FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: blykins on November 24, 2018, 12:13:43 PM
-
Another "guess the horsepower" game. Same rules as the last ones.....closest without going over wins some Lykins Motorsports paraphernalia. Again, as before, I will be posting UNCORRECTED numbers, so use that little tid-bid in your final guess. I will probably ask Jay if he will do the calculations and post corrected numbers as he did last time.
I'll even add another incentive: if anyone guesses the exact horsepower and the exact peak horsepower rpm, they will receive a free set of my new non-adjustable roller tip rocker arms.
I'm waiting on pushrods and a few odds and ends to show up, but I plan to have this on the dyno around the first week of December. Long block is assembled and just need to do a little mill work on the intake manifold.
As for the engine:
*Block is a C6ME block, 4.060" bore, with a 10.145" deck height. Block has had cylinder vents drilled in the block's bulkheads. Bored/honed with torque plates, square decked with a BHJ fixture, and align honed with ARP main studs. Block has been half-filled with Hard-Blok. All major galleys have been drilled/tapped for screw-in plugs. Block has been fitted with bronze lifter bore bushings, with BHJ fixture.
*Crankshaft is a factory 2U 390 crankshaft, cut .020" on the rods and .010" on the mains. Has been balanced with new pistons/rods/etc.
*Connecting rods are Molnar 6.490" rods, with factory FE rod journals.
*Bearings are Calico coated Federal Mogul rod bearings, Federal Mogul 125M10 main bearings, and Durabond FP-33 camshaft bearings.
*Cloyes billet timing set
*Pistons are custom Racetec pistons, with a 4cc dome. They hang .010" out of the block.
*Piston rings are Mahle 1mm/1mm/2mm rings.
*Oil system consists of a Melling HV pump, with a Milodon pickup and front sump oil pan.
*Cylinder heads are C8OE-N heads. They are the end result of some spare parts laying around and quite a bit of labor. They have been steelabrated, had bronze guides installed, and have been ported. Intake valves are titanium XCeldyne valves, 2.080" diameter, with a 7mm stem. They weigh 85g. Exhaust valves are custom Ferrea stainless valves, 5/16" stem, with a 1.630" head diameter. They also weigh 85g.
Flow numbers are as follows:
.1 62/54
.2 126/107
.3 197/134
.4 260/156
.5 279/171
.6 281/183
.7 289/191
Intake port volume is 162cc.
*Compression ratio is 12.1:1
*Valve springs are Comp Cams conical springs with PAC titanium retainers. Spring pressures are at 200/500.
*Camshaft is one of my custom billet core hydraulic rollers. 259/267 @ .050", 114 LSA, 107 ICL, .630"/.630" lift.
*Lifters are Morel hydraulic roller lifters.
*Pushrods are custom Trend 3/8", .135" pieces, with H13 ends.
*Rocker arms are my new non-adjustable roller tipped pieces. I have added Precision Oil Pumps billet stands and end stands.
*Ignition includes an MSD Pro Billet distributor that has been fitted with a steel gear and locked out.
*The top of the engine consists of an as-cast BBM Tunnel Wedge, topped with a pair of 1" Super Suckers, and a pair of Drew's 1850 carbs.
*I will be turning a mechanical water pump off the crankshaft.
*I will be using a header-vac setup.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1978/43770185840_18e9855bbb_c.jpg)
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1964/44673109175_0ea68335ed_c.jpg)
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1935/45587689031_cd5999a818_c.jpg)
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1912/30645965377_4d29545e71_c.jpg)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4834/45809902671_d989f116d2_c.jpg)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4811/45809902981_0800a7e323_c.jpg)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4885/45927862551_fa45272d9a_c.jpg)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4903/45091503714_3f077cc2fd_c.jpg)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4886/45979579682_4f4b683c56_c.jpg)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4879/45305204734_f0a8e67d41_c.jpg)
-
491 @ 6250
-
551 hp @ 6,675 rpm, 497 ft/lbs. My last change with new cam data!
Opphs! Missed the rpm factor. See above.....
-
539 HP @ 6,100 rpm
-
Bob, I think I've got maybe $500-600 in valves. Bought the intake valves brand new off of Ebay and had the stems cut down and regrooved....ordered the exhaust valves new from Ferrea.
With the exception of the intake manifold and the port work on the heads, the engine was pretty inexpensive to build. I've had the block sitting here, fully machined, for a couple of years. It was all steelabrated and looked beautiful a couple of years ago, but it's been stuck in the corner of the shop for awhile and looks a little crummy. Once painted on the outside and coated with oil on the inside, it won't know that it used to be beautiful.
I found a good deal on the heads last year and bought those.
Sometimes we see the easy way out and opt for new aftermarket heads, stroker kits, etc., but sometimes we just wanna do it a different way.
This engine is going to be a nice mule for me for awhile and its first task is to give my new rockers a whoopin'.
-
BTW guys.....that camshaft duration is at .050", not advertised. I'll let you change your guesses. :)
-
Uncorrected HP - 551 @ 6900 RPM
Going to be an evil little screamer....
-
Good to know on the valves as I guessed the $ would be far more. And yes, I''l change my guess a tad on the new cam data.
Bob, I think I've got maybe $500-600 in valves. Bought the intake valves brand new off of Ebay and had the stems cut down and regrooved....ordered the exhaust valves new from Ferrea.
