FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: jayb on January 28, 2019, 06:46:06 PM
-
I thought you guys might enjoy seeing the casting process for my new cylinder heads. I got finished with the final revision of my cylinder head design a couple months ago. After designing the heads and intake systems, I ended up designing all the patterns required for pouring the aluminum for these heads, trying to save on the cost of going to a pattern shop. Along the way I've been fortunate to get acquainted with a guy at a local university who runs their Additive Manufacturing Center, where they do a bunch of 3D printing. One of the things they 3D print is sand, used for cores in making sand molds for pouring molten metal. As it happens, this guy also has a 68 Torino and a 428 for it, which I'm currently building for him. So, I can help him out, and he is certainly helping me out with the casting side of my head project.
I sent the files for the cylinder heads to this guy, and he enlisted the help of one of their students to go over the design. They ended up changing the whole approach that I had used for pouring the metal; in other words, a new sprue, new gating, and new riser designs. Then they simulated the design with some casting simulation software, and tweaked the gating and riser design until the simulation said that the finished casting would be solid, with little or no porosity.
Once that was finished, they 3D printed the sand required for two cylinder head castings, and shipped it over to my foundry. Today was the big day, where we poured the first head. The first sand mold used is the bottom, called the drag, and pictured below:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FE Power Head Drag.jpg)
The picture was taken in the foundry, where it is rather dark, and when using the flash a bunch of the details are washed out, so this photo was taken without the flash. Some of the pictures are kind of blurry because of this, and they all have a sort of green tint to them, but you'll get the idea. Looking at the drag, you can see the shape of the combustion chambers, and the holes in the middle of the chambers where the core for the ports fit in. Also in this picture you can see the chill, which is a small block of steel that causes the aluminum to solidify more quickly and helps to eliminate porosity. The chill was added here because the simulations showed that porosity could be a problem in this area. Also toward the front of the drag you can see four large holes, where risers are designed in, and also a channel that the aluminum goes into when it is first poured.
This next photo is the core, which basically forms the ports, water jacket, and side surfaces of the cylinder head. There are two of the cores in this photo. The picture shows the cores upside down, and you can see the cone shaped areas on the ports that fit into the drag:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FE Power Head Core.jpg)
The next photo shows the core assembled into the drag. There's also a close up photo of the top of the core, so that you can see what the top of the port cores look like. Finally, the third photo below shows this same assembly from a different angle, where you can see the filter that is used to filter the molten aluminum as it is poured into the mold:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FE Power Head Drag+Core.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FE Power Head Drag+Core2.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FE Power Head Drag+Core3.jpg)
The two 1" diameter steel pins in the previous photo are used to help align the drag and core with the cope, which is the top of the mold. Here's a photo of the top of the cope:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FE Power Head Cope.jpg)
And here is a photo of the entire mold assembled, with the cope positioned on top. Notice the sleeves in the risers (large holes); these are made of an insulating material and are designed to keep the aluminum hot as long as possible. As it cools, the aluminum in the head shrinks, and molten aluminum from the risers has to feed back into the rest of the mold to keep the casting from developing porous areas. Keeping the risers hot as long as possible is one key consideration when making a good casting.
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FE Power Head Drag+Core+Cope.jpg)
Before the mold is poured, the lead weights shown in the picture below are set on top of the cope. This is to prevent the cope and the core from floating up on the liquid aluminum as it is poured into the mold. I think this is because the sand cores are not as dense as the liquid aluminum, and can actually float up on the denser aluminum.
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FE Power Head Drag+Core+Cope2.jpg)
Now the mold is ready for the pour. At the foundry I use this is done by hand, using crucibles that hold around 35 pounds of molten aluminum. Here are two pictures of the pouring process; I was able to get one good one with the flash:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FE Power Head Pour.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FE Power Head Pour2.jpg)
After the mold if filled with aluminum, for several minutes the foundry guys continue to slowly pour liquid aluminum into the risers. This helps keep the aluminum in the risers hot, so that it can feed into the rest of the casting as it cools. They call this hot topping:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FE Power Head Hot Topping.jpg)
After waiting 45 minutes or so, the casting has cooled to the point where it can be broken out of the sand. The 3D printed sand is more difficult to remove than the normal sand used by the foundry, but after some serious beating with hammers and air chisels most of the sand came off. The sand in the water jacket of the cylinder head was difficult to remove, and I can see that this is going to be something I will have to focus on with these heads. But after a while we got it all out, as far as we can tell. I will be running some rods through the water jacket openings in the casting I took home today to try to make sure that no sand remains. Here are some pictures of the casting as it was broken out of the mold:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FE Power Head As-Cast.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FE Power Head As-Cast2.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FE Power Head As-Cast3.jpg)
After another couple hours the casting was cooled enough to handle, and was trimmed with a saw to remove all the gating and risers. Here are some pictures of the finished head casting that I took home today:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FE Power Head Intake Side.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FE Power Head Exhaust Side.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FE Power Head Chamber Side.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FE Power Head Top Side.jpg)
Of course, as it stands this is just the beginning for this casting. It needs to be solution heat treated to a T-6 condition, then I need to machine it here on my CNC machine. It will need seats and guides installed and a good valve job done, then I can flow test it and also pressure check it. I'm going to try to get this done ASAP, but heat treating will take a couple weeks, and I will also need to machine a fixture for holding the heads on my CNC machine, and then develop all the machining programs to get this done. I have a second head being cast tomorrow so assuming everything is good with these two heads, I should be able to run them on an engine this spring. If I find that things aren't quite right as I go forward with this process, I will have to revamp the design and cast more of these heads. To be honest, I fully expect at least one or two iterations will be required before they are ready for sale. But getting the first head cast is a big step, and I'm happy with the results so far. I will post more info in this thread as the project progresses - Jay
-
Congratulations Jay.
-
Honestly one of the cooler things that is going on right now.
Lotta talkers and complainers in this hobby, few are willing to put themselves out there to really create something, thanks for all that effort Jay.
-
Jay, thanks for the ongoing education you're giving us! ;D
-
I got a close up look at it today. I can't wait to see what it looks like with the machining done and valve guides installed. Thanks Jay. Jim
-
New Heads
-
Congrats Jay what a great feeling it’s going to be when you get all this done knowing all the work you’ve put in. And make no mistake it’s a lot of work. I hope all your time and patience pays off see you at the Beaver hopefully with a set of your heads.
-
Very cool Jay. Do you have an intake manifold in mind to match up to those ports?
-
Thanks for the comments guys, I appreciate it. It's actually really fun to be doing these heads, gets my inner engineering geek all wound up ;D
These heads will require a custom version of my intake adapter, and there will be three intake manifolds that can be used on the intake adapter. One is a single 4 dominator pattern manifold that is cast, one is a billet 2X4 manifold in the sheet metal style, and one is a cast individual runner crossram style EFI manifold. The crossram intake is designed to fit under the hood of a 67-70 Mustang, the other two manifolds will require hood scoops. At the moment I'm working on getting the sand cores for the crossram intake made up...
-
Wow! Congratulations! And I was just wondering if anyone was doing anything FE that was interesting since there hasn't been much going on lately with builds. I hope you have great success with those heads and intakes. I just finished up my last two projects which were High Riser 427 heads and intakes. One uses your HR adapter and Tunnel Ram, and epoxy filled floors to match the JB Adapter. Heads flowed 370 cfm with a 2.250" intake with the epoxy. The other HR heads use a Ford -F 8V intake that is looking very good for flow, also. Would love to see your heads flow well over 400 cfm, to compete with the 460 crowd. Joe-JDC
-
Neato! Who would have thought in 1958 that the FE would be still be evolving and getting new parts in 2019? :)
-
Wow, super cool to see how that was done! It's really hard to envision the part from the cores, since you're seeing everything that isn't there, and nothing that is..lol Thanks for the tutorial and walk-along. This is going to be one of the most interesting threads on here in a long time. Can't wait for the next step!
-
Nice Jay and thx for the pics.
Having seen lotsa rough castings in the past, your head looks really good out of the box. The slow hand-pour methinks has a lot going for it as in a high production mode (i.e. OEM Ford, GM, etc.) this would never have happened. Nice indeed!
-
Well done Jay....
-
As Walt Kelly would have had one of his characters say, "Hoo Ha!" :)
KS
-
Wow , Very informative and COOL , Cant wait to see some in person ( you have 88 days ) LOL 8)
-
Glad to see this coming together for you Jay, that had to be a super good feeling watching them pour the Aluminum in the castings and then see and take one home.....Good for You!!! Al
-
Very cool Jay! Thanks for the play-by-play. Those intake runners are the bee's knees!
-
Can't wait to see what these will do on top of a monster stroker. Nice work Jay.
-
Wooow! My inner engineering geek just fainted ;D
-
Do the steel chiller blocks remain embedded in the head or are they able to be cut off/removed?
Pouring photos evoke my impression of Dove' s methods, though maybe they didn't do it slowly?
When do you test for porosity?
-
Just a thought about the left over sand that's hard to get out; could you make a clamping fixture to hold the head in a lathe, fill the water/port chambers with steel beads, seal any openings with tape or something similar, then let it turn for a time? That would probably knock loose any sand that was compacted inside the chambers and make it easier to get out.
-
Do the steel chiller blocks remain embedded in the head or are they able to be cut off/removed?
Pouring photos evoke my impression of Dove' s methods, though maybe they didn't do it slowly?
When do you test for porosity?
The steel chill is removed with the sand. On the head, you are seeing the impression of the face of the block in the casting, not the block itself.
Dove - bite your tongue LOL! Actually most small foundries pour their aluminum this way, the equipment required for automatic pouring is pretty expensive, and most small foundries don't have the volume to justify it. I can't pressure test for porosity until after the head has been machined, so unfortunately the heads have to be nearly complete before I can check it. But given the simulations this casting went through, and the way it looks now, I'm not too concerned. There really is no evidence of porosity anywhere on the casting that I can find, and you can certainly see evidence of it on a casting with that issue. The pressure check is the acid test of course, so we'll see how that turns out.
-
Just a thought about the left over sand that's hard to get out; could you make a clamping fixture to hold the head in a lathe, fill the water/port chambers with steel beads, seal any openings with tape or something similar, then let it turn for a time? That would probably knock loose any sand that was compacted inside the chambers and make it easier to get out.
That's an interesting idea, and I may consider something like that if getting the sand out turns out to be a problem. What foundries will normally do is X-ray the casting to identify any areas that may still have sand in them, then heat the casting and put it in some kind of a shaker machine to break it all loose. The small foundry that I work with doesn't have X-ray capabilities, but I can get that done elsewhere if necessary. I think I will primarily be relying on rods, probes, and compressed air to get the sand out. Once it gets hot, the adhesive that holds the sand together becomes brittle and breaks down, so the sand tends to come out a little easier after the pour. The guys at the foundry used an air chisel that they held against some of the risers to cause a vibration throughout the whole casting, to help shake the sand loose. There is about a 1/4" diameter by 1" long water passage that goes around the back of the spark plug that I'm primarily concerned about. I think I can get in there with an aluminum welding rod and probe that passage through one of the deck openings, and if that is clear I think that all the sand is gone. Still learning on this...
-
Does the exhaust port get machined down ?, picture could be deceiving but it doesn't look like any material for sealing the lower portion of the exhaust port to the header
-
Question... Where do you start the machining process? I'm curious about how or what you machine to locate all of the critical surfaces.
-
Another thought. On our big salt spreaders that we use at work, the kind that sit on a flat bed truck, there are "shakers" that you can mount on the side of the hopper, to keep the salt/sand from coagulating on the sides of the hopper. They're fairly small and produce a stout harmonic vibration. Something like that might also help in knocking anything loose. I don't think the vibrations are extreme enough to hurt the castings, but that may be something you'd want to ask the foundry about. It would be similar to them using the impact hammers. They work REALLY well on hard compacted salt and sand that is used in the hoppers. They are designed to be bolted on, but I wouldn't think it would be too difficult to strap one to an object.
A short video showing how they work...
https://youtu.be/VOAilFSa0_U
I use units similar to these...
http://www.vibco.com/products/vibco-featured-products/vibco-sandbuster-vibrators
Those units are 12v operation, but they do make 110 volt jobs designed for industrial applications. Just an example here, after a quick search...
https://www.clevelandvibrator.com/product/37/1176/cm-5-110v
I'm just thinking that using probes and whatnot on each head would be very time consuming, and basically a PITA, and still may be difficult to get at hard to reach areas.
Ok, I'll shut up now.
-
Very nice! Having seen how those mold filling programs work, glad to see you had access to one. They save a lot of time, and really a big help in design to get a quality casting. Thanks, for sharing the information on the casting.
-
>To be honest, I fully expect at least one or two iterations will be required before they are ready for sale.
Having spent 20 years in mfg and previously dealing with "investment" type aluminum castings (very simple ones actually), hitting your marks on layout, porosity, etc on the 1st try for a complicated casting would be a hellofa thing.
-
These are so cool!! It looks like it’s coming along nicely. And what an extraordinary amount of
Effort on your part. I can’t wait to see the progress as it comes along. Especially flow numbers
and Dyno numbers. I have a large bore genesis block patiently waiting
-
Very cool stuff, what an immense amount of work and ingenuity you have put forth! My hat is off to you. And very cool the fellow that helped with the molds is an FE guy, that just makes it all the more better.
On a tour of the Caterpillar foundry in Joliet, IL I witnessed their shaker table at work. I was in awe, it was basically a large enclosed room with a conveyor belt with large voids for the sand to fall through for a floor. It was violent, entire almost red hot blocks, heads and any random thing they where casting would come tumbling in down a chute onto the floor it shook so hard these huge 6, 8, cylinder blocks bounced around several feet in the air the 12 cyl blocks didn't bounce as high lol. I was amazed that it didn't damage anything as they where still so hot.
cjshaker had a good idea about those small vibrators, I have some experience with them on dump trucks for the same purpose also with hopper trailers that carry bone meal, those are air operated from the truck supply and fit in a cradle so they can be moved easily from front to rear and stored in the truck.
-
Very cool to see this progress Jay.
-
Jay,
GREAT STUFF!
Reminds me of back in school, we poured a few castings there. IIRC our challenge was aluminum bronze, notorious for having porosity hidden inside. Then we'd cut our casting up & see if it was solid. None were, of course.
That is some great stuff you are doing, thanks for all the pictures too. I continue to predict, the FE will outlast the Lima Ford, just cuz the FE covered 11 HiPo years, the Lima only two.
