would need to be absolutely perfectly straight and concentric with the stem OD, and have zero internal machining marks or flaws to prevent the creation of a stress initiation point. I have heard of current hollow stem valves being drilled top down prior to installation of a friction welded hard tip, or with the drilling going in from the valve head end and being welded shut at that end.
Not something you are going to do at home even with the top of the line Craftsman drill press, or a Makita and a good bench vise... ;D
-
Point taken on the "at home" & "machining marks" comment, although I do have a small lathe.
I wonder if you could drill undersize & then ream to finish to minimize these marks. Also the use of a sizing drill (where the corners are rouned off) may help to minimise any marks. I am just surprised this doesn't seem to have been tried much.
-
Seems like it'd be tough to keep runout in check building heat in the stem. Not a machinist, but that's a deep hole to drill
-
Seems like it'd be tough to keep runout in check building heat in the stem. Not a machinist, but that's a deep hole to drill
Yep. Easier to just buy hollow stem valves.
-
thanks for a good laugh , Barry .