With the exception of the intake manifold and the port work on the heads, the engine was pretty inexpensive to build. I've had the block sitting here, fully machined, for a couple of years. It was all steelabrated and looked beautiful a couple of years ago, but it's been stuck in the corner of the shop for awhile and looks a little crummy. Once painted on the outside and coated with oil on the inside, it won't know that it used to be beautiful.
I found a good deal on the heads last year and bought those.
Sometimes we see the easy way out and opt for new aftermarket heads, stroker kits, etc., but sometimes we just wanna do it a different way.
This engine is going to be a nice mule for me for awhile and its first task is to give my new rockers a whoopin'.
-
567 @ 6200
-
598Hp @ 7250rpm
i think everyone has a goal and a 600Hp 390 that turns 600hp @ 7300rpm is where i guess you would like to be.
The short stroke crank, the ultra light valves, conical springs with decent pressure, Ti retainers, Large cam numbers @.050, and your new light rockers, decent compression, all point to one goal. RPM, lots of it.
Then add a large volume intake that most would expect to be to big for a 390.
Experienced engine builders use the right combination of parts to achieve numbers that others wish for, so i reason that the intakes there to let this thing breath a lot, and a 390 dont need to breath that hard unless its spinning hard and aiming for big HP.
This is not engine Masters so averages and torque mean nothing.
Thats my justification on my guess.
Love to see it crack 600hp, but think it might just pull up short.
Joel
-
549 hp uncorrected@ 6600rpm. Joe-JDC
-
Should be pretty potent Brent
571 uncorrected at 6800
Good Luck 8)
-
540hp @6600rpm. Jim
-
613 hp at 6750 rpm
-
598Hp
i think everyone has a goal and a 600Hp 390 that turns 600hp @ 7300rpm is where i guess you would like to be.
The short stroke crank, the ultra light valves, conical springs with decent pressure, Ti retainers, Large cam numbers @.050, and your new light rockers, decent compression, all point to one goal. RPM, lots of it.
Then add a large volume intake that most would expect to be to big for a 390.
Experienced engine builders use the right combination of parts to achieve numbers that others wish for, so i reason that the intakes there to let this thing breath a lot, and a 390 dont need to breath that hard unless its spinning hard and aiming for big HP.
This is not engine Masters so averages and torque mean nothing.
Thats my justification on my guess.
Love to see it crack 600hp, but think it might just pull up short.
Joel
I think it will pull up short....
But yes, you pretty much hit it on the head. I'm doing some R&D'in.
I know that most guys are thinking, "That BBM TW is way too big for that engine..." And yes, I'll agree wholeheartedly. However, after having a BT MR 2x4 intake on backorder for months, I looked at a couple of BBM TW's that I had on the shelf and just thought I might as well give her a shot. Plus, Tunnel Wedges are just cool.
-
TunnelWedges are indeed cool.
I will guess 558hp at 6800rpm.
-
You are messing with us.....and I like it. No cubes, no stroke, lots of cam/compression.
567 uncorrected @6700.
JB
-
Lemme know when you are going to dyno. I’ll lend you a set of 660’s if I have any laying around.
-
555hp @6500rpm
-
575 hp @ 6300 rpm
-
560 horsepower 6550 rpm
-
OK here is what the Gonkulator is getting for this torque monster (cam is 7 degrees advanced so I'm calling it a torque monster)
I'm also assuming the same 2" headers your dyno usually runs? Torq is sensitive to the whole exhaust setup, power not so much.
SAE GROSS, 60F 29.92 dry air
Torq 496 at 4800
Powr 574 at 6900
Same except retarded 4 degrees to 114 LSA, 111 ICL
Torq 501 at 4900 +5
Powr 593 at 7000 +19
I don't know how to "uncorrect" SAE gross numbers without guessing the weather - I have your altitude at 750 ft, so will guess a "winter" correction factor of say 1.04. So using that 107 ICL cam, knocking 4% off these numbers gives:
Torq 477 at 4800
Powr 552 at 6900
So these last numbers are my guess per the rules. If I win those rockers I'll need a lot bigger cam, and then heads that can use that extra lift, and then rods that will handle the rpm, and bigger exhaust, and electric cutouts, and, oh, too much to handle right now.
Will those rockers work on the Model A Ford? (that was a joke for you young folk out there!)
-
Those are some good numbers for iron heads. Hopefully, you
will spin it to 7500, that is about where it will peak. 545 uncorrected.
-
OK here is what the Gonkulator is getting for this torque monster (cam is 7 degrees advanced so I'm calling it a torque monster)
I'm also assuming the same 2" headers your dyno usually runs? Torq is sensitive to the whole exhaust setup, power not so much.
SAE GROSS, 60F 29.92 dry air
Torq 496 at 4800
Powr 574 at 6900
Same except retarded 4 degrees to 114 LSA, 111 ICL
Torq 501 at 4900 +5
Powr 593 at 7000 +19
I don't know how to "uncorrect" SAE gross numbers without guessing the weather - I have your altitude at 750 ft, so will guess a "winter" correction factor of say 1.04. So using that 107 ICL cam, knocking 4% off these numbers gives:
Torq 477 at 4800
Powr 552 at 6900
So these last numbers are my guess per the rules. If I win those rockers I'll need a lot bigger cam, and then heads that can use that extra lift, and then rods that will handle the rpm, and bigger exhaust, and electric cutouts, and, oh, too much to handle right now.
Will those rockers work on the Model A Ford? (that was a joke for you young folk out there!)