-
Be curious of the effect of putting the mold on something like a vibrating plate during the pour
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Best-Choice-Products-Full-Body-Vibration-Platform-w-Remote-Control-and-Resistance-Bands/605208345?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=1381&adid=22222222227070262234&wmlspartner=wmtlabs&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=t&wl3=178066788679&wl4=pla-312981884364&wl5=9021697&wl6=&wl7=&wl8=&wl9=pla&wl10=112561937&wl11=online&wl12=605208345&wl13=&veh=sem&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIq6z069uT4AIVzUoNCh2oNAnhEAQYCyABEgLm1vD_BwE (https://www.walmart.com/ip/Best-Choice-Products-Full-Body-Vibration-Platform-w-Remote-Control-and-Resistance-Bands/605208345?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=1381&adid=22222222227070262234&wmlspartner=wmtlabs&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=t&wl3=178066788679&wl4=pla-312981884364&wl5=9021697&wl6=&wl7=&wl8=&wl9=pla&wl10=112561937&wl11=online&wl12=605208345&wl13=&veh=sem&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIq6z069uT4AIVzUoNCh2oNAnhEAQYCyABEgLm1vD_BwE)
During the pour it might compromise the sand mold, but after the pour it might help flow the metal into the mold more firmly and compactly?
Might be helpful in removing residual casting sand afterwards?
-
Does the exhaust port get machined down ?, picture could be deceiving but it doesn't look like any material for sealing the lower portion of the exhaust port to the header
Yes, there is an extra 1/4" of material on all the machined surfaces of the outside of the casting. Once that area around the exhaust ports is machined there is a sealing flange there.
-
Question... Where do you start the machining process? I'm curious about how or what you machine to locate all of the critical surfaces.
Sorry, that is something I keep confidential. It is NOT a trivial issue ;)
-
Another thought. On our big salt spreaders that we use at work, the kind that sit on a flat bed truck, there are "shakers" that you can mount on the side of the hopper, to keep the salt/sand from coagulating on the sides of the hopper. They're fairly small and produce a stout harmonic vibration. Something like that might also help in knocking anything loose. I don't think the vibrations are extreme enough to hurt the castings, but that may be something you'd want to ask the foundry about. It would be similar to them using the impact hammers. They work REALLY well on hard compacted salt and sand that is used in the hoppers. They are designed to be bolted on, but I wouldn't think it would be too difficult to strap one to an object.
A short video showing how they work...
https://youtu.be/VOAilFSa0_U
I use units similar to these...
http://www.vibco.com/products/vibco-featured-products/vibco-sandbuster-vibrators
Those units are 12v operation, but they do make 110 volt jobs designed for industrial applications. Just an example here, after a quick search...
https://www.clevelandvibrator.com/product/37/1176/cm-5-110v
I'm just thinking that using probes and whatnot on each head would be very time consuming, and basically a PITA, and still may be difficult to get at hard to reach areas.
Ok, I'll shut up now.
Doug, that is a great idea! I'll bet I could make up a plate that would clamp to the casting, and run one of those vibrators on the plate to help shake out the sand. Thanks for the info on those - Jay
-
Yay !! ... more FE stuff ..... cant wait to see the finished head !!
Ricky.
-
I commend and thank you for this "excellent adventure". I wish I had your drive.
-
My dad worked for over 30 years in an investment casting foundry in soCal. I spent a lot of Saturdays going to work with him. A machined designed by my dad and another engineer/employee was called the knock out machine. It used high pressure water jets first 1500psi from a .040" nozzle,( a second at 4000psi was available for shell castings). the Knock out machine would blast the investment off of and out of the pieces in minutes. To give you an idea of the range of the company the smallest pieces they made for the aerospace industry was some wave guide bends about 1/4 wide by 1/8" high inside,(tiny for the time, 1980's) the coolest was one with a 200deg bend that required no internal machining. We ( I worked there for about a year before I went in the USAF) also made a piece for Boeing that was basically a box,finished it was about 16" cube it required a mold that weighed over 500lbs. It was really cool the parts that came out of that small foundry ,including the pieces my dad was most proud of,made of Gold,contracted by NASA (most likely a sub. for NASA) and to this day still sitting on the Moon at all the landing sites.
Any way, it was said about 10 years ago how great it is to be an FE enthusiast now look what we have and what is coming,new roller rockers,different heads and blocks, Jays intake adapter and intakes plus covers valve covers timing sets not to mention the cranks,pistons cams,roller rockers,etc.. wow! A 100% FE Engine with no Old Ford Parts!
-
Jay, you are truly a steely eyed FE man. You do continue to astonish.
One thing I don't think I've seen you post is the target for the new heads, either expressed in application terms or power targets.
I'm assuming you are doing this to deliver something that can't easily be obtained with available products from BBM or Edelbrock.
In other words, I want some but give me a reason (tell me what kind of project I need to start so I just can't get it done without these).
-
I have multiple objectives for this head and intake combination. One is to be able to deliver heads and intake capable of 900 HP out of the box on a 482" engine, just a good valve job and maybe a cartridge roll clean-up of the ports required.
Another objective is to make a 700+ HP, high torque 427" engine with a very streetable cam and compression, that fits completely under the hood of a 67-70 Mustang, or equivalent Fairlane or Torino. This objective is what my crossram EFI intake is designed for. You can make 700 HP with heads and intakes that are currently available, but you sacrifice quite a bit in low end torque and drivability. I'm hoping to be able to change that.
Also, for a max effort engine I want the heads to be able to be ported to flow at least 475 cfm on the intake port with a 2.300" valve, and be capable of over 1000 HP, hopefully close to 1100 HP.
I am also planning at least two other versions of these heads, with different performance objectives. I don't want to talk much about those yet because they are not yet designed, but they will be targeted towards some very specific applications. The beauty of 3D printing the port and water jacket cores is that fairly major changes in the design can be made without the need to buy more tooling; a design has to be made, and the 3D sand printer does the rest.
I'll post more on this stuff as I get farther along on this project - Jay
-
Thanks Jay for all you do for the FE!
-
Jay, I have seen 1200+hp with 475 cfm heads and sheetmetal intake, and 1150 hp with single Dominator on BBF. Those power levels were on 605 cubic inches. Those heads had exhaust ports that flowed 370 cfm with a 1.880 valve, and a 1.750" exhaust port exit. It would be great to see a FE head with a round exhaust port, shaped like a typical FE, but without the water passage in the port, and exit down like a CHI Boss 302 exhaust port, or the 302 Cobra GT-40 exhaust port. That would give the shock tower guys a better alternative to the current exhaust port exit angles. JMO, but doable. Joe-JDC
-
Joe, can you clarify what you mean by "exit down" for the exhaust port? Do you mean directing the flow in a downward direction, instead of straight out of the port? I've been thinking about that...
-
Yes, even though the GT-40 and CHI ports are cut ~90*, the port is already turned down. If you look at a stock FE exhaust closely, you will see that the floor and roof are actually already starting to turn down. IF an exhaust port were simply laid over another 45* and aimed downward, a header tube could be bolted up to the head like a Pontiac, or GM product and make a much cleaner header install, easier, and the flow would not be hindered if the port is designed properly. Just an idea, but I think it would solve the shock tower header headache. Joe-JDC
-
Jay Im sure it has been talked about but are these heads good for shock tower cars. As for what Joe was saying, lets say you didnt turn them down could you just take off lets say 20 to 25 thousanths off the exhaust face and just have that much more room for the pipes and the occasional bolt thats always close. I dont think that would hurt anything flow wise.
-
As the exhaust port is currently configured, they will not fit a shock tower car unless you cut the shock towers back somewhat. I plan to do this on my 68 Mustang, first by installing coil over shocks (which will be significantly smaller in diameter than the normal springs), and then trimming the towers for header clearance. My arm is being twisted by some folks to do a version of this head with the normal FE exhaust port location, so that shock tower surgery is not required and existing headers will fit, but I'm not sure if I'll be able to do that or not. So many people cut the shock towers on their cars, and there are so many kits out there to convert to a different front suspension, that I'm not sure it makes sense to offer a set of these heads with the stock exhaust location; the exhaust port efficiency would be way down if I had to do that. On the other hand, I sure would like to put a set of these heads on my 68 Shelby and my 69 Mach 1, and I'm certainly not going to cut the shock towers on those cars, so I'm waffling a bit on this...
-
All my towers are either cut or gone :)
-
This gets into kind of a grey area for a lot of people. I really don't want to cut the shock towers on my R-code Mach 1 either, and I assume Jay doesn't want to for the same reasons; namely value. But since I've already welded frame connectors on, the "original" thing kind of went out the window. I always told myself I didn't want to cut the car where it couldn't be put back to original. Now I find myself getting ready to cut the tunnel for a V-gate shifter, and possibly modifying the front and inner part of the wheelwell for a bigger tire. :P
I wouldn't think that anyone who's wanting to keep 'original' as part of the equation, would even consider these heads. There are certainly other head options that will make plenty of power for a 'stock' bodied car, and where you can keep the shock towers (Like Blairs Pro Ports). And since these heads would never be considered for any type of NHRA Stock classes, I wouldn't see the point. JMO
Life sure would be easier without those damn towers though. Of course it would also be easier if that 5th letter was an F, H, L or M, instead of an R..lol
-
The thing is on exhaust ports, you can have a VERY efficient exhaust port that is SMALLER than the existing FE port and still flow 70% bias with 475 cfm. A C3 SBF head with 1.560" valve will flow 330cfm and the port is less than 1 3/4" round shape. I have also seen the D3 heads flow 370 cfm on the exhaust with a 1.625" exhaust valve. I have seen them round, "D" shaped, square, oval, and all combinations of the above. With the short turn on the exhaust reconfigured to a round port shape, any shape or exit angle could be possible. All it takes is a little thinking out of the box and looking at some of those other heads and how well they work. Joe-JDC
-
I have subframe connectors on my R code Mach 1 also, but my rationale is that they can be cut off with little or no evidence that they were ever there. Also, they are not visible on a casual inspection of the car. I suppose shock towers can be replaced if they were modified or removed, but it seems like that would be a little more involved, and also if you look under the hood, its obvious that the car has been modified if the shock towers have been cut back or removed. So I'm hanging with those hated things on my Mach 1 and Shelby...
-
The thing is on exhaust ports, you can have a VERY efficient exhaust port that is SMALLER than the existing FE port and still flow 70% bias with 475 cfm. A C3 SBF head with 1.560" valve will flow 330cfm and the port is less than 1 3/4" round shape. I have also seen the D3 heads flow 370 cfm on the exhaust with a 1.625" exhaust valve. I have seen them round, "D" shaped, square, oval, and all combinations of the above. With the short turn on the exhaust reconfigured to a round port shape, any shape or exit angle could be possible. All it takes is a little thinking out of the box and looking at some of those other heads and how well they work. Joe-JDC
Joe, I've looked at those C3 heads and the exhaust ports are raised way, way up. If I was going to make a version of my head that had stock style exhaust ports I'd have to make sure that the ports were in the factory location. And I think it would be difficult to turn that sharp corner and get the kind of flow numbers that you are talking about. Not that there wouldn't be an improvement over the stock port, but I'm not sure I could get flow numbers that would match up well with the intake flow...
-
Cut shock towers decreases value?
I would think that if it’s done well it’s be desired.
Kinda like I view front discs and a dual master cylinder to be an upgrade on my Galaxie, certainly not a negative.
(This was a question, I do t own a shock tower car, so curious)
-
Beautiful work! I'm following this project with great interest.
Some folks are nearly religious about unmolested Ford towers. I "grew up" that way, too. I remember at 17 working way too hard to put 90 degree grease fittings into the upper control arms just to keep from drilling a hole. And chopping out rear tubs without a care in the world.
-
No one thinks twice about the shock towers of a Boss 429 car. Ford did those right. Joe-JDC
-
Looks good Jay.
I work quite a bit in additive technologies, although mostly printing metal on laser powder beds. Anyway, printing techniques that use a binder and particle, generally use a de-binding wash step to reduce the amount of binder before going into a final furnace sintering. Perhaps you should investigate a wash solution for removing the binder.
Previous comments suggested that pressure testing was the ultimate quality check for porosity and such. I strongly suggest you get a set FULLY x-ray'd or find an NDT house that offers industrial CT. It won't be cheap, but fill issues can produce voids, dross or other casting process induced issues that won't show up in a pressure test, but could create performance or functional issues.
-
I am a shock tower guy and would never get rod of the towers to fit heads. I would trim them back if needed but reluctantly.
-
I've thought about reversing the heads on the block; where the exhaust exits over the block In the valley area. Something like the Indy DOHC.
This would obviously be easier with efi. It would also make turbocharging packaging easier.
OR...
picture one of those ribbons people wear, red, pink, purple, whatever. Now pump that flat ribbon up into a tube. Make the exhaust port exit almost vertically from the head and use the ribbon-shaped tube to take the exhaust and re-route it downwards close to the block. Header bolts on top (or nearly so) of the head and nothing but plain tubing running between the engine and shock towers.
-
Seems like there is plenty of nice heads out there for shock tower guys already , this head is a serious piece that would be great on a serious piece like tube chassis type car or Super Pro/Q16 rear engine dragster
-
As the exhaust port is currently configured, they will not fit a shock tower car unless you cut the shock towers back somewhat. I plan to do this on my 68 Mustang, first by installing coil over shocks (which will be significantly smaller in diameter than the normal springs), and then trimming the towers for header clearance. My arm is being twisted by some folks to do a version of this head with the normal FE exhaust port location, so that shock tower surgery is not required and existing headers will fit, but I'm not sure if I'll be able to do that or not. So many people cut the shock towers on their cars, and there are so many kits out there to convert to a different front suspension, that I'm not sure it makes sense to offer a set of these heads with the stock exhaust location; the exhaust port efficiency would be way down if I had to do that. On the other hand, I sure would like to put a set of these heads on my 68 Shelby and my 69 Mach 1, and I'm certainly not going to cut the shock towers on those cars, so I'm waffling a bit on this...
I kept my shock towers and used the coil-over shocks with factory type control arms, and OEM steering, plugs are easy with valve covers off, headers are custom but on and off easily! I'm thinking a 68' Mustang would be pretty nice with the coil-over setup, considering it's probably 2" wider than a 64' Comet. Al
-
A little blurry but an un-cluttered engine compartment view of my TP in a 67 mustang. Just a reminder what the shock tower guys are dealing with.
-
That’s a nice hunk of aluminum you got there Jay. 8)
Just imagine 700-900 HP under the hood of a Mustang, that would be a wild ride!!! The hood may be stock along with the front suspension, but the rest of the drivetrain and rear suspension would require some attention and a few aftermarket parts!! :o :o
How fast would 700 HP push you through the 1/4 mile in a properly prepped car? I have no idea. At what point is a cage required? This starts getting past the point of bolt on modifications that are easily reversed. I don’t see the Mustangs and Fairlanes built with 427’s & 428’s as the buying market. A 390 car, maybe. The 6 cylinder and small block cars would be dam good candidates.