Werb, the rockers will work with any setup, no need to upgrade. :)
It's mainly my fault for not getting you comparative info to enter, but there are certain situations where advanced cam timing actually makes more horsepower. I believe this engine is one of those situations, mainly based on the fact that it's a little engine pulling on a big intake manifold. Gotta make velocity. I had it ground with 8 degrees advance and it came in +7, so I left it alone. The issue with FE hydraulic roller camshafts is that the advertised durations are very large, which makes for a ton of overlap. Gotta pull hard on the top end to keep the charge going in the right direction. RPM helps of course....
I hope you're right on your calculations.....those numbers would make me happy. I'm not really out to make big horsepower, I'm out to twist the gonads off of a hydraulic roller FE.
-
Lemme know when you are going to dyno. I’ll lend you a set of 660’s if I have any laying around.
Drew, I've got these 600's, and I've got a set of QFT 725's that I have earmarked for a 465. I was thinking of swapping them, if anything, just to make sure the 725's will be right for a flat-tappet break-in startup. I'll probably make a power pull with them as well.
-
Very good. It’s nice to have some to swap around, especially a component that unbolts so easily.
-
530 at 6800 is my guess
-
Going by the rules of the game, and how I got screwed last time, my guess is:
505 @ 6500
Edit to add a more serious guess.
-
You are going to get screwed again if you don't play the whole game and add an RPM to that guess :)
I'll even add another incentive: if anyone guesses the exact horsepower and the exact peak horsepower rpm, they will receive a free set of my new non-adjustable roller tip rocker arms.
-
Going by the rules of the game, and how I got screwed last time, my guess is:
492
That's why I went in first, figured I'd double bulb ya.
-
533 at 6700
-
544 at 6550
-
587hp @ 6640rpm
-
You are going to get screwed again if you don't play the whole game and add an RPM to that guess :)
I'll even add another incentive: if anyone guesses the exact horsepower and the exact peak horsepower rpm, they will receive a free set of my new non-adjustable roller tip rocker arms.
That only applies to the free rocker arms. I won't even venture the odds of hitting the EXACT horsepower AND RPM.
That's why I went in first, figured I'd double bulb ya.
I'll be waiting with my finger on the keyboard to change my guess at a moments notice before the event ;)
-
Dyno rpms will be in 250 rpm increments.
-
$1!!!!
-
I'll take a swing at it.
I was trying "not to" because the combination is so unusual that I am almost guaranteed to be wrong.
Torque peak of 485 at 5000 RPM, power at 581@ 6500 RPM
-
My wife seas 556HP -6400 RPM and she is always smarter than me.
-
My wife seas 556HP -6400 RPM and she is always smarter than me.
;D ;D
-
Nice project!
The C8OE heads will hold it back some obviously, but i think it will be interesting. Ill say 560-575 hp. If the heads are really good, 625 hp.
-
539@6750
-
uncorrected 539hp @ 6800
-
Wasn't reading all the post ^^ I guess we think alike. looks like more than two at 539.
RPM tie breaker?
-
568hp at 6750 rpm
-
579 @ 6500
-
570hp @ 6750rpm
-
I'm guessing the valvetrain will start rolling over past 6,500 rpm. 582 at 6,500 is my guess!
-
I'm guessing the valvetrain will start rolling over past 6,500 rpm. 582 at 6,500 is my guess!
Bill, I’d like to have your input on this.
From my perspective, we see SBF, LS, and late model Mopars turning 7000-7500 rpm all the time with literally factory parts. Granted, they have lightweight valves, some even have titanium valves from the factory, etc. I've had SBF's approaching 7000 rpm peaks with hydraulic rollers, with fairly common parts.
The purpose of this mule was to get the FE to those rpm levels with a hydraulic roller setup. Not only would it get the FE further into this century, but it would give me yet another option to provide to my customers. Lots of guys like rpms. Lots of guys don't want to bother with solid flat tappet or solid roller camshafts.
In my mind, I have lighter valves than most small blocks (85 grams on both intake and exhaust), short travel lifters to help eliminate any pump-up or volumetric deficiencies, enough spring pressure, and lightened rocker arms. Honestly, if the engine doesn’t let me yank it to over 7000 rpm without giving me trouble, because of the valvetrain, then I’m gonna be sitting here scratching my head for quite awhile.
If it won’t get there because I made a mistake on camshaft specs, head volume, etc., then that’s on me but I just don’t wanna hear the lifters give up.
In the past, I have pulled many hydraulic roller FE's to 6500. The last 390 that I built with the Trick Flow heads just had standard travel lifters and standard weight stainless steel valves. It peaked at 6200 and we pulled it to 6500, even though the camshaft was done.
I have high hopes for this one....
Your thoughts are welcomed, as always.
-
532 @ 6750 RPM
I think it will pull to 7000 RPM and possibly a little more.
-
562@ 6725
-
I'm guessing the valvetrain will start rolling over past 6,500 rpm. 582 at 6,500 is my guess!
Bill, I’d like to have your input on this.
From my perspective, we see SBF, LS, and late model Mopars turning 7000-7500 rpm all the time with literally factory parts. Granted, they have lightweight valves, some even have titanium valves from the factory, etc. I've had SBF's approaching 7000 rpm peaks with hydraulic rollers, with fairly common parts.
The purpose of this mule was to get the FE to those rpm levels with a hydraulic roller setup. Not only would it get the FE further into this century, but it would give me yet another option to provide to my customers. Lots of guys like rpms. Lots of guys don't want to bother with solid flat tappet or solid roller camshafts.
In my mind, I have lighter valves than most small blocks (85 grams on both intake and exhaust), short travel lifters to help eliminate any pump-up or volumetric deficiencies, enough spring pressure, and lightened rocker arms. Honestly, if the engine doesn’t let me yank it to over 7000 rpm without giving me trouble, because of the valvetrain, then I’m gonna be sitting here scratching my head for quite awhile.
If it won’t get there because I made a mistake on camshaft specs, head volume, etc., then that’s on me but I just don’t wanna hear the lifters give up.
In the past, I have pulled many hydraulic roller FE's to 6500. The last 390 that I built with the Trick Flow heads just had standard travel lifters and standard weight stainless steel valves. It peaked at 6200 and we pulled it to 6500, even though the camshaft was done.
I have high hopes for this one....
Your thoughts are welcomed, as always.
Brent -
My peak power rpm guess is colored by those heavy hydraulic roller lifters. It's just a lot of mass on that side of the rocker. Are the Trend pushrods double tapered? That should help.
Now to the aluminum rockers. They are light and can handle the spring pressure but I'm wondering if they are stiff enough to keep the hydraulic roller freight train damped at those rpm. The valves, springs, and retainers are light, which is great. Are the springs shimmed close to bind at full lift?
Very cool experiment! I think you can see that this is as much a stiffness problem as a mass problem. It's just a matter of moving the resonant frequency rpm up as much as possible. Sometimes you need to trade a bit more mass for a lot more stiffness. Hopefully the aluminum arm will get you there. Otherwise I think a steel rocker will pay dividends.
I'll be watching with interest! I'm a big fan :)
-
I'm guessing the valvetrain will start rolling over past 6,500 rpm. 582 at 6,500 is my guess!
Bill, I’d like to have your input on this.
From my perspective, we see SBF, LS, and late model Mopars turning 7000-7500 rpm all the time with literally factory parts. Granted, they have lightweight valves, some even have titanium valves from the factory, etc. I've had SBF's approaching 7000 rpm peaks with hydraulic rollers, with fairly common parts.
The purpose of this mule was to get the FE to those rpm levels with a hydraulic roller setup. Not only would it get the FE further into this century, but it would give me yet another option to provide to my customers. Lots of guys like rpms. Lots of guys don't want to bother with solid flat tappet or solid roller camshafts.
In my mind, I have lighter valves than most small blocks (85 grams on both intake and exhaust), short travel lifters to help eliminate any pump-up or volumetric deficiencies, enough spring pressure, and lightened rocker arms. Honestly, if the engine doesn’t let me yank it to over 7000 rpm without giving me trouble, because of the valvetrain, then I’m gonna be sitting here scratching my head for quite awhile.
If it won’t get there because I made a mistake on camshaft specs, head volume, etc., then that’s on me but I just don’t wanna hear the lifters give up.
In the past, I have pulled many hydraulic roller FE's to 6500. The last 390 that I built with the Trick Flow heads just had standard travel lifters and standard weight stainless steel valves. It peaked at 6200 and we pulled it to 6500, even though the camshaft was done.
I have high hopes for this one....
Your thoughts are welcomed, as always.
Brent -
My peak power rpm guess is colored by those heavy hydraulic roller lifters. It's just a lot of mass on that side of the rocker. Are the Trend pushrods double tapered? That should help.
Now to the aluminum rockers. They are light and can handle the spring pressure but I'm wondering if they are stiff enough to keep the hydraulic roller freight train damped at those rpm. The valves, springs, and retainers are light, which is great. Are the springs shimmed close to bind at full lift?
Very cool experiment! I think you can see that this is as much a stiffness problem as a mass problem. It's just a matter of moving the resonant frequency rpm up as much as possible. Sometimes you need to trade a bit more mass for a lot more stiffness. Hopefully the aluminum arm will get you there. Otherwise I think a steel rocker will pay dividends.
I'll be watching with interest! I'm a big fan :)
Thanks Bill. We'll see how it goes.
The lifters are the same lifter bodies that are used in the SBF engines and I've never had issues with pulling the rpms with them. Only difference is the link bars.
Trend was not able to do double tapered pushrods, even though I requested it. Said the wall thickness was going to be too thin at the end and they weren't comfortable with it.
Springs are setup .060" from bind.
I was looking at the dyno sheet from the TFS headed 390. It made 540 hp @ 6250 and was still there at 6500. That was with a factory rocker arm, same lifters, 2.190"/1.650" stainless valves, etc. The lifter was not giving up at 6500 and my gut tells me that if I would have had enough camshaft, it would have kept on going.
Time will tell.
Thanks for your comments, I respect your thoughts.
-
556 hp at 7050 rpm
Let it scream.
-
580 @ 6750
-
Lot of good guesses here so mine is more of a comment than anything else and is based on zero intelligence. Nice assortment of parts although the intake may be a bit big and I'd rather have aftermarket heads with little better numbers. I'm going to say this thing will go over 7000 but power will top out around 6500. HP somewhere between 550 and 600.
-
Surprised by the 114 in @107. Why such a wide lsa, are you trying to keep the vacuum in powerbrake territory?
-
Surprised by the 114 in @107. Why such a wide lsa, are you trying to keep the vacuum in powerbrake territory?
It's to control overlap.