I won’t cut the towers in my car to make use of the heads. It has enough power to get me in trouble as it is.
I don’t know that marketing a head for unmodified shock towers is worth the effort. A couple of sets for yourself to test the usefulness might be worthwhile. ::) ::) Just my 2 cents.
-
Its not that hard to install new shocktowers, if one cut
the ones on the car. Hardest part is to copy the ugly
factory welds to the framerail :D
Not that i would cut them on a Shelby or another rare
car with good towers , but they are often
cracked or rusty if you give them a thourough inspection
-
Brother Lon's '67 Mustang was quite plain jane for a 390 car. We put a 427 TP in it when it was less than a year old, and re-worked it rather thoroughly over the years. We ultimately put a set of Dove TP heads on a 452 inch engine. The exhaust runners pointed UP at about a 45-50 degree angle and required custom headers. We removed the towers and moved everything necessary to give un-impeded exhaust flow. The ultimate combination used a pair of EFI throttle-bodies on a LeMans dual-plane intake manifold. He ultimately sold the car to a guy in New Zealand. I'm not under the impression that the price suffered at all because of the modifications. Just sayin'.
KS
-
How fast would 700 HP push you through the 1/4 mile in a properly prepped car? I have no idea. At what point is a cage required?
In 2005 my Mach 1 with its 706 HP FE ran as fast as 10.55. It would have gone faster with a higher stall converter. The car had good street manners, but not great throttle response and it idled around 1100 RPM. It needed race gas at the track, but would run on pump premium on the street if you kept your foot out of it. It was fast, but there were a lot of compromises to get that performance. I'm hoping that my heads and crossram EFI intake will reduce the cam and compression requirements to get the same performance, and lead to much better drivability.
You can run up to 10 flat and 135 MPH with an NHRA legal roll bar; a cage is not required until you go faster than that. Don Fotti's 68-1/2 original CJ car manages to run 10s without even a roll bar. Don must really know how to schmooze the tech guys ;D ;D
-
Cut shock towers decreases value?
I would think that if it’s done well it’s be desired.
Kinda like I view front discs and a dual master cylinder to be an upgrade on my Galaxie, certainly not a negative.
(This was a question, I do t own a shock tower car, so curious)
It's because the people who pay the big bucks for the cars typically want them in "as built" condition. So unless it's a highly modified touring car, with top notch workmanship and parts, it'll always be worth more when they're built as 100% original, or at least 'as it came from the factory'. I don't make the rules, that's just the way it is :)
Brother Lon's '67 Mustang was quite plain jane for a 390 car. We put a 427 TP in it when it was less than a year old, and re-worked it rather thoroughly over the years. We ultimately put a set of Dove TP heads on a 452 inch engine. The exhaust runners pointed UP at about a 45-50 degree angle and required custom headers. We removed the towers and moved everything necessary to give un-impeded exhaust flow. The ultimate combination used a pair of EFI throttle-bodies on a LeMans dual-plane intake manifold. He ultimately sold the car to a guy in New Zealand. I'm not under the impression that the price suffered at all because of the modifications. Just sayin'.
KS
There's a big difference between a '67 P code, and a '69/'70 R code. Same as if it were a true '68 1/2 CJ; if it were modified, it's gonna affect the value. Putting a Dove headed, fuel injected 427 TP in a P code car would likely offset any lost value compared to a hum-drum 390. Not a valid comparison to the highly sought after Cobra Jet cars.
-
Doug do you have the original motor for your car. My car was an original 289 car and I’m still not cutting the towers. I believe even in a regular car like mine removing the tower hurts resale, not like I’m gonna sell it. And it’s just my opinion. If I was going to look at a car and it was cut up like that you wouldn’t know if they short cut something or oh that’s good enough. Most of us on the forum do it one way which is usually not a short cut. I’ve been a mechanic a long time I’ve seen some Really butchered stuff.
-
Joe, no I do not. I have some of the parts, like the R-code hood and shaker assembly, along with a few external engine parts, but none of the actual engine pieces. I've never even ran a 428, to be honest. Just never had the chance to purchase a good engine. So it would be pretty expensive for me to even consider going back to original.
-
Man, I don't know about original value anymore. Watching the latest B-J the resto-mod stuff is getting nutty. I watched a concourse restored show winner '62 Vette hammer over $100k & next up was another '62 Vette resto-mod that did more money than the original one. I couldn't believe it. I think the original stuff is cooling off, kinda going the way of the model A. The few R Galaxies I saw were in the $50s. Heck they were doing more than that ten years ago.
-
Doug I have a shaker assembly, the top aint to bad the air cleaner assembly needs a redo what are they worth. I think it was off my uncles 69 r code.
-
Sadly, many of our valuable vehicles are going to lose a lot of value after the baby boomers quit buying and driving them. My sons and grandson are not nearly as interested in my toys as I had hoped, and they are not unusual. Many of my friends are experiencing the same issues with no one to buy/restore/or appreciate these older vehicles. The gasoline issue is killing so many carburetors that it is becoming the most common problem on forums that I am involved with. Fuel injection is not a cost effective option for many folks who are diehard old timers. Joe-JDC
-
Sadly, many of our valuable vehicles are going to lose a lot of value after the baby boomers quit buying and driving them. My sons and grandson are not nearly as interested in my toys as I had hoped, and they are not unusual. Many of my friends are experiencing the same issues with no one to buy/restore/or appreciate these older vehicles. The gasoline issue is killing so many carburetors that it is becoming the most common problem on forums that I am involved with. Fuel injection is not a cost effective option for many folks who are diehard old timers. Joe-JDC
Joe, just look back one or two generations and it's even worse. Owners of Model T's, A's and other run-of-the mill pre-WWII cars are already, I'm told, having a bitch of a time. No one wants to pay for cars that can't even keep up on the highway, have tires and rims no local shops will touch, etc. Our muscle car era cars will someday suffer the same fates yet I think it's quite a few years off. Hey, at least your grandson and sons can drive a muscle car. Try to teach them to drive a really old Ford with all those pedals on the floor in a creaky, windy and frankly very slow car and they will run away!
-
It's because the people who pay the big bucks for the cars typically want them in "as built" condition. So unless it's a highly modified touring car, with top notch workmanship and parts, it'll always be worth more when they're built as 100% original, or at least 'as it came from the factory'. I don't make the rules, that's just the way it is :)
Cool, thanks for the input. I'm not really an "original" car kinda guy, so I didn't know.
Makes sense tho.
-
I'm not an "original" kind of guy either. There is plenty about my car that is nowhere near original, and I don't care, but I always hated the idea of butchering it beyond where it could be returned. That idea bothers me less and less each passing year though :)
Yes, the big resto-mods are getting some big money, but they are usually high end stuff that COSTS big money. I seriously doubt that people are making money on a lot of them, except for the fabrication shops doing the work for big spenders.
And I agree, the value has dropped significantly, and will probably continue to do so. Lots of reasons for that, but basically the younger generation has less interest in them. Heck, the new family sedan will blow the doors off most older 'performance' cars, so why bother spending big money on an inferior car? The same goes for lots of areas that I love, like vintage aircraft and steam engines. Finding volunteers or people with money that are willing to maintain those parts of history are going to be disappearing over the next generation. Right now, vintage aviation is peaking because the current millionaires willing to plunk down the cash on their boyhood dreams are at the right age, with money to burn, and boy does it take a LOT of money! When the next generation comes along, the interest probably won't be there to support it. Then we'll just be looking at them in museums.
Joe, I'm not up on values of that stuff. Last I saw, complete Mustang shaker assemblies were bringing $3000+, but that's complete, original units. Lots of details go into that to make a system "complete" though, and some parts are near impossible to find. But now you can buy everything reproduction, so I imagine that's killed a lot of the value that they used to have.
-
Cut shock towers decreases value?
I would think that if it’s done well it’s be desired.
Kinda like I view front discs and a dual master cylinder to be an upgrade on my Galaxie, certainly not a negative.
(This was a question, I do t own a shock tower car, so curious)
It's because the people who pay the big bucks for the cars typically want them in "as built" condition. So unless it's a highly modified touring car, with top notch workmanship and parts, it'll always be worth more when they're built as 100% original, or at least 'as it came from the factory'. I don't make the rules, that's just the way it is :)
Brother Lon's '67 Mustang was quite plain jane for a 390 car. We put a 427 TP in it when it was less than a year old, and re-worked it rather thoroughly over the years. We ultimately put a set of Dove TP heads on a 452 inch engine. The exhaust runners pointed UP at about a 45-50 degree angle and required custom headers. We removed the towers and moved everything necessary to give un-impeded exhaust flow. The ultimate combination used a pair of EFI throttle-bodies on a LeMans dual-plane intake manifold. He ultimately sold the car to a guy in New Zealand. I'm not under the impression that the price suffered at all because of the modifications. Just sayin'.
KS
There's a big difference between a '67 P code, and a '69/'70 R code. Same as if it were a true '68 1/2 CJ; if it were modified, it's gonna affect the value. Putting a Dove headed, fuel injected 427 TP in a P code car would likely offset any lost value compared to a hum-drum 390. Not a valid comparison to the highly sought after Cobra Jet cars.
Although I don't know the particulars, I'm under the impression that the car, as sold, went for far more than enough to 'offset' any lost value. Some of that would, of course, be because it was featured in a number of the magazines I wrote for, and appeared on the cover of Super Ford Magazine during the time we were working on the fuel Injection. I wrote a half-dozen or more articles for SFM alone while we were doing one-or-another of the modifications we made.
A very goodly share of the '68 1/2 CJ Mustangs would have been turned into race cars and, consequently 'hacked-up'. I was involved with one of the first dozen---all 'dollar' cars---and we tore into it within a couple of hours of getting it home.
KS
-
Man, I'm so looking forward to seeing this project finished. Cant wait to see the package deal up for sale. Heads, rockers, intake adapter and intake.
I'm guessing the heads will be offered bare or with valves and springs. Maybe for the additional charge titanium valves will be available??..
-
For titanium valves you'd be on your own, but I would certainly be able to provide the valve dimensions you would need to order them. I'll be offering some stainless steel Ferrea valves to go with the heads; standard FE valves will not fit these heads, of course. I'm currently trying to decide between normal valves and hollow stem valves; there's a pretty big cost difference, and according to the valve manufacturer only a 14-15 gram weight savings. Decisions, decisions... ;D
-
A very goodly share of the '68 1/2 CJ Mustangs would have been turned into race cars and, consequently 'hacked-up'. I was involved with one of the first dozen---all 'dollar' cars---and we tore into it within a couple of hours of getting it home.
KS
And to bring the big dollars, they are restored to 'as delivered or originally raced' trim. Who the racer was, and the car in questions history has a lot to do with that.
-
Cant wait to see the package deal up for sale. Heads, rockers, intake adapter and intake.
I still think an FE Power T-shirt, showing the entire top end with all the available parts, would be a cool thing to see. Jay needs a silk-screening machine now..lol
-
Mr. Jay Brown,
I don't even have a dog in the FE world, but I love them as this was the first engine my father and I built(I watched a lot). It's amazing what you've accomplished in a very short time. You've taken technology and leveraged it for the FE community! Anyone wanting to build a Dream FE has many choices today.
Thanks for your hard work!
-
For titanium valves you'd be on your own, but I would certainly be able to provide the valve dimensions you would need to order them. I'll be offering some stainless steel Ferrea valves to go with the heads; standard FE valves will not fit these heads, of course. I'm currently trying to decide between normal valves and hollow stem valves; there's a pretty big cost difference, and according to the valve manufacturer only a 14-15 gram weight savings. Decisions, decisions... ;D
Can't comment on the cost, but wouldn't 14 or 15 grams be significant at high rpm? Total weight is around 70 grams, no?
-
No, the valves are not light weight despite the 5/16" stem. They are very long, over 3/4" longer than a stock valve, because the ports are so tall. I have some test valves here that need the heads machined down to fit, and they will give an idea of weights. The intake valves I have here weigh 154 grams, exhausts 126 grams. The intake valve has a 2.350" head diameter, so they will lose a bit of weight when they are cut down to 2.300" or 2.250", but not that much. Hollow stem on the intake would only save 10% of the weight, and the cost adder is 60%. Exhaust valve head is 1.800", and will get cut down to 1.700" or less, but again not a big weight savings there. And again a 60% premium to lose an additional 14-15 grams.
For comparison, a stock 1.65" 428CJ exhaust valve with 3/8" stem weighs 122 grams, and a stock 428CJ intake valve with a 2.09" head weighs 136 grams. By the time the valves are cut down to fit, I'm guessing that the exhaust valve for my heads will weigh just a bit less than a stock valve, and the intake valve will weigh 10 grams more than a stock valve.
It looks like if I order in quantity, the normal valves for my heads would be about $450 for the set, and the hollow stems would be about $700 for the set. I'd rather go with the hollow stems, but that's a pretty big price difference. Decisions, decisions...
-
...
It looks like if I order in quantity, the normal valves for my heads would be about $450 for the set, and the hollow stems would be about $700 for the set. I'd rather go with the hollow stems, but that's a pretty big price difference. Decisions, decisions...
Ok, I do tend to favour the extremes since the compromise is so boring, but if you add up what you have spent in hours and dollars to get it this far, is $250 going to move the needle to "scrap the project"?
Now I have to come up with a project that justifies this set of heads, I'll need a new block and a car to put it in. By the time I'm done I'll be $40,000 in car costs and another $100,000 in divorce lawyer bills, so what is $250? Do it right.
-
Multiply that difference by 25 to 50 sets and my conundrum will become clearer...
-
It seems to me like a lot of guys running these heads would be using solid roller cams. They are going to be using high spring pressures anyway. I'm not saying weight doesn't matter because of that, technically it could matter more because they will also likely be running high rpms. I am saying these don't seem to be grocery-getter heads so I bet the end users will be making the valve train work with whatever springs they need, whatever retainers, whatever cam profiles, rockers, etc. They aren't going to be throwing this stuff together and then complaining about valve float.
I'm not in the market for them anyway, so just my opinion.
paulie
edit: and in the lower rpm street friendly versions that Jay alluded to, the weight won't be such a problem?
-
Jay this is one way to do a shock tower cut back the strut and hub used here has room to go more to the vertical at the top. No FE at that time though.
-
Not mine:
https://worcester.craigslist.org/tls/d/charlton-cylinder-head-pressure-tester/6804655697.html
-
I just geeked out reading this thread! Being able to see what goes into the casting process was great, thanks for doing that Jay! Such an awesome project, seeing the pics of of the 3D printed heads at PRI with the crossram efi setup makes me want to build a kit cobra to put one in. I can't explain why lol
-
I always hated the idea of butchering it beyond where it could be returned. That idea bothers me less and less each passing year though :)
Aint that weird. Bothers me more with every passing year.