When you have too much valve overlap, you can basically pull the intake charge in and it doesn't get translated into power, it just goes right out the exhaust.
There are as many flavors of hydraulic roller lobes as anything else. Aggressive lobes can make more power if everything else is correct, but it gets tougher to control the valves/lifters at higher rpms, and in a street car, they can be noisy. Lazy lobes are nice and quiet and easy on parts, but generally speaking, they have a lot of overlap and it gets tougher to make good vacuum.
Just like everything else, you have to balance it and find that point of moderation that works for what you're doing.
The camshaft lobes that I'm using are Comp's HLO lobes, which are a good balance between aggressiveness to make power and laziness to make sure that I don't lose the lifters at higher rpm.
With a camshaft this large (259/267 @ .050" is a *very* large hydraulic roller, especially for a 390), the advertised duration is going to be high anyway. Even if you had an aggressive lobe, advertised durations would be over 300°. When I started looking at overlap, I had a ton. To decrease overlap, you either tighten the intake/exhaust duration spread, or you widen the LSA. I widened the LSA. I still have a lot, but in my mind, it's keeping that balance.
I had a member of my 351C forum contact me and asked for help back in the spring. He has a '69 Mustang, running 6.30's and he said that no matter what he tried, he felt like he had hit a wall with getting any more horsepower out of his combination. He sent me all his specs, along with a cam card from Crower, where they had ground him a solid roller. It had a tremendous amount of overlap for his displacement, lots of duration, with a 106 or 107 LSA from what I remember. I basically had a camshaft ground for him, with the same .050" durations, same lift, and decreased the amount of overlap by widening the LSA. It picked up a full mph in the 1/8th mile.
So long story longer, overlap can make or break a camshaft, and I felt I needed to tighten this one up a bit. I would have went wider, but on a typical FE billet core, you can only go so far.
-
I am with Mr. Conley on the rockers. You might be surprised at how well the mass moment inertia is on the old Ford ductile rocker. I have just about stopped using aluminum rockers, and needle bearings, for that matter. "Bushed and Steel" is my norm these days for higher rpm control and durability. Aluminum rockers won't break for a while, they just snap back like a superband waistband in a pair of Fruit of the Looms.
I think it will peak power just one side or the other of 7000 rpm. Where torque occurs will depend somewhat on the header. I'm a little puzzled with the 114 lobe separation with a big manifold and a relatively shitty exhaust port. (No reflection on you Brent.....N heads just have a generally shitty exhaust port without brass and serious porting) Back several years ago, I tested three cams in the same engine, with heads and a manifold that were borderline on too big. A 108 was 20 hp better than a 110, and 40 hp better than a 112 . That engine had a relatively shitty exhaust port. Every once in a while, I can use a 112 with success with really high compression, and/or a good exhaust port and/or a really good header/collector setup. I have never seen 113 or more work in an FE, unless it was IR, in which case I like 115-116.
I think your combo might be soft to come along, but will have a broad powerband. I could be surprised on the cam.......have been before. My guess is peak torque at 4800, value of which I have no idea. Power 540 at 7000.
Those short travel Morels will go 7500 rpm. I set them up .008 off the bottom, cold. That ends up about .015 preload when hot.
-
I am with Mr. Conley on the rockers. You might be surprised at how well the mass moment inertia is on the old Ford ductile rocker. I have just about stopped using aluminum rockers, and needle bearings, for that matter. "Bushed and Steel" is my norm these days for higher rpm control and durability. Aluminum rockers won't break for a while, they just snap back like a superband waistband in a pair of Fruit of the Looms.
I think it will peak power just one side or the other of 7000 rpm. Where torque occurs will depend somewhat on the header. I'm a little puzzled with the 114 lobe separation with a big manifold and a relatively shitty exhaust port. (No reflection on you Brent.....N heads just have a generally shitty exhaust port without brass and serious porting) Back several years ago, I tested three cams in the same engine, with heads and a manifold that were borderline on too big. A 108 was 20 hp better than a 110, and 40 hp better than a 112 . That engine had a relatively shitty exhaust port. Every once in a while, I can use a 112 with success with really high compression, and/or a good exhaust port and/or a really good header/collector setup. I have never seen 113 or more work in an FE, unless it was IR, in which case I like 115-116.
I think your combo might be soft to come along, but will have a broad powerband. I could be surprised on the cam.......have been before. My guess is peak torque at 4800, value of which I have no idea. Power 540 at 7000.
Those short travel Morels will go 7500 rpm. I set them up .008 off the bottom, cold. That ends up about .015 preload when hot.
BP,
I had planned to use a BT MR 2x4 intake, but kept getting pushed back and back and back on delivery date. Sooner or later I had to pull the trigger, so it got the Tunnel Wedge.
As I mentioned on the first page, I know it's too big, but it is what it is at this point. The port openings line up perfectly with the CJ heads, but I know it's got a ton of plenum. We'll just have to make due.
As for the LSA stuff, I was going off of my gut based on the camshaft's overlap. I kinda march to the beat of my own drummer with cams. I'll just have to see how off-beat I am.
Dec 7 will be dyno day. If everything goes well, I'll establish a baseline and then work out a plan for what variables I wanna change for next time.
Thanks for the input....except for the Fruit of the Loom mental image.
-
We'll don't get a mental image of me in those Fruities. I gave up underwear a long time ago....... bareback now, just like Tonto.
I just ran a 390 that did have one of those BT manifolds and a pair of Trick Flows that I worked on a little. It had kind of a long duration cam, 264/270. Against my better judgement, I put a 112 in it to try to smooth it out below 3000 rpm for street manners. I am changing the cam now to less duration and tighter centers......this thing would be a pig until it woke up at about 4000 rpm. I'm going back to 248/252 on a 110. Just not enough inches to make that work, and I think the TFS heads will want 109 or 110 at the max.
-
490 Ft-lbs @ 4750
550 HP @ 7000 RPM
Love the combination
-
1.42 hp/ci is reasonable IMHO.
-
The real issue here is the uncorrected horsepower and torque numbers. At 12:1 compression, and iron heads, it is just a guessing game. Joe-JDC
-
The real issue here is the uncorrected horsepower and torque numbers. At 12:1 compression, and iron heads, it is just a guessing game. Joe-JDC
Actually there is no issue here, it really is just a guessing game :)
-
The real issue here is the uncorrected horsepower and torque numbers. At 12:1 compression, and iron heads, it is just a guessing game. Joe-JDC
Actually there is no issue here, it really is just a guessing game :)
i think its fun and exciting.
-
577hp at 6600
494tq at 4750
You hold on to your rockers and swag. Will need any discount help i can get on my 482 build!!!!
Maybe we will play this game again with it. Hahaha
-
Gotta run the plugs in and put wires on. That's about it.
Spent yesterday grinding on the pushrod tubes. My valves are taller than stock and I had to shim the rockers up .120" to handle it. It pushed all the pushrods up in the very corners of the pushrod tubes and I spent probably 3-4 hours yesterday just grinding. Ground through on one intake port, had to epoxy and get back at it.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4878/31192449917_44a4672cba_c.jpg)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4902/45220224955_7a576f0fc1_c.jpg)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4852/31192450897_8b2a2bafa1_c.jpg)
Here's where I ended up on rocker arm geometry.....very pleased with the new rockers.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4870/31192447957_86997e5cc4_c.jpg)
-
That....is a very nice contact pattern. Good looking engine too, but I think you could put a tunnelwedge on a greasy stock 360 and it'd look bad to the bone ;)
-
Is that a Powerbond balancer?
-
Tunnelwedge or really any dual carb setup looks awesome to me.
-
Is that a Powerbond balancer?
Yes sir.
-
Looks beautiful, can't wait to hear it at full boogie!
-
That thing looks GOOD. I don't think anyone would complain about that sitting under the christmas tree! Can't wait to see what it does.
-
I’m curious where you got the 2x4 linkage. I haven’t seen it plated like that before. I kinda like it.
-
is this engine going to be for sale later.i like the idea of telling someone yea its just got an old 390 in it.and then smoking them with it.
-
Drew, I think it was Dearborn Classics.
Fryedaddy, I’ve been telling myself that I won’t sell it but you know how that goes. It isn’t a pump gas motor though. You’d have to mix, run E85, etc.
-
495 Ft-lbs. @4650
565 hp @6900
Grab up those 660's and spin it.
-
572hp @7250rpm
-
538hp at 6750 rpm.
JMO,
paulie
-
My SWAG 665 @ 7500
-
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4878/31192449917_44a4672cba_c.jpg)
Looks great, but how many v/c gaskets you gonna run? :o I'm guessing you will be using spacers? I have some of the 5/16" cork gaskets from DSC and fit very nice on mockup for my current build. I had to shim my HS setup about .240" to get everything happy. I also came out with about .050" sweep. Will also be using those same covers....
Always nice to see a 390 get some attention. Looking forward to the results.
-
No spacers needed. Doubled up on gaskets because rocker stands were shimmed up quite a bit and I used some longer stand studs. In the pic above the valve covers are not bolted down and I was trying both cork and rubber gaskets.
The valve covers fit with one gasket otherwise.
-
Great looking 390!
Love the FE's for sure.
537 hp @7000 rpm
470 ft lbs @ 5500 rpm
I think the torque numbers will hurt with the very early exhaust opening (@121 LCA exhaust timing)
But the power will probably peak later.
Cheers
-
Just a reminder to the guys, guessing on torque is not required.
Peak hp is the variable here and if you want to shoot for the rockers, peak hp rpm.
As for making torque, that's not something that I'm concerned about. It's pretty much a given that a high rpm, small displacement engine will have considerably less torque.
-
540@6850
-
567 at 6900
-
587 at 6980
-
where can I get that plug you have in the oil filler tube spot?
-
It’s just a 1-3/8” cup plug.
-
Thaks
-
567@6600
-
Hey Brent I put my geuss in uncorrected HP. I thought thats what you wanted. How would you cross that over to corrected, or you cant do that till the day the engine is run.
-
where can I get that plug you have in the oil filler tube spot?
we make a little billet piece if pretty is important to you...
-
Hey Brent I put my geuss in uncorrected HP. I thought thats what you wanted. How would you cross that over to corrected, or you cant do that till the day the engine is run.
It will just depend on the correction factor for the day.
-
565 hp @ 6100 uncorrected
-
Very nice build. That's a huge hydraulic cam! With all the power it's going to make, would it have been a good idea to cross bolt at least #2 and #4?
-
I don’t think it will make enough power to hurt itself. Famous last words.
-
587HP 522lbs torque , I always worry about RPM, HP isnt the killer IMHO sometimes its just ( simplified ) centrifugal Force IMHO , Nice Engine no matter what it does :-)
-
I don’t think it will make enough power to hurt itself. Famous last words.