-
Yeah it bothers me also. My brother in law had a 68 fastback that he had the towers taken out to get a pro touring suspension done. He had a stroked 351/459 I believe. It was done beautifully and when he was done he sold it to one of his rich buddies for alot of money. Just cant bring myself to do it.
-
Very cool Jay.These kinda underdog high spec projects gets my respect!!
And for the pony car guys you either cut it or don't what's the fuzz..
-
Cut???
Oh hell yeah!
-
Cut???
Oh hell yeah!
(https://i.postimg.cc/3NxXz03k/didnt-see-that-coming-megenerator-ne-32076352.png) (https://postimages.org/)
-
Cut???
Oh hell yeah!
(https://i.postimg.cc/3NxXz03k/didnt-see-that-coming-megenerator-ne-32076352.png) (https://postimages.org/)
:)
-
Any update pictures on heads, machining?
-
I just got the heads back from heat treat a couple days ago. This week I'm working on getting the fixture machined; plan on machining the heads next week. I will post some pictures as I get into machining the heads - Jay
-
Jay, a thought just crossed my mind while reviewing the comments here. When you have a head capable of helping create in excess of 1K HP in a normally-aspirated configuration, you are getting into a range where the block is the 'weak-link'. Have you given any thought to what might be an answer to the problem?
(I discussed that very topic with Jim Dove in days past, and he had some ideas and I had some ideas...)
What say you?
KS
-
Ken, I think an aftermarket block with a Cometic head gasket ought to hold 1200 naturally aspirated HP with the normal head studs and 15:1 pistons. More head bolts would be better, of course, and I've thought about adding two more head bolt locations to each cylinder on my heads, like the aftermarket LS engines, but unless the block has bosses that you can bolt to, that wouldn't do any good. Maybe when I do my block... ;D
-
Ken, I think an aftermarket block with a Cometic head gasket ought to hold 1200 naturally aspirated HP with the normal head studs and 15:1 pistons. More head bolts would be better, of course, and I've thought about adding two more head bolt locations to each cylinder on my heads, like the aftermarket LS engines, but unless the block has bosses that you can bolt to, that wouldn't do any good. Maybe when I do my block... ;D
Back in the day my Uncle raced a lot of bowtie stuff. The blocks we were using were surplus industrial blocks because he got a truck load of them for less than what one aftermarket would cost. I think he was running Chief heads with the extra bolts on the valley side. It was kind of a pain, but we spot faced the valley and bolted blocks in there to take the extra stud. At one time there was even a "kit" to do that before the big companies changed their castings to accommodate the extra stud. Of course the kit was not designed for those industrial blocks so I had to make some fixturing anyway.
I don't know if it would make a significant enough difference on an FE to warrant the hassle. Or if it's even practically feasible without a resigned block.
-
Is the issue the heads blowing off a NA engine, or the BLOCK blowing apart?
Thickwalled IRON (nodular?) block that isn't bored to extremes, 4.00, 4.05. Cam tunnel strengthened, or at least not weakened, 6 crossbolts (Shelby design, but it's aluminum :-( ), 4 crossbolts, girdle, fill (but what is the lifespan of the fill material?).
Other than pouring nodular iron into a Shelby block mold, what else can be done? Some sort of through-bolting top to bottom, side to side?
-
Other than pouring modular iron into a Shelby block mold, what else can be done? Some sort of through-bolting top to bottom, side to side?
Ratchet straps!
-
Ratchet straps!
Doug where do you find the high temp ones? My walmart ones dont cut it.
-
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=FNStiRht&id=5CE0746056B5CB96A3275083135808DF9217BC84&thid=OIP.FNStiRhthZBb_TVSM3avmQHaGl&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.gstmaskin.se%2fFiler%2fBilder%2fVerkstad%2ftec-u-omgjord.jpg&exph=488&expw=549&q=wireblock&simid=608010549947139094&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0
-
Outside-the-block fill.
Encase the whole engine in a solid concrete block.
A little weighty but if you set it back, weight distribution should be ok.
-
The first supercharged car I drove on a daily basis was a '54 Ford with a 312 swapped in. I used the same blower on my then-new '65 Mustang. My first turbo car came along in the '70s and I don't believe I'll do another performance car of any sort without a pair of turbos.
An n/a engine that makes 800 HP will easily enough make thrice that amount with a pair of hairdryers attached. e85 is readily available and works very well with a bit of spray in addition to the turbos---you see where I'm going. Thus my comment regarding block strength.
(The engine in the Lincoln LS I used to set the E/F Competition Coupe/Sedan record in ECTA racing is a Jaguar design---Ford owned Jaguar at the time---and the aluminum block was designed with water jackets that only extend down the cylinder walls a bit past where the ring-pack sets when the piston is at TDC. Daily driver vehicles are commonly found with the bottoms of the water jackets silted full. There is no contribution in heat extraction from this area and no support from that silted-in area either. Why not fill it in at the foundry?)
KS
-
Couldn't resist posting a couple of teaser pics of my cylinder head in process on the CNC machine. I'm waiting for some tooling to arrive in the next couple days, and working on another fixture I need to put in the spark plug holes, but I should be able to have the machining programs and the first head done by the end of the week. I will post pictures of the finish-machined head, and also some pictures of the first intake manifold castings, next weekend - Jay
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEP Head 4th2.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEP Head 4th1.jpg)
-
Looks very cool Jay! 8)
-
Very cool!!
-
Beautiful
-
they look like there going to flow bigtime.Jay,i hope they are a big success.they sure do look impressive.
-
You've got a lot of work in those fixtures.
Best of luck bringing this cool project home!
- Bill
-
You're not kidding Bill, the main plate of the fixture was a $550 block of stress-relieved, cast aluminum. Took me almost an entire week to machine that...
-
Looking fantastic! I absolutely love the “no compromise” exhaust
-
I love it. I want a set so bad...
-
jay
will these heads require special pistons?
-
Probably, unless you run a very mild cam. The valves are moved to a better location in the cylinder, and the valve angle has been changed. A normal FE piston valve relief won't match up with the valve location on these heads.
-
My tongue is hangin' out so far it's left a spitty spot on my shirt front. ;)
KS
-
man those exhaust ports look big.what size header tube will these heads use
-
At the outlet they are about 1-7/8" diameter, so a 2" OD header tube should be a perfect fit.
-
Do you have any thoughts about a direct injection FE head? Probably not a high demand item considering all the other expense involved. New tech under a semi old look would be interesting.
-
I briefly considered something like that, but quickly discarded the idea based on the lack of aftermarket support for the parts required. You're talking about a fuel system that has to run in the thousands of psi, injectors capable of handling combustion temperature and the fuel pressure, specialized EFI software, etc. In addition, I read somewhere that direct injection, while excellent for efficiency and fuel economy, is not capable of delivering as much horsepower as a good standard EFI system, because there is no time to cool the incoming air with evaporation of the fuel. I think Ford, or some other manufacturer, is doing some combination of direct injection and port injection for their higher performance engines, transitioning to the port injection at the higher engine speeds to get more power. Maybe someone here can confirm, or correct me, on this...
-
Yes i read that somewhere, or something along that line
-
The Gen3 coyote engine has both direct and port injection, for the reasons Jay stated, plus the intake valve stays cleaner.
-
Jay
as cast what kind of flow numbers are you guessing the heads will flow?
-
The Ecoboost and all other direct injection gas engines have two problems not experienced with port injection: the first is any recirculated gasses tend to coke up the intake valves because the are not washed by fuel and they get nearly as hot as exhaust valves. Fuel both washes and cools the intake valve train. Second is that they are limited in how much fuel they can inject. This is fine for a normal engine up to about 400 hp. On later engines I read that Ford went to a combination of port and direct injection, and this was driven by the power needs of the Raptor version of the engine.
-
It has been a GREAT week at FE Power. After thinking about the cylinder head project for so many years, even starting back when I did the high riser and tunnel port intake adapter, and then working on it for the last year and a half, it was great to finally have a finished head in my hands and start to get it ready to run. I am definitely having too much fun this week ;D ;D Note that this is a long post with a lot of pictures, for anyone who doesn't want to read through the whole thing.
After fighting through an extended CNC machine repair in February, and then a failed air compressor a couple weeks ago, at the start of this month I was finally able to start machining the fixtures and the first head. It took me a week to write the programs and machine the fixtures required to hold the cylinder head on the rotary axis of the CNC machine, but last Thursday I was finally able to get my first head casting bolted down on the fixture. I started writing the machining programs for the head last Friday, and ran the operations one at a time as I went along to check them out. The pictures shown earlier in this thread show the head during the first operation, where most of the machining is done. I didn't finish the first operation up until Tuesday night, and as usual I made a few errors along the way, but fortunately I was able to repair these with some aluminum bolts and JB Weld, so despite the errors this head is usable. And now that I've de-bugged the machining programs, the next head should come out with no problems.
Wednesday I was looking forward to getting the head moved onto a different fixture for the second machining operation, but before I did that I made a trip down to the foundry to watch them pour the next piece needed for this project. This was my individual runner intake manifold. I had previously completed the design and 3D printed it for the PRI show; pictures below:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/IRintake1.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/IRintake2.jpg)
After the cylinder head casting was complete, I had the sand for the intake setup made and shipped to the foundry. They poured it Wednesday morning, following the same basic procedure as they did when pouring the heads. One thing that was a bit different on this pour was that my file for one of the runners had some kind of an error in it, and resulted in a thin gap in the core of one of the runners. There's a picture of the runner cores below, where you can see this gap:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/IR Intake Core.jpg)
To address this issue the foundry used some kind of high temperature putty, called Core Mud, to fill the gap:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/Core mud on runner.jpg)
The next three photos show the drag, cope, and completed mold. This mold did not require any sleeves in the risers, like the cylinder head did, and it also did not require a chill. Again I apologize for the poor picture quality, but it is really dark in the foundry, and the flash washes out a lot of detail, so the exposure time is rather long:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/IR Intake Drag.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/IR Intake Cope.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/IR Intake Mold.jpg)
The next pictures show the mold with the lead weights on top, ready for the pour, the pouring process, and the completed filled mold:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/IR Intake 1.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/IR Intake 2.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/IR Intake 3.jpg)
And here is the casting broken out of the mold. It came out really looking good. I have the four runners attached together through the center with a bar; the bar is actually dimensioned on the ends the same as the cylinder head, so that it will fit right into the cylinder head machining fixture, with only a minor modification:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/IR Intake 4.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/IR Intake 5.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/IR Intake 6.jpg)
I will machine most of the surfaces on these four runners together, and then bolt them to a different fixture to cut them apart. I'm really looking forward to seeing this whole setup complete and installed on one of my intake adapters; I'm hoping to have it ready for the FE Reunion. And it sure is fun watching this stuff get made at the foundry!
Back at the shop Wednesday afternoon I bolted an additional cylinder head fixture onto the first one; this fixture is required for the second machining operation on the head and tilts the head at an angle, in order to counterbore, drill and tap the spark plug holes. Also, with this fixture the head can be positioned vertically, so the ends of the head can be machined, and drilled and tapped for the holes in the end. The three pictures below show the head on this additional fixture, while being machined. The first photo shows the "handle" on the far end of the head being machined off. This has to be done in order to tilt the head up 90 degrees, because if the handle is still there it will actually hit the CNC table and prevent the head from rotating (I am definitely at the limits for size in this CNC machine). The second picture shows the head tilted at about 10 degrees, and one of the spark plug holes being drilled. The third picture shows the head positioned vertically and being drilled for the holes in the end:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEPHop2.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEPHop2A.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEPHop3.jpg)
I finished up all the machining on the head on Thursday night. Friday morning I installed the thread inserts (more on this later), grabbed the guides, seats, and valves that I had decided on for these heads and drove over to R&R Performance, where my automotive machinist friend Bryan was ready to get the head assembled. At this point, the head was still an unknown to me, and despite all the design work and research I had done over the last year and a half on how these heads should be made, I was still concerned that something bad would happen during assembly. I had concerns that the cast area around the guides would split when the guides were pressed in, or the casting would crack when the seats were pounded in, or there would be some other unknown problems that would show up. Walking into the shop I was prepared to be disappointed; it was too much to hope for that everything would be perfect on the first try.
Bryan went to work first on the guides. I had purchase some off-the-shelf guides which were a little long, so he cut them all down by 1/4" and then installed them. None of the guide supports cracked when he pounded them in, and he said it felt like they had the right amount of press. So far so good.
Next came the seat installation. I was worried about this because the seats have to go in with a lot of press, about 0.006" in most cases. They are pounded in with an arbor that indexes on the valve guide which has already been installed, in order to keep the arbor square with the seat and seat pocket. I've never watched valve seats being installed before, and I couldn't believe how hard Bryan had to hit the arbor with his small sledge in order to make them go in. At the end of each installation the whole casting would ring as the arbor was hit with a small sledge hammer. But again, all 8 seats were successfully installed with no apparent detrimental effects to the casting.
Next came a valve job on a single cylinder. The valves I had on hand were 5/16" stem, 2.350" diameter on the intake and 1.800" diameter on the exhaust. They needed to be cut down, because I wanted to set this head up with 2.300" intakes and 1.675" exhausts. Bryan cut them down to the correct size and also put a back cut on the intake valve. Next he turned to the head. On the intake, he cut the seat inside diameter out to 2.0875", which is just over 90% of the intake head diameter. When he was done, there was a nice ridge of the aluminum casting extending out beyond the inside of the seat, probably 0.100" all around. This was what I had designed for (and what everybody else designs for), to allow the area under the seat to be contoured by hand for a smooth path from the seat into the port. Everything looked good.
My luck ran out on the exhaust side, unfortunately. When the inside diameter of the exhaust seat was cut, on one side there was barely any overhang of the casting into the seat inside diameter at all, and on the other side the casting was way inside the inside diameter of the seat. Basically, the back of the seat was hanging out into the port. Somehow, I had made a mistake in the design file resulting in this issue. It was going to hurt the exhaust flow significantly.
Regardless, we'd come this far and we were going to finish this thing today. Bryan took the head into the porting room and smoothed out the area under the intake seat, and did the same on the exhaust seat as best as he could. The moment of truth had arrived: time for a flow test!