LOL
It's gonna take you 2 days just to go through all the guesses. I have to wonder if some of them missed the "uncorrected" part.
-
512
-
I’m headed to an ugly sweater party so I don’t have time to do a full write-up now, but I will later on.
The short and skinny of it is that this combo will go to 7500-7600 rpm very easily and my rockers were up to the task.
Uncorrected horsepower was 502.6 hp at 7000 rpm. It only dropped 3 hp by 7250 and was trailing off at 7500.
I don’t have time to run through all pages from this thread, maybe someone can do the leg work while I’m looking at ugly sweaters.
-
I’m headed to an ugly sweater party so I don’t have time to do a full write-up now, but I will later on.
The short and skinny of it is that this combo will go to 7500-7600 rpm very easily and my rockers were up to the task.
Uncorrected horsepower was 502.6 hp at 7000 rpm. It only dropped 3 hp by 7250 and was trailing off at 7500.
I don’t have time to run through all pages from this thread, maybe someone can do the leg work while I’m looking at ugly sweaters.
The closest guess without going over was the first guess and also the lowest. Shady @ 491
491 @ 6250
« Last Edit: November 26, 2018, 08:37:53 AM by shady »
cjshaker was actually the closest @ 505 but went over.
-
Drat, that's the 2nd time I've missed it by just a few horsepower. Maybe the 3rd times the charm.
-
Drat, that's the 2nd time I've missed it by just a few horsepower. Maybe the 3rd times the charm.
It's also the 2nd time that Shady has won.....I promise this isn't rigged. But the last time he won, I sent him some decals, etc., and he turned around and ordered a short block from me. I'm waiting to see what he orders this time. ;D
I would consider yesterday a pretty big success. All-in-all, I wasn't out to make big horsepower, as I mentioned quite often. It was a rather mismatched combination and it simply reinforced that the cylinder head plays a huge role in how the engine makes power. If you compare this engine to the TFS headed 390 that I built a few months ago, there was a large difference in the components used, but only a small difference in corrected horsepower....actually only about 4 hp. However, we have one head that flowed 330 cfm at lift and the other head that flowed mid 280's at lift. Big difference.
After we got heat in the dyno room, we were seeing corrected numbers of 542 hp/460 torque. Peak torque was at 5500, which was pretty much where I thought it would be on an engine that's higher strung.
With a pan full of 5W-20 oil, we didn't have any issues with the lifter function. It was very hard to get the oil temp up, but with 150° temps, we were seeing 70 psi at 4000 rpm and 80 psi at 7000 with a Melling HV pump and a Milodon oil pan with 9 quarts in the system. I was oiling through the pushrods on this one with the head feeds blocked off in the block deck, so that gave me a good indicator of how the engine oiled with my rocker arms. Running with a valve cover off, there was a nice little trickle at the roller tip. Now, obviously, at 190-200° oil temp, the oil pressure would drop, probably by about 10 psi, but it would still be plenty enough to feed the system. I was running .003"/.0025" bearing clearances.
At 7500 rpm, we were not hearing any audible sounds of the lifters giving up, or the valve springs being in distress. I think if it would have had enough cylinder head, it would have pulled to 8000, but it was simply starting to run out of camshaft/head flow at around the 7250 mark.
Oil filter was clean and the plugs/exhaust ports looked real nice afterwards.
FWIW, it made the most horsepower with 41° of timing, but only dropped 6 hp at 36.
Next plan of action is to try another camshaft. It won't happen for awhile but there's a couple of things that I want to try. I will keep .050" duration the same and lift the same, but my plan is to tighten up the advertised durations considerably (more aggressive lobe) which will let me tighten up the lobe separation as well. I wanted to start out with a "lazy" cam just to make sure that it wouldn't be a hindrance on pulling the rpms. I can now start to creep up on the lobe aggression.
If anyone wants to hear a 7500 rpm hydraulic roller FE, here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_JY47anClA (Cool to watch the vacuum secondaries open)
-
Sounds good and in the video it sure sounded clean all the way to the end of the pull. Those rockers are working out well. Mis-matched as the combo may be, it would be a lot of fun on the street in a really light rat rod or hotrod. Plus it looks good, but what FE doesn't?
-
Well done!
Pretty wild that an iron headed 390 is pulling numbers and RPM that in the golden years very few 427s would live through.
It does go to show you though, whether it's a SOHC or TFS headed engine, heads make power. I really liked this experiments and looking forward to seeing how moving valve events around change things.
-
Lol, no issue with VS opening. Went a lil flat when they did tho. I’d have to see how it does in a car, would be nice to slow the rate a bit.
Did you get to test those 725’s ya had?
Do you have a dyno sheet with a/f numbers and whatnot?
-
Oh boy oh boy, I'm at a loss for words. Ya had me CJ and lifted at the far end. Brent, I think you should send the goody bag to CJ and you & I can work something out. I'll be looking for a lot of so called free advice.
-
Neato! That's an overperforming 390, for sure. And most importantly, you verified your theories on FE hydraulic roller valve train control. I am sure that will pay dividends on many future builds.
paulie
-
At 542 hp corrected, I was close! ;D
Not so on the rpms though. :-[
551 hp @ 6,675 rpm, 497 ft/lbs. My last change with new cam data!
Opphs! Missed the rpm factor. See above.....