I had previously had my 3D printed plastic head flowed. I only got a peak flow number because there was no way to really do a valve job on the plastic head, and that would have had a major impact on the lower lift numbers, but that head delivered 405 cfm at 0.700" lift on a 4.25" bore. Of course, I had to take that number with a grain of salt; I wasn't 100% sure that the plastic was completely airtight, there was no plug in the chamber for that test (the hole was just blocked with clay), and the radius that I had used in place of the valve seat and valve job was an unknown. So I waited nervously, like an expectant father (LOL!) outside the flow bench room while Bryan ran the test.
The results on the intake side were all I could hope for. I think it is rather remarkable that the 3D printed plastic head flowed 405 cfm at 0.700" lift, and the aluminum head flowed 403 cfm at 0.700" lift. Peak flow was 416 cfm at 0.800", and it also flowed 416 cfm at 0.900", which showed that the port was not backing up at the higher lift numbers. This is the best flowing FE wedge head I've ever seen, besting my Blue Thunder High Risers (which were treated to about $2500 in hand porting), and this head flowed those numbers as cast, and with a much smaller cross sectional port area. Wow, was I happy about that. Further, the inside surface of the ports is pretty rough, not as smooth as a lot of castings. I think this has to do with the 3D printed sand, it is just a much rougher texture than normal casting sand. Bryan thought that the port would pick up significantly, maybe 10-15 cfm, with just a cartridge roll smoothing of the inside port surfaces.
Predictably, the results on the exhaust side were not as good. I had been hoping for a peak of around 280 cfm, but the port just edged over 230 cfm. So, I've got some work to do on the exhaust port design yet. Fortunately for me, its only a matter of changing the port design on the computer, and getting another batch of 3D printed sand made up to test an improved version.
These flow numbers were done on a 4.25" bore, so we ran them again on a 4.375" bore to see if there was any improvement, but they were mostly the same. All the flow results are shown in the table below:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEPHflow.JPG)
When I got home tonight I also checked the chamber volume with the valves installed and it came in at 69 cc, which is just a couple ccs bigger than I thought it would be, so that all looks good.
Here are some pictures of the head as it sits at the moment. First the deck surface:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEPH1.jpg)
This is one of the chambers where the seats have been installed, but no valve job has been done. By the way, notice the small shallow hole to the left of the lower head bolt hole. This is a machined cavity that indexes to a pin on my fixture. It is machined to a specific depth, 0.200". Because of this machining, this hole, and one other on the other side of the head, can be used to determine how much the deck of the head has been cut in the future. Kind of like the thumbprint deal on factory heads, but much more precise.
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEPH2.jpg)
And here is the chamber with the valve job:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEPH2A.jpg)
If you look closely at the intake side, up at the top towards the water jacket opening you can see two round plugs that I installed to fix a machining error. Doh! Also, you will notice the bolt holes in the end of the head. Here and in several other places I'm using an insert to prevent pulling out the aluminum threads. I thought about using Timeserts but I've had problems with those cracking on my Blue Thunder heads, so I've gone to a product called E-Z Loks. I've used these for many years now, on other heads where the threads needed repair, and have always liked how they work. Also, one other point about the bolt holes in the end of the head is that I've designed the head so that both ends use them, not just one end. I figure more mounting points for accessories are always good.
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEPH3.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEPH4.jpg)
Exhaust port side:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEPH5.jpg)
These two pictures are close ups of the ports, showing the rough cast finish. Notice the rough surface that is also shown on the exterior of the head. The horizontal lines correspond to layers put down by the 3D sand printer. Those lines are also present in the ports, which is why Bryan figured that a little smoothing in the ports might pick up the flow.
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEPH6.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEPH7.jpg)
Despite the setback on the exhaust port, the results for the intake port have me pretty excited. The intake port is far more important, and appears to be capable of supporting a 900 HP engine right out of the box, which was one of the goals for this project. I will post more pictures after I get the individual runner intake manifold machined. And I will be bringing these heads to show at the FE Reunion, for anyone who is going to see - Jay
-
WOW Jay, that head is totally knocked outta the park, thanks for going above and beyond the call of duty, now I need a towel to clean the "drool" off the keyboard............Tom
-
Yes, wow. You really did a great job on that. The smoothing is a simple task most of us should be able to do so i'd say they are near ready to sell.
Time to enjoy beer!
-
Congratulations Jay, that is brilliant. One question - I see the section where they applied the high temperature mud is quite smooth. I also looked it up since I was curious, and Hill and Griffiths promote it for smoothing rough cores.
Would it make sense to smooth some of the harder to clean up areas pre-cast? I don't know how hard the stuff is to apply, but it would be easy enough to reduce the dimensions slightly to allow for a thin coat (easy for you, given what you already done).
-
Hi Jay,
Will that cross-ram intake system work on one of your regular intake adapters? Because if it will, I think I'm going to have to make the jump to an EFI system)).
Thanks,
Dan
-
Congratulations Jay, that is brilliant. One question - I see the section where they applied the high temperature mud is quite smooth. I also looked it up since I was curious, and Hill and Griffiths promote it for smoothing rough cores.
Would it make sense to smooth some of the harder to clean up areas pre-cast? I don't know how hard the stuff is to apply, but it would be easy enough to reduce the dimensions slightly to allow for a thin coat (easy for you, given what you already done).
That's a good idea, but I think that in practice it would be nearly impossible to accomplish. If you look at the pictures of the cylinder head core on the first page of this post, you can see that, for example, you don't have access all the way down the port cores to put the core mud on. You also wouldn't have access to coat the outside surfaces of the head (inside surfaces of the core), because of the other parts of the core inside. Plus it would take forever to coat each core with that stuff. Easier and faster I think to just spend 10 minutes on each port with a cartridge roll...
-
Hi Jay,
Will that cross-ram intake system work on one of your regular intake adapters? Because if it will, I think I'm going to have to make the jump to an EFI system)).
Thanks,
Dan
Sorry Dan, but the crossram setup will not fit my regular intake adapters. The head is significantly different than any other FE head, and the induction systems I'm working on for it won't fit any other FE setup.
-
Hi Jay! We're the exhaust numbers with or without a length of pipe ? I assume without.
-
There was a 4" long, 2" OD pipe attached to the exhaust during the flow test. Just a clay radius on the intake port.
-
Jay, is there any way you could let me epoxy an exhaust port and flow it to pick up the flow? I know you have great people around you, but I really would like to try to help make that exhaust flow ~70% of the intake flow for you. Joe-JDC
-
Very nice Jay! You know better than any of us how tough it is to get something usable on your first try. I can't believe you're getting 400 CFM as-cast. That's rarified air! That flow combined with the modern chamber should make for quite a stormer.
-
Jay, is there any way you could let me epoxy an exhaust port and flow it to pick up the flow? I know you have great people around you, but I really would like to try to help make that exhaust flow ~70% of the intake flow for you. Joe-JDC
Joe, I may take you up on that but I want to try to get the design error corrected first before I do. For sure at some point I will send you a head, or a portion of a head, and see what you can do with it. I'm thinking that this is a 475 cfm head with some significant port work, and I'd love to see how close you can get to that. Thanks for the offer - Jay
-
Be glad to help with anything I can. NO Charge. Confidential, too! LOL Joe-JDC
-
Wow, great numbers on the intake ports. Seems odd to me that the exhaust didn't do better, having the seat hang over the port isn't ideal, but the air is blowing out the port so I would not have thought it could hurt flow that much. Those exhaust ports look like they should flow like gang busters, then again I remember back in the day when a good aftermarket SBC head with a 2.02 intake valve was doing pretty good to get 230 cfm on the intake.
Just looked up the numbers on a set of Lingenfelter CNC ported LS7 heads, they are pretty similar, though the LS7 heads flow somewhat better everywhere under .700 lift. But this is comparing a well developed CNC ported casting to a first cast prototype fresh out of the mold, not really fair but it bodes well for the FE power head. Your exhaust ports do better at all points under .600 lift though, so even though they aren't as good as you would like they are better than the LS7.
Here are the numbers from Lingenfelters web page :
LPE CNC Ported LS7 Flow Specs
Intake valve lift / Exhaust valve lift
.200 - 174 cfm / .200 - 120 cfm
.300 - 256 cfm / .300 - 164 cfm
.400 - 312 cfm / .400 - 200 cfm
.500 - 352 cfm / .500 - 222 cfm
.600 - 384 cfm / .600 - 234 cfm
.650 - 395 cfm / .650 - 239 cfm
.690 - 396 cfm / .690 - 242 cfm
Intake runner size: 272 CC
Exhaust runner size: 90 CC
I also found this article, https://www.hotrod.com/articles/hrdp-1203-7-top-ls7-heads/
its fairly sparse on specifics, but its a dyno comparison of several LS7 heads on a 13-1CR 495ci LS engine with a large hydraulic roller. The heads listed above were in the mix.
They made a spread of 763-810 HP between 7 different heads on the same short block.
I have a funny feeling that, given the somewhat similar specs of Jays dyno mule and this LS engine, that Jay sould have no trouble eclipsing the 800 HP mark on his 504, I hope there will bw an epic " guess the horsepower " thread in the near future.
-
You never test your CNC programming using blocks of wax?
Seems like reusable wax might be more cost-effective in discovering programming issues...
-
I never use that stuff, and I don't know anyone else who does either. I think its one of those things that nobody uses anymore...
-
Hi Jay,
Will that cross-ram intake system work on one of your regular intake adapters? Because if it will, I think I'm going to have to make the jump to an EFI system)).
Thanks,
Dan
Sorry Dan, but the crossram setup will not fit my regular intake adapters. The head is significantly different than any other FE head, and the induction systems I'm working on for it won't fit any other FE setup.
Sorry to hear that. Any thoughts of a crossram system for the regular adapter in the future?
-
The amount of effort you put into documenting and displaying this entire process for us must be as exhausting as the design process itself! I can’t get enough of looking through the pictures and the info. I think you knocked it out of the park with the intake. To pull off those numbers on the first try is nothing short of amazing, and a testimony to the effort you put into the design. Out of curiosity,
I went to the Stan Weiss website to compare numbers for the entire curve. Hard to find un-ported numbers but your heads are comparable to A-460, C460, Kasse CHI 400. Your heads flow better through the entire curve than an as cast A-460 head. And those have a much larger cross section.
All I can say about that is “WOW”!! These are going to make some power!!
-
The new Ford 7.3 truck pushrod engine looks to have exhaust ports that face up similar to your heads. Will be interesting to see the actual engine in a vehicle. The pictures and details are intriguing. Joe-JDC
-
Hi Jay,
Will that cross-ram intake system work on one of your regular intake adapters? Because if it will, I think I'm going to have to make the jump to an EFI system)).
Thanks,
Dan
Sorry Dan, but the crossram setup will not fit my regular intake adapters. The head is significantly different than any other FE head, and the induction systems I'm working on for it won't fit any other FE setup.
Sorry to hear that. Any thoughts of a crossram system for the regular adapter in the future?
No plans for that at this point. It would have to be a completely different design than the one I've already done, because the port spacing on a 351C intake is different than the port spacing on my heads. It would be a lot of work and startup expense, and I just don't know if there is a market for it...
-
Quote
Hi Jay,
Will that cross-ram intake system work on one of your regular intake adapters? Because if it will, I think I'm going to have to make the jump to an EFI system)).
Thanks,
Dan
Sorry Dan, but the crossram setup will not fit my regular intake adapters. The head is significantly different than any other FE head, and the induction systems I'm working on for it won't fit any other FE setup.
Sorry to hear that. Any thoughts of a crossram system for the regular adapter in the future?
No plans for that at this point. It would have to be a completely different design than the one I've already done, because the port spacing on a 351C intake is different than the port spacing on my heads. It would be a lot of work and startup expense, and I just don't know if there is a market for it...
Thanks for the info. I guess it's back to the drawing board.
-
There are several companies making ITB set ups for the 351C that should for Jays adapter. I think Borla is making a cross ram style, but most I’ve seen are down draft. Speedmaster79 has a cheep Chinese unit, though I wonder what the quality would be like on that.
EFI hardware out of Australia makes some nice looking Webber based ITB stuff that seems fairly reasonable. I was looking at their IDA based 55mm throttle body’s. About $400 each, so $1600 for a V8. Still have to get the 351c IDA manufold and a computer to run it all but still much cheaper than the $6000-$8000 price rage on a lot of the other systems I’ve looked at.
-
I've seen the Borla system, but it's really expensive. I'll look at that EFI hardware out of Austrailia. Thanks for the tips.
-
Jay, is the exhaust port spacing and bolt pattern on Your head a unique design, or does it match some other common engine so that header flanges can be bought off the shelf?
-
I was wondering about header flanges too...only two bolts per port?
-
Jay, is the exhaust port spacing and bolt pattern on Your head a unique design, or does it match some other common engine so that header flanges can be bought off the shelf?
Maybe (from 5.0 coyote) If they were cut apart it looks close
(https://i.postimg.cc/tsmvz3pf/Kooks-header-flanges.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/tsmvz3pf)
-
Jay, is the exhaust port spacing and bolt pattern on Your head a unique design, or does it match some other common engine so that header flanges can be bought off the shelf?
I’m pretty sure Jay is planning on offfering header flanges to go with the heads.
-
Jay, I'm backing-up in the thread here, but when Brother Lon and I were doing his '67 Mustang project, we discovered that it wasn't so much the sheet metal of the spring towers, but the mount location of the upper arm pivot.
We removed the towers completely, but, in addition, we had to move the pivot points outboard as well, in order to give room to build headers that weren't compromised. Our goal was to have the pipes extend at least six inches from the head without any turn at all.
On the driver's side, it was also necessary to exchange the rag joint for a Borgeson universal.
The heads we used were a pair of Dove TPs with his 'Type II' exhaust ports. The runners in the second design are changed in size, location and shape.
KS
-
Ken , I'm pretty sure Jays new head is not intended for shock tower cars unless heavily modified towers might be a maybe but doubt it or never say never until someone tries , these heads are more for the guy that has a chassis to take advantage of the 4 digit horse power , there are still plenty of heads available to make 850 horse power for concourse shock tower cars
-
There is a company called Morrison (IIRC) in Australia or New Zealand that makes an EFI cast cross ram for the 351 Cleveland
Hi Jay,
Will that cross-ram intake system work on one of your regular intake adapters? Because if it will, I think I'm going to have to make the jump to an EFI system)).
Thanks,
Dan
Sorry Dan, but the crossram setup will not fit my regular intake adapters. The head is significantly different than any other FE head, and the induction systems I'm working on for it won't fit any other FE setup.
Sorry to hear that. Any thoughts of a crossram system for the regular adapter in the future?
-
Kevin is correct, I will be offering laser cut exhaust flanges to fit my heads; they are not the same as any other design, as far as I know. And Ken as far as the shock tower mods go, based on my measurements the upper control arm can keep its existing mounting location. Don't forget that on these heads, the ports come out parallel to the ground, not pointed down at a 45 degree angle like a normal FE head. I don't think that the pipes can come straight out 6" unless the shock tower is removed, but I'd be happy with cutting the tower back some and getting a 3" radius pipe in there; that would be much, much better than a normal FE shock tower header.
By the way, you guys may be interested to know that my arm has been twisted by a few notable FE folks, and so I'm pretty sure that I'll be doing a version of these heads with the stock FE exhaust port location. First pass design on that is complete and I've 3D printed what one port will look like:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEPHstdexh.jpg)
With the flexibility offered by 3D printing the sand, it won't cost me any more to make this version of the head, except for the design time. And I'm sure you've noticed that I have lots of spare time on my hands ::) I'll get 'er done, though. I've got a couple cars that I don't want to cut the shock towers on, and it would be great to be able to run these heads on those cars.
-
By the way, you guys may be interested to know that my arm has been twisted by a few notable FE folks, and so I'm pretty sure that I'll be doing a version of these heads with the stock FE exhaust port location. First pass design on that is complete and I've 3D printed what one port will look like:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEPHstdexh.jpg)
Isn't the head considerably taller than a standard head, even taller than a HR head? Wouldn't that put the port exit right up against the shock tower? I don't know the specifics about the dimensions of the head, but if that's the case, I don't even see how you could get a header tube on the port. Or at the very least the tube would have to be at such a drastic angle that flow would be severely compromised. Just guessing on this...
-
The head is very tall, but the exhaust port on the plastic head is in the stock location, so any exhaust that fits in a shock tower car should fit.
-
Going back to the piston profile, will that be something you will be getting involved with or will this be left up to the builder to supply the combustion chamber and valve angle specks to the piston manufacturer?
-
+1 on the very nice looking stock exhaust port!
-
Going back to the piston profile, will that be something you will be getting involved with or will this be left up to the builder to supply the combustion chamber and valve angle specks to the piston manufacturer?
I'll be providing the chamber info to CP so that they have the information necessary to build the correct piston for my heads. Maybe Diamond also, but I have an existing relationship with CP so they will get it first. In fact I hope to be ordering pistons for my dyno mule by the end of the week. I'm going to have them designed so that they will work with either standard FE heads, or my heads. That way I can do a head comparison test on the dyno. Another thing I'm really looking forward to...
-
Looks to me like Jay's stock exhaust port would make the existing headers work better since the port is already dumping downward and not straight outward. Kinda like a Pontiac head. Looks like a good design.
-
Looks to me like Jay's stock exhaust port would make the existing headers work better since the port is already dumping downward and not straight outward. Kinda like a Pontiac head. Looks like a good design.
That was the idea behind the port design, Tom, you hit the nail on the head there. The really bad tubes on a header for a shock tower car are the ones that come straight down, so hopefully the port design will smooth the flow out into those tubes.
-
That was the idea behind the port design, Tom, you hit the nail on the head there. The really bad tubes on a header for a shock tower car are the ones that come straight down, so hopefully the port design will smooth the flow out into those tubes.
Makes you wonder why they haven't used that port design on all the other aftermarket heads.
I am curious, on the originally designed port, why you didn't go with a D shaped port? That seems to be the 'go-to' design on nearly all performance aftermarket heads. Is it because the port turn radius isn't short enough to benefit from it?
-
Now that exhaust port for stock location is what I have been visualizing all along for the FE. Your head being taller allows that whereas the stock FE is a compromise. That looks like a winner for you to sell to the masses, now. Joe-JDC
-
Now that exhaust port for stock location is what I have been visualizing all along for the FE. Your head being taller allows that whereas the stock FE is a compromise. That looks like a winner for you to sell to the masses, now. Joe-JDC
Funny how that is! I've seen so many cases where the development of a new product gets tweaked in an unexpected way, and that's where the money is ;)
-
Makes you wonder why they haven't used that port design on all the other aftermarket heads.
I am curious, on the originally designed port, why you didn't go with a D shaped port? That seems to be the 'go-to' design on nearly all performance aftermarket heads. Is it because the port turn radius isn't short enough to benefit from it?
Actually there's a much more pedestrian reason, and that is that I wanted it to be easy to make a smooth transition into the header. So a round port was the best way to do that.
-
"Form follows function", but that round port will be the "hot" new thing if you cast it. The velocity will be there, and it doesn't take a lot of area to increase the flow exponentially with the round walls. Joe-JDC
-
In my case I'll be opting for the round port. If I'm dropping that kinda $ on a set of heads, rockers, and intake then I'm gonna want the best possible heads available.
-
Wonder what the effect on exhaust velocity and flow would be if that round port was rifled or had a spiraling ridge cast in.
-
So on Monday I was over to the shop that makes the 3D printed cores, going over the single 4 intake design that works with my heads. I showed them my first machined casting, and they were very impressed. Then they said, "You should cut it up!" Now, I had every intention of doing this at some point, because you can learn a lot looking through all the wall thickness and water jacket passages in a sectioned casting. Somehow, its not always clear on the computer screen how everything is going to come out. But the head looked so good I just couldn't bring myself to do it.
Then on Wednesday I dropped some things off at my foundry, and they said "Have you cut the casting up yet?" When I told them no, they basically repeated what the core shop had told me.
So, Wednesday afternoon I bowed to the inevitable, and chucked my first machined cylinder head into the bandsaw :'( :'( Oh well, there's more to come. In the meantime, I did learn a few things from the sectioned parts that will point me towards some improvements in the design. The first picture below shows a couple sections through the intake port:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEPHsect1.jpg)
In the picture above, section on the right, it looks like the water jacket is too close to the outside of the casting. I'm trying to maintain 1/4" there, this is a little under 0.200" at the thinnest point, so I will pull back the water jacket core a little bit in that area.
In the picture below, in the section on the left towards the bottom of the spark plug relief it is also quite thin, so I'll pull a little out of the water jacket in that area too:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEPHsect2.jpg)
In both of the previous pictures you can see the 3D printed sand layers running along the inside of the port. Those ridges are why my porting guy thought it would be fruitful from a flow perspective to clean up the whole inside of both ports. In the picture below, everything looks just about right, so I'm not too worried about these sections, but I could probably sneak the water jacket a little closer to the exhaust port seat, on the short turn side:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEPHsect3.jpg)
Despite the pain of cutting up my firstborn head, I'm glad I did this. I can spend an hour on the CAD model making the water jacket changes, and then get another round of sand cores printed and pour another head. The second head is being machined now, with a few minor tweaks to the CNC program. Boy this is fun ;D
-
That way I can do a head comparison test on the dyno. Another thing I'm really looking forward to...
Oh no. I was just going to put bigger valves and get a little more porting for my Edelbrock heads, but if your dyno test shows an 80 hp gain, I may have to plunk the cash down. :)
paulie
-
Where does that put the spark plug?
-
I cut my shock towers back with my pedestrian Edelbrock heads, just to make it easier to get to spark plugs and header bolts.
paulie
-
Where does that put the spark plug?
They are underneath and slanted off to the side from the exhaust port; look on page 9 of the thread for some pictures of that area.
-
Curious if you made sure you could get a plug socket in that hole? It's hard to tell from pictures, but it looks tight.
As much as I'm sure it hurt, it's neat to see the head cut up, to get a real look at the potential problem/benefit areas inside.
-
A straight plug boot fits, but an angled one doesn't. That's one of the minor machining modifications I'm doing on the next head, adding some downward relief to that spark plug hole so that a 45 or 90 degree plug boot will fit.
Edit - Sorry, I didn't answer your question. Yes, a 5/8" spark plug socket fits. The pocket is deep though, so the 45 degree and 90 degree plug wire boots are the issue.
-
Jay, I'm not 100% sure what the printer uses for the binder but a lot of time its at type of cyanoacrylate. A soak for an hour at 300F should kill all binding powers of it. Although at this point you probably have already engineered a way :)
-
My bad, I didn't ask my question clearly.
Does the spark plug location fit well with your revised combustion chamber when you go to the standard exhaust location?
Bob
-
When going to the conventional exhaust port location, the plug has to move. I can still get it in the same area of the chamber, but it comes in at a different angle, more like a conventional FE head.
-
Amazingly good job on those heads, Professor Brown! Next, we need to tun you loose on some Hemi stuff.
-
SOHC owners are puckering Joel. ;D
-
After the heads get developed I want Mr Brown to produce a block with a raised cam tunnel. We can only go so big with the bore but we could stroke the heck out of it. I know it might not look like the way to go but I will take cubic inches anyway I can get them.
-
1" Raised cam, .500 raised deck, 4.8 bore spacing!
-
After the heads get developed I want Mr Brown to produce a block with a raised cam tunnel. We can only go so big with the bore but we could stroke the heck out of it. I know it might not look like the way to go but I will take cubic inches anyway I can get them.
Funny you mention that, it is next on my list. Maybe by this time next year...
-
After the heads get developed I want Mr Brown to produce a block with a raised cam tunnel. We can only go so big with the bore but we could stroke the heck out of it. I know it might not look like the way to go but I will take cubic inches anyway I can get them.
Funny you mention that, it is next on my list. Maybe by this time next year...
Do you ever sleep? :)
-
Didn't Jay gave a little hint about the free time on these.
Full time FE POWER "employee"? :-X
-
I was looking at a display of spark plugs at a trade show, some are tiny, like 10mm threads and use a 1/2" socket. Something like that could free ip a lot of space or make more positioning options in these heads. It isn't like they need to fit the spark plugs the old heads used.
-
My 10 mm spark plugs that I use in my aluminum heads use a 5/8" socket just like the regular 14 mm plugs. Also, with the 10 mm, I found on the dyno that indexing them was useless for any power improvement since they are so small and placed optimally. Not a bad idea to think about, but they are sometimes hard to find locally. Joe-JDC
-
Very nice work Jay. The stock exhaust port option, is going to be a big seller.
-
1" Raised cam, .500 raised deck, 4.8 bore spacing!
Since everything from the crank to the valve covers will no longer fit the 4.8" why not go to 5.3" bore space and we can have 927's
Be kind of cool to have the FE become the "go to" ProMod engine.
-
I stopped over at Jays and saw the sand patterns. Amazing stuff. I am in awe that Jay has no formal or vocational training in this automotive design and casting field, yet here he is wazzing out top shelf stuff.
-
I stopped over at Jays and saw the sand patterns. Amazing stuff. I am in awe that Jay has no formal or vocational training in this automotive design and casting field, yet here he is wazzing out top shelf stuff.
This shows the sign to be true..."All Are Welcome"
-
LMAO! Even former trunk monkeys... ;D
-
I stopped over at Jays and saw the sand patterns. Amazing stuff. I am in awe that Jay has no formal or vocational training in this automotive design and casting field, yet here he is wazzing out top shelf stuff.
This shows the sign to be true..."All Are Welcome"
Except TFC...
-
Its been another eventful week on the cylinder head project. Last Tuesday I got the first castings for the individual runner intake manifold back from heat treat. Here's a picture of one as I received it:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/IR1.jpg)
Prior to getting the castings I had already machined a couple of additional blocks that were needed for my fixture, in order to raise the castings up high enough to try to machine them as completely as possible. I bolted those blocks onto the fixture and then clamped the first IR intake casting in place:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/IR2.jpg)
One thing about this particular casting is that it is very tall, and kind of spindly as you can see, so I ended up having to go really slow with all the machining operations, to avoid vibrations that hurt the finish on the part. This was particularly problematic in the throttle bore area, where I wanted a very smooth finish to ensure sealing of the butterfly against the casting. In the end, I made another additional part for the fixture to clamp the casting in the center of the bar, between the second and third runners, to help stabilize it. The picture below shows a machining operation with the casting tipped up on end, showing how the throttle bore is machined. Also note that there isn't a lot of clearance between some of the tools and the casting, particularly when machining the third and fourth runners. I had to play a lot of games with the CNC program to make sure that I didn't crash any tools into the casting during the machining operations.
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/IR3.jpg)
I worked on this all day Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday last week, and finally had the machining programs written and the casting successfully machined (with a couple of minor errors, as usual) through the first machining setup. Here's a picture of it on the machine; I added in the velocity stacks just because I wanted to see how they fit, and what the whole thing looked like:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/IR4.jpg)
The second setup required another added fixture on the base fixture, so that the runners would bolt to the fixture using the holes machined in the first setup. This was necessary in order to cut the bar that connects the four runners together, and also to machine the EFI bungs and the pipe thread for vacuum fittings on the underside of each runner. Here's a shot of the casting bolted onto the additional fixture:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/IR5.jpg)
Once again in this configuration, clearance to the very long tools required for the machining, and even to the tool carousel itself, was limited, but by mid afternoon on Sunday I had this work all done.
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/IR6.jpg)
I just completed the hardest and most math intensive machining operations tonight. This was cutting down the sides of the runners so that they would fit together when bolted to the intake adapter. This was necessary because of some basic casting parameters. In order to get a good casting, you need a minimum metal thickness in all areas. When I designed this individual runner intake I started with the core of each runner, because I wanted to be able to increase the area from the port up to each throttle butterfly in a uniform fashion. This accelerates the air smoothly into the port for a good velocity characteristic. My foundry said that they would prefer to see at least 1/4" minimum wall thickness on these castings, because they are very long. However, when I added 1/4" of material to the core of each runner, the castings would have overlapped when bolted to the intake adapter; basically, they just wouldn't fit. In order to make it work I would have to either redesign the core and spread the runners out more, or machine the sides of the finished castings down to about 0.150" so that there was some minimal clearance between them. I elected to do the machining, since I was pretty happy with the core design. The picture below shows the sides of the runners after they have been machined to provide this clearance. The machining required me to generate a bunch of toolpaths using compound curves, which is quite time consuming, but after about 2-1/2 solid days on this I got it finished up. Again there were a couple of minor machining errors, but I was able to catch them before any drastic damage occurred to the casting. So, as is these runners are usable:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/IR7.jpg)
Here are the runners unbolted from the fixture; I'm machining the other casting now, and am looking forward to putting this together on the intake adapter this coming weekend.