-
Lol, no issue with VS opening. Went a lil flat when they did tho. I’d have to see how it does in a car, would be nice to slow the rate a bit.
Did you get to test those 725’s ya had?
Do you have a dyno sheet with a/f numbers and whatnot?
Drew, I have data that you and I can sit down and discuss later on. The A/F ratios were rich starting out, which I expected them to be, not only because it's best to set new carbs up on the safe side, but it's hard to know how efficient an engine is going to be.
The secondaries were definitely opening, and I wouldn't worry about the flat spot. On a manually valved Stuska dyno, it's very hard to get the engine up and going and then recover quickly when the secondaries open. That flat spot wouldn't be there anywhere else and I see it with about every 2x4 setup with similar carbs.
I was very pleased with the carbs. Nice work.
-
I just disassembled the rocker arm assemblies and checked everything out. With .0012-.0013" of rocker to shaft clearance, the shafts still looked brand new and the rocker arm bushings looked brand new.
-
Harland Sharp's stuff has been pretty good to me as far as reliability goes so I'd expect no less from yours. Could run those at 8000 in a roadrace car all day and they'd still look good I bet!
-
i was real close :)
-
540@6850
:-\
-
I guess this is more a Brent question. Interesting that you ran 5w-20 and a high volume pump. I have run high and standard volume in the past on FE motors, but usually 10w-40 (or 20w-40 with solids). What was the thinking for the high volume pump?
-
Man, only missed by 250 rpm, oh yeah, 110 hp too
-
540@6850
:-\
RTFI ......
Read the friendly instructions LOL
Another "guess the horsepower" game. Same rules as the last ones.....closest without going over wins some Lykins Motorsports paraphernalia. Again, as before, I will be posting UNCORRECTED numbers, so use that little tid-bid in your final guess.
Of course, just teasing. Good guess, just wrong ruler :)
-
yeah I know, close though
-
I guess this is more a Brent question. Interesting that you ran 5w-20 and a high volume pump. I have run high and standard volume in the past on FE motors, but usually 10w-40 (or 20w-40 with solids). What was the thinking for the high volume pump?
I used the HV pump for several reasons. The main one was the oil viscosity combined with the bearing clearances. The short travel lifters need a low viscosity oil, but my main/rod bearing clearances were on the loose side. The second reason is that I wanted to make sure I had enough volume at high rpm to keep the bearings lubed, in addition to keeping the lifters pumped up and the rocker arm bushings lubricated.
Normally on FE's, I will run a standard volume/standard pressure pump, but this engine was a new learning curve for me, so I wanted to make sure that I had plenty of everything.
-
Been thumbing through the lobe catalogs, looking for the next iteration. My goal this time around was to go on the lazy side of things. The next camshaft will be a little more aggressive and I think it will add quite a bit of horsepower. This cam has a whopping 93 degrees of overlap, but the overlap was an undesired byproduct of the lazy lobes.
-
Any chance of a different intake manifold for the next iteration? Not dogging the Tunnel Wedge. I have one, but haven't tried it yet. Even if you can't get a 2x4 Blue Thunder, maybe a 1x4 intake? Eddy RPM? or???
just wondering,
paulie
-
Nice job Brent, sounded nice too, will be interesting to see and hear difference in camshaft change! Captain Blair's experience was mighty close(under by 2 ponies) in the corrected #s, with correct RPM! Look forward to next iteration............Al
-
Any chance of a different intake manifold for the next iteration?
I suspect a huge part of this endevour was aimed at high rpm testing of the rocker arms.
As such I think the tunnel wedge is probably not the worst choice, at least in regards to breathing ability. Certainly not limited there.
-
Neato! That's an overperforming 390, for sure. And most importantly, you verified your theories on FE hydraulic roller valve train control. I am sure that will pay dividends on many future builds.
paulie
That's what I said. :)
-
Any chance of a different intake manifold for the next iteration? Not dogging the Tunnel Wedge. I have one, but haven't tried it yet. Even if you can't get a 2x4 Blue Thunder, maybe a 1x4 intake? Eddy RPM? or???
just wondering,
paulie
I don't want to change more than one variable at a time. The goal really isn't to see how much power I can make, or else I would have went with 14:1, more head work, etc. The goal is to test the hydraulic roller cams at higher rpm. So far, we're on target and need to change a variable or two and hit it again.
-
Any chance of a different intake manifold for the next iteration? Not dogging the Tunnel Wedge. I have one, but haven't tried it yet. Even if you can't get a 2x4 Blue Thunder, maybe a 1x4 intake? Eddy RPM? or???
just wondering,
paulie
I don't want to change more than one variable at a time. The goal really isn't to see how much power I can make, or else I would have went with 14:1, more head work, etc. The goal is to test the hydraulic roller cams at higher rpm. So far, we're on target and need to change a variable or two and hit it again.
Makes sense.
-
My guess of 550 at 7000 (top of page 5) was as close as well.
-
Guys, I put this engine up for sale in the vendor classifieds.
-
What sort of vacuum would this engine produce for power brakes?
-
What sort of vacuum would this engine produce for power brakes?
None.
But that’s what vacuum reserve canisters are for.
-
Honestly have never found a good substitute for engine vacuum. Have put in a hydroboost but still not the same.
Thanks
-
If you want the engine, I wouldn't necessarily let lack of vacuum be a deterrent. Diesel cars/trucks use either vacuum pumps or hydroboost with great results.
-
The mule is sold.
-
Well that was fast. Congrats