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/IR8.jpg)
Also I got some very good news last week and Monday, regarding flow data on the cylinder heads. I had sent Joe Craine a chunk of one head to play with, and also given another chunk to my local porting guy. Joe really went to town on the exhaust side of the head I sent him, filling part of it with epoxy to actually decrease the outlet side of the port, and widening it up at the bottom. Joe's work increased the maximum port flow from 235 to 270 cfm, and when he installed a pipe with a 2" inside diameter the exhaust flow jumped to 300 cfm at 0.800" lift! A huge, huge improvement from where the port was, and I will be incorporating Joe's changes into the port design for the next set of castings. Also, I stopped by R&R Performance on Monday to pick up the remaining cylinder head, which my friend Bryan had installed seats and guides in, and done a valve job on. He had also played with the head chunk that I had given him a couple weeks back, focusing on the intake, and with a cartridge roll cleanup of the port, and squaring up the port opening, peak flow at 0.800" increased to 432 cfm. Most of the lower lift numbers remained the same. Here are pictures of the two chunks, the first one showing Bryan's work on the intake port, and the second one showing Joe's exhaust port. These are cell phone photos so they aren't the greatest, but you will get the idea:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEPH inRR.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEPH exJC.jpg)
Finally, here are the latest flow numbers:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FE Power Head Flow Numbers 2.JPG)
Of course, now that I only have one runnable head, I will have to wait for another casting to try these out on an engine. Also, since I'll be making some changes to the port cores, and also the water jacket core, I'll probably just wait until I have a pair of the new castings before I run them on the dyno mule. Besides, I need to get new pistons for that engine to match up with the valve location on my heads, so that will take some time also. In the meantime, the 3D printed sand for the single 4 intake manifold should be at the foundry later this week. I'm hoping I can get it cast and then machined in time to bring it to the FE Reunion, along with the IR intake setup. We'll see...
-
WOW is about all I can say. Great work Jay.
-
Cool way to start the morning, seeing new FE parts and how they are made/machined. Better than double caffeinated coffee ;D
-
WOWSA.. 1000 hp FEs for everyone!!
Kudos to JDC on improving that port.. Sir you have done great things to improve more than one family of Ford engines!
At the risk of a verbal barrage from the gallery, May I suggest a naming contest for the IR intake?
-
LOL Royce! I will never, EVER, have another naming thread ;D ;D
-
thanks Jay for all of your hard work and showing it to us . I liked the naming thread , it was a good laugh .
-
Sweet Flow numbers !! And to think it's just a clean up on the intake port is great and a big huge WOW to JDC on the exhaust port !! Good job fella's
-
Im impressed.......
-
At the risk of a verbal barrage from the gallery, May I suggest a naming contest for the IR intake?
Your efforts at EMC have been outstanding!
-
I just read, twice, very carefully, your description of what you did in order to come up with your latest designs and turn them into hard parts. As someone who looks on a computer as a glorified typewriter, was that in English? :)
KS
-
At the risk of a verbal barrage from the gallery, May I suggest a naming contest for the IR intake?
Your efforts at EMC have been outstanding!
How did you happen to capture my picture album? There are pictures on there that are my personal family trips, etc. I don't know how this happened, but it is not right. I don't mind all the porting pictures, but our cruises, etc. should not be available to the world. Joe-JDC
-
Wow, would be great if a Cammer head had those flow numbers.
-
What size valves were used on the flow test ?
-
2.300" intake valve, 1.675" exhaust valve, both with 5/16" stems.
-
Joe-JDC.......I don't know what happened here........Jay Delete my account
-
No, don't delete your account, apparently no one can see my pictures but me. Your icon is all everyone else sees. I don't know what is going on, but I don't want you to have to start over. Joe-JDC
-
Joe-JDC, Im not sure whats going on either, but i dont see any pictures, or links to pictures other than what Jay has posted and this one :
http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6987.0;attach=9067
So i don't think everyone has access to photos that are private.
-
Joe-JDC, Im not sure whats going on either, but i dont see any pictures, or links to pictures other than what Jay has posted and this one :
http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6987.0;attach=9067
So i don't think everyone has access to photos that are private.
When you open the icon, do you see a box at the upper left that says "photos"? I do, so it must be that we use the same server or same operating system. When I click on photos, I get my entire picture album for the last six years. Hopefully it is just my computer, and not everyone. The pictures I have on there from three EMC competitions are not for public viewing, only personal use. They have us sign a disclosure statement that prevents the use of any picture on a media that was taken there. Joe-JDC
-
Joe, your photos must be 'in the cloud', whether you realize it or not. When I open the drunk monkey photo and click on 'see all photos', I see all of mine that were on an ipod that I tried to transfer to an android phone. Welcome to the age of no privacy. I'm not sure that there is even a way to delete them from the cloud. Probably a good question for Felony since he keeps his tin foil hat firmly in place at all times. I'd be interested in knowing how to delete also.
-
Joe, I don't see anything like you described, so I don't think anyone else can either.
-
I don't see them either
-
LOL Royce! I will never, EVER, have another naming thread ;D ;D
Joel says the intake should be called the FE Super Sucker.
-
When you open the icon, do you see a box at the upper left that says "photos"?
Nope, nothing.
-
I can't see them either... certainly disappointing as we all wanted the "Joe in the Speedo" pictures. :)
But Joe can see them because he is the administrator of them.
-
Jay,
With the individual runner would there be any advantage to casting 4 of 1 identical runner to simplify machining? Meaning you would use 1 runner from 4 different casting to make a set.
-
I'd love to do that, but from a practical standpoint it won't work. The ports do not have even spacing across the face of the head, so a single casting won't physically fit in all four locations on each side, without interfering with the same castings on the opposite side. Sure would make things easier. Oh well...
-
Over the last couple weeks I've been screwing around with the machining on the IR (Individual Runner) intake manifold for my new cylinder heads. As of the last post on this topic I had cut down the sides of the runners to give some clearance between them, so that they would actually bolt on to the special FE Intake Adapter that I am making for these heads. However, as usual things did not exactly go according to plan. When I tried to bolt the runners onto the intake adapter, I ran into interference between the runners. Looking back at the Solidworks model, it became painfully clear that the interference was not just in the vertical plane; that some clearancing of the runners had to be done on the top side and bottom side of each runner, in order for them to fit together on the intake adapter.
This became a huge programming challenge, for a variety of reasons but primarily because of the way the runners were fixtured on the CNC machine, and the complex curves required to machine the clearances. I worked on this for nearly a full week, and along the way came to the conclusion that it would be a lot easier to modify the casting design in certain ways, rather than to try to machine these things with the existing casting design. Here, the 3D printed sand really showed it's worth. It would have been prohibitively expensive to modify, or perhaps scrap, what could have been $20K in tooling to tweak the runner design, but since the first two castings were done with 3D printed sand, I can simply make the changes on the computer and get another batch of 3D printed sand to test the new design. The 3D printed sand isn't cheap, but its a whole lot less expensive than permanent tooling; its a great way to prove out the design before making the tooling investment.
After a week of machining and test fitting, I finally got the runners to bolt up correctly to the intake adapter. There are some mistakes in the machining that make this setup unusable, but at least now I know exactly what needs to be done on the next version of the castings. And the IR intake setup looks really good; here's a couple of pictures:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/IRintake02.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/IRintake01.jpg)
I think this induction system will make gobs of torque, and I'm looking forward to having it installed on one of my cars.
In the meantime I've been trying to get the 4V intake manifold casting ready to go. Today, after some accelerated work at the foundry and the heat treat plant, I got the first two castings:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/4Vintakeraw.jpg)
Machining on this one starts tomorrow, and with luck I'll get it done in time to bring to the FE Reunion.
-
Wow, cool stuff!
Is there room for a standard distributor to fit under the first runner or will the setup likely require a distributorless or offset arrangement?
-
A standard distributor won't fit, you would need an offset distributor or distributor-less setup. I am considering making a "shorty" distributor that would fit in the available space, but it would only be there to distribute the sparks and drive the oil pump; you would need a crank trigger to run the ignition. Since this setup would be EFI only that shouldn't be too big of a deal...
-
Jay, is there an advantage to using a round throttle blade versus a oval/rectangular throttle blade like this?
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhasselgren.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F05%2FTransAmFord310_CAD_Engine1.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhasselgren.com%2Ftransam-ford-fuel-injection%2F&docid=GVRz95ShqC1XLM&tbnid=waDTrC3C2V_nkM%3A&vet=12ahUKEwijjMi3zN3hAhVhCjQIHemYBis4rAIQMyhGMEZ6BAgBEEg..i&w=495&h=639&bih=923&biw=1920&q=individual%20throrrle%20body%20billett&ved=2ahUKEwijjMi3zN3hAhVhCjQIHemYBis4rAIQMyhGMEZ6BAgBEEg&iact=mrc&uact=8
-
Jay for the distributor, I've got at least 10 Mallory "old" ones you could butcher a few for trial runs. Or a bunch of Ford Dizzy's.
If you'd be interested.
Richard >>> FERoadster
-
I dont suppose ya gonna make a set of those that stand straight up ;)
Always wanted a set stickin out of my hood
(https://i.postimg.cc/DmVsgYrr/gas2-11-orig.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Ricky.
-
Jay, is there an advantage to using a round throttle blade versus a oval/rectangular throttle blade like this?
...
It's all about cross-sectional flow area for a given package size. Even at 1,000 HP, a row of round pipes that size isn't going to be restrictive. When you start making enough power to break dynos, you need to look at a more rectangular runner shape to get more area into that same space.
Ford actually built a square piston (radiused corners) V8 engine prototype in the late fifties. It was a design study to get the maximum cubic inches in a given block size. The engine ran on a dyno (for awhile before the rings seized!) I didn't believe the stories until I saw one of the actual piston / rod assemblies on an old-timer's desk.
-
Jay, is there an advantage to using a round throttle blade versus a oval/rectangular throttle blade like this?
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhasselgren.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F05%2FTransAmFord310_CAD_Engine1.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhasselgren.com%2Ftransam-ford-fuel-injection%2F&docid=GVRz95ShqC1XLM&tbnid=waDTrC3C2V_nkM%3A&vet=12ahUKEwijjMi3zN3hAhVhCjQIHemYBis4rAIQMyhGMEZ6BAgBEEg..i&w=495&h=639&bih=923&biw=1920&q=individual%20throrrle%20body%20billett&ved=2ahUKEwijjMi3zN3hAhVhCjQIHemYBis4rAIQMyhGMEZ6BAgBEEg&iact=mrc&uact=8
That is an excellent suggestion, I had not previously considered that approach. But I can see a few problems. First is availability of the throttle butterflies themselves. It would be very difficult and time consuming for me to machine those myself, but I can buy normal round throttle butterflies from Hilborn or Kinsler, which saves me that trouble. Next, basically the same issue with the ram tubes; those are available in multiple sizes round, but any custom size like the ones shown in your link would be a do it yourself kind of thing, and I don't know how I could get that done. Same thing again with a K&N style air cleaner for each runner. Then finally, one of the design parameters for this setup is that it has to fit under the flat hood of a Mustang or Fairlane/Torino, and while I really like the idea that the interference between tubes could be reduced with this approach, I think it would make the whole setup taller, and I am right at the limit with the existing design for hood clearance.
So its probably a no-go, but thanks for the suggestion, the idea definitely opens up some new possibilities...
-
Jay for the distributor, I've got at least 10 Mallory "old" ones you could butcher a few for trial runs. Or a bunch of Ford Dizzy's.
If you'd be interested.
Richard >>> FERoadster
Thanks Richard, I will keep that in mind.
-
I dont suppose ya gonna make a set of those that stand straight up ;)
Always wanted a set stickin out of my hood
Ricky.
Sorry Ricky, not planning on that. But you never know...
-
Have you tried to turn one upside down? It would stick up quite easily if it fits. LOL Joe-JDC
-
;D
https://static.summitracing.com/global/images/prod/xlarge/PTE-H1543_xl.jpg
-
"Then finally, one of the design parameters for this setup is that it has to fit under the flat hood of a Mustang or Fairlane/Torino,..."
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/IRintake01.jpg)
It doesn't look to me like that rear throttle rod stand would clear the firewall of a Mustang. Have you verified its fit?
Not trying to be the negative putz here, but that is a LOT of aluminum. That has to be approaching 40+ lbs as a complete unit. I suppose not an issue if it's use is street oriented.
In the meantime I've been trying to get the 4V intake manifold casting ready to go. Today, after some accelerated work at the foundry and the heat treat plant, I got the first two castings:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/4Vintakeraw.jpg)
Why did you have the 4V intake cast in 2 sections? Or was it cut in half to check the casting?
-
Beautiful raw castings, the casting simulation software is impressive. The information and explanation on sprues, cups and riser sizes duly noted... How fortunate to have an FE friend in the educational system specialized in sand casting process. Thank you Jay for documenting and sharing this process. Many thousands of dollars worth of education here. Excellent!
(My own experience with casting has been all about reading, studying, then trial and error. Mostly error, with cold shuts and stress and shrinkage from cooling being huge problems. But the successes are worth it)
-
Doug, as is the setup, including the throttle linkage, does fit in the engine compartment of my 68 Mustang, at least based on my measurements. The export brace would have to go, though. The other issue that just dawned on me recently was how to hook up a throttle cable. I may have to reverse the operation, so that when the bellcranks go forward, the throttles open. Then I could just loop a cable around from the front. There's not really any room to attach one from the rear.
The intake is cast in two pieces because I want it to be easily disassembled for porting purposes.
-
A bellcrank would work on the back, but would be more involved in producing than your idea.
And I figured there was a reason for 2 castings on the intake...and that's a good one..lol
-
Got a chance to see the new cast intake in person yesterday. jay has it machined, and ready for the show. Very nice piece. FE guys should be grinning ear to ear, with this new stuff coming out. Should make a EASY 900hp bracket motor with this stuff. Could only dream of new Mopar stuff to come out like this.
-
Here are some pictures of the 4V intake that Jeff is talking about. Also in the first picture you can see the 3D print of the cylinder head, with the revised, factory-style exhaust ports:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FE4V01.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FE4V02.jpg)
-
Ooh! That intake is gorgeous indeed! Nice to see that you went two-parts for easy porting, Seems those walls are thick enough too to easily increase their size, if needed, for even larger CID engines with maxed out heads.
Very nice Jay!
-
Jeez Jay, that single-4V intake makes the Ed 2863 on my adapter look like a pup! How much taller is that intake than others you've fabbed?
-
Jay,
The 1/4" linkage between throttles, are they all the same length or do they need to be adjustable for each one. If they are the same length what is it. I might have an idea for you.
-
Jay,
The 1/4" linkage between throttles, are they all the same length or do they need to be adjustable for each one. If they are the same length what is it. I might have an idea for you.
They are nominally the same length, except for the two that go back to the linkage bellcrank. However, given slight variations in mounting or machining, being able to adjust each one individually is an advantage. But I'm curious, what's your idea?
-
Jeez Jay, that single-4V intake makes the Ed 2863 on my adapter look like a pup! How much taller is that intake than others you've fabbed?
David, when I get to the FERR I will try to get a picture of this intake and intake adapter next to one of my 13006 intake adapters and the 2863 manifold, to show the height difference. It is substantial...
-
Lovin that single 4 intake! Nice! When you’re designing your intakes, these and sheet metal,
how are u figuring the runner volume and taper? This stuff is looking really nice. I can’t believe
the quality of parts you’re able to produce.
-
Jay,
The 1/4" linkage between throttles, are they all the same length or do they need to be adjustable for each one. If they are the same length what is it. I might have an idea for you.
They are nominally the same length, except for the two that go back to the linkage bellcrank. However, given slight variations in mounting or machining, being able to adjust each one individually is an advantage. But I'm curious, what's your idea?
I devolved a solid link rod few years ago used for control linkage, its a long shot they are the correct length but they look close.. But as you stated adjustment is probably necessary. I see clearance gets tight on a few runners, possibly using a threaded rod with female ends vs male ends and coupler would provide more room but probably not a concern.
-
Finally catching up from the FERR and have a couple of pictures to post comparing the Edelbrock 2863 intake on my 13006 intake adapter with the FE Power intake and intake adapter. Pretty big difference LOL! The FE Power intake carb flange is a full 2-1/2" higher than the Edelbrock carb flange.
By the way, for anyone interested in purchasing production versions of the cylinder heads, see my post about getting on the list in the Vendor Classifieds section.
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/2863vFEP1.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/2863vFEP2.jpg)
-
If I go that direction I'll definitely need a taller scoop!
-
I notice a height variation between some of the ports. Like #1 and #8 are higher. I highly doubt that's just a fluke, so what's the reasoning behind this?
-
That Intake is awesome!! I love 2-4’s but this has me rethinking it
-
I notice a height variation between some of the ports. Like #1 and #8 are higher. I highly doubt that's just a fluke, so what's the reasoning behind this?
The reason for the height difference is all geometry. The four outboard runners are all the same, just rotated or mirrored in different directions. Looking at the front of the manifold, the #1 intake runner enters the plenum a little higher than the #5 runner. That is because the #1 cylinder is farther away from the plenum than the #5 cylinder, so the #5 runner hasn't risen quite as much as #1 when it hits the plenum.
I thought about trying to equalize the height, but then the runners themselves wouldn't have quite the same shape and trajectory. I felt that was more important than making the runner entry the same height into the plenum, because there is enough meat in the plenum to allow someone to port the runner entry up a little if that was desired. The fact that the manifold splits in half makes it easy to do porting work, and I figured that everyone has their own thoughts on the best way to shape that area, so I left it as is.
-
The reason for the height difference is all geometry. The four outboard runners are all the same, just rotated or mirrored in different directions. Looking at the front of the manifold, the #1 intake runner enters the plenum a little higher than the #5 runner. That is because the #1 cylinder is farther away from the plenum than the #5 cylinder, so the #5 runner hasn't risen quite as much as #1 when it hits the plenum.
I thought about trying to equalize the height, but then the runners themselves wouldn't have quite the same shape and trajectory. I felt that was more important than making the runner entry the same height into the plenum, because there is enough meat in the plenum to allow someone to port the runner entry up a little if that was desired. The fact that the manifold splits in half makes it easy to do porting work, and I figured that everyone has their own thoughts on the best way to shape that area, so I left it as is.
I knew there had to be a good reason. I don't believe I've ever seen that difference in distance compensated for, so very nice job of thinking inside the box ;D
-
Hi Jay, do you know when you'll be able to begin your dyno testing?
... the picture below is of the pistons I ordered for the dyno mule that I will be testing the heads on. I plan to do some comparison testing between ported Edelbrock heads, CNC ported Blue Thunder medium riser heads, and my heads in unported condition. So, the pistons are designed to be used with the standard FE valve location, or the valve location that my heads use.
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/CP for FEP Heads.jpg)
-
I'll hazard a guess that I'll be ready to test the heads at the start of April; I would really like to have it done and be ready to go to production by the time of the FE Reunion. But I've had a lot of unexpected delays, so no promises...
-
Jay,
Really cool what you are doing. I was wondering if you considered plastic for the intake manifold. It appears the coolant is already isolated from the intake manifold. The intake is just channeling air. Plastic would be lighter and better insulate out the heat.
-
Jay,
Really cool what you are doing. I was wondering if you considered plastic for the intake manifold. It appears the coolant is already isolated from the intake manifold. The intake is just channeling air. Plastic would be lighter and better insulate out the heat.
I'm not Jay, but for a plastic intake you'll need to have six-figure $$ metal tooling and a very large injection molding machine. At the expected low volumes, each manifold would be incredibly expensive! Jay's 3D-printed sand patterns make it possible to affordably cast a short run of these parts.
JMO, of course!
- Bill
-
Low volume part.
3-D print with 'plastic'.
JMO of course
-
I tried at one point to take one of my 3D printed manifolds for my standard intake adapter and use it on the dyno. I tested it with race gas and it didn't eat the plastic, so that wasn't going to be the issue. The problem I encountered when I bolted it on the engine was that it came apart where it was bolted together (it was a multi-piece, sheet metal style intake manifold). So, there was this huge vacuum leak and the engine wouldn't even run.
I think it is definitely possible to make one of the 3D printed manifolds work on the dyno, I'd just need to print it in one piece. However, having it live in the car is a whole different story. I think underhood temperatures might melt the plastic, regular vibration exposure might tear it apart, etc. I need to do more work on this and try one out on the dyno at some point. When I do, I will post about it on this forum.
If the 3D printed plastic doesn't work, then as Bill says a plastic intake is really out of reach financially. But I have read that the Ford GTs that ran at LeMans used 3D printed plastic intakes, probably with a different material than the plastic that my printer uses. So there's hope...
-
In the meantime, when do you ever get any sleep!!!!! They say a genius doesn't need sleep so this must be the case.
Bud
-
Put me in the "sacred cow shock tower camp". Just read this thread in its entirety. Very impressed! I note that the export brace would have to be removed for the EFI IR setup. What structural modifications would be needed in its place? Jay (or others) could I trouble you for a quick rundown of your Mustang chassis modifications? Perhaps it's posted elsewhere? My Cougar is a ~20 year old restoration with mostly a stock 390 setup. The X Code volume was a little over 2037 units that year so not ultra rare. Plus it's been gone through once already and I doubt much can be reused. I like the idea of buying American and getting the best FE technology out. Mercury Cougar fiberglass hood reproductions seem sketchy too and I don't think I'd go as radical as the taller intakes would lead to.
-
It is worth keeping an open mind about 3D printing. What is super expensive cutting edge stuff today reserved for the likes of Space X and super cars will be available in Staples in 5 years. Ok, maybe not Staples, probably Best Buy.
Certainly it will be available as a service and it will be able to make an intake, maybe even a set of heads in the next 5 years.
-
3D printing is already accessible to everyone now. I built a 3D printer based on parts from a kit for less than $200 two years ago. The printing filament material is advancing rapidly. Higher temperature and stronger materials for usable parts are now available but typically require higher print temperatures and an upgraded printer. But I am just talking plastics. 3D printing metals still requires expensive equipment.
-
Jay (or others) could I trouble you for a quick rundown of your Mustang chassis modifications?
Depends on the car, but for my street only 68 fastback and also my 69 Mach 1, I've lowered the front control arm mounting points (Shelby drop), and installed rollerized spring perches. Since I drag race my Mach 1 sometimes I've also removed the front sway bar on that one, but for the 68 I've installed a 1" sway bar (again, a Shelby mod). The 68 also uses an export brace, but when I install the IR intake setup with my heads I'll have to ditch that in favor of some custom bracketry that serves the same purpose.
Both of those cars use Caltrac bars, Caltrac monoleaf springs, and Caltrac shocks in the rear. The Mach 1 has gone 9.30s on a 10" tire with that rear suspension setup.
-
3D printing is already accessible to everyone now. I built a 3D printer based on parts from a kit for less than $200 two years ago. The printing filament material is advancing rapidly. Higher temperature and stronger materials for usable parts are now available but typically require higher print temperatures and an upgraded printer. But I am just talking plastics. 3D printing metals still requires expensive equipment.
Many libraries around here have 3-D printers, some of them pretty high-end (our tax dollars at work). Also really really advanced sewing machines...think custom designed embroidery, because, you know, I thought gearheads might be into sewing too...
-
What structural modifications would be needed in its place? Jay (or others) could I trouble you for a quick rundown of your Mustang chassis modifications?
Jay forgot to mention sub-frame connectors, which is pretty much an absolute necessity if you're planning on doing any road or drag racing. It's a good idea for a street car also, but it is somewhat of a permanent modification. I put weld-in sub-frame connectors in my original R-code 4 spd car, but I'm not all that concerned about value because I'll never sell it, and there seem to be plenty of R codes around. The A arm drop is a good mod also. If you do remove the export brace, then you really should fabricate something to take its place. Something that ties both shock towers to the firewall, because that is definitely a flex area on Mustangs. I think frame connectors and some sort of tower brace is all you need until you get to the point of needing a roll bar. If you want to add some more structural integrity to the car (in addition to frame connectors) without cutting and welding, they make much better cross members than the factory job that goes under the engine. The stock one is not perfectly flat on the ends and really doesn't do much of anything other than keep the frame rails from spreading apart. Aftermarket jobs lay flat against the frame rail and are much stronger, and they do add structural strength to some degree.
-
The export brace is even more critical on 67- 68 cars. They lack the tower reinforcement that the 68 1/2 CJ-69-70 vehicles have. Shelby realized the issue and there did some horrid stitch welding around the plates. When I restored my Shelby I welded all the way around and cleaned the welds post.
I didn't see much for bolt-on frame stiffeners that didn't cause ground clearance issues. I make enough power to justify them, but I can't weld them on my vehicle.
Jay, what headers work with your heads? Will they work on a shock tower car without custom made headers?
-Keith
-
The SE version of my heads will fit shock tower cars and any headers that will fit a 427 or 428CJ exhaust port.
-
I used to weld in a plate 45 degrees from
bortom of the a arm boltholes out to the
framerail and torqueboxes like the convertible have
-
Thanks for the chassis advice. I want to believe that I'd never sell the Cougar. With that in mind I'll do some changes but just keep it classy. Are the composite leaf springs trustworthy for the type of torque that a FE can deliver? Significant weight savings but I haven't found much application specifics yet. I have seen a plate that gets welded behind the rear seat. Looks to beef up the cross brace between the C pillars. Any opinion or consensus about it? Like welded frame connectors it would be mostly out of sight but not interested in adding dead weight.
Glad someone asked about headers. From reading I assumed the Mustang/Mercury options would still be applicable once the new variant of the heads was made official.
-
The SE version of my heads will fit shock tower cars and any headers that will fit a 427 or 428CJ exhaust port.
Jay, would there be a notable difference in power over the Edelbrocks?
-
The SE version of my heads will fit shock tower cars and any headers that will fit a 427 or 428CJ exhaust port.
Jay, would there be a notable difference in power over the Edelbrocks?
I'm not Jay. So been pondering the same. For MAX performance the flow numbers at high lift suggest that they will with ease. This is considering both RE and SE "as cast" flow numbers vs Edelbrock again "as cast". The vendor section has the latest details.
Max Flow cfm isn't everything and the velocity at lesser lift/RPM has a big impact for street use. Jay's heads are no slouch in that department either.
With that said I was at a performance expo today (noob with primitive knowledge) and could see the Edelbrock and TFS heads side by side. The ED combustion chamber is a more traditional quench band type whereas the TFS has a more modern look. Jay's are the most modern of all considering the repositioned intake port. The question comes down to the definition of notable. In all cases the pistons need to be a good match for the heads with the cam being right for the application. I'm thinking TFS and Jay's heads will be in a dog fight for the medium power crowd (me?) but the Edelbrocks get left behind. MAX power will be owned by Jay's heads because of the design as well as the matching uncompromising intake options.
Port work changes everything however.
-
The SE version of my heads will fit shock tower cars and any headers that will fit a 427 or 428CJ exhaust port.
Jay, would there be a notable difference in power over the Edelbrocks?
My heads will SLAUGHTER the power output of Edelbrock, BBM, Blue Thunder, or Trick Flow heads. If they don't, then the design isn't successful and I won't go forward with them. But I'm not worried ;)
-
Does the slaughter level of performance apply to both the SE and RE versions of your heads, or only to the RE version? Will the SE & RE versions blow away the BBM CNC ported heads across the lift range, or mainly at maximum lift?
The SE version of my heads will fit shock tower cars and any headers that will fit a 427 or 428CJ exhaust port.
Jay, would there be a notable difference in power over the Edelbrocks?
My heads will SLAUGHTER the power output of Edelbrock, BBM, Blue Thunder, or Trick Flow heads. If they don't, then the design isn't successful and I won't go forward with them. But I'm not worried ;)
-
Engines are nothing more than a air pump. More air, more power. Jay's heads, no matter the exhaust port, will out flow any FE head on the market, with the exception of a Cammer head, and even that is close...
Plain, and simple Jay's cylinder heads will change the FE world.
-
don't know if this was asked or mentioned but do any of the push rods protrude into the port like the tunnel ports? hard to tell with the pictures provided
-
don't know if this was asked or mentioned but do any of the push rods protrude into the port like the tunnel ports? hard to tell with the pictures provided
No they don't go through like a Tunnel Port … Jay has some off set rockers , Like you I'm also having trouble visualizing it too and thought about asking for a picture with the Valve Train mock up
-
Does the slaughter level of performance apply to both the SE and RE versions of your heads, or only to the RE version? Will the SE & RE versions blow away the BBM CNC ported heads across the lift range, or mainly at maximum lift?
The "slaughter level of performance" LOL! Cracks me up ;D
I don't want this to sound like an advertisement, but here is the deal with my heads. They have an unfair performance advantage over all the other heads that are currently out there. The whole idea behind the head package is similar to the idea behind a Yates style 351C head package, where the ports are raised so high that a special intake manifold is required.
On the FE Power heads the intake port is raised nearly 1-1/2" over a factory medium riser port. It is higher than a high riser. The valve cover rail is also raised proportionately. This allows a very generous, smooth short turn on the port.
In addition, the port is straightened out. Stock FE intake ports, except cammer and tunnel port ports, all hook towards the center of the engine and aim the intake charge at the cylinder wall. My heads straighten the intake port so that the cylinder wall is less of an obstruction to flow.
Also, the valves in my heads are moved from the stock location. This again gives room for a better chamber, and better flow into the cylinder.
The net result is a head which flows 60% more than an Edelbrock head, with the same port cross-sectional area. The flow is dramatically improved at all lifts over 0.200". For example, stock Edelbrock intake lift at 0.300" is 182 cfm, FE Power head at 0.300" is 233 cfm. At 0.400" lift, stock Edelbrock intake flow is 214 cfm, FE Power intake flow at 0.400" is 294 cfm. At the .100" and .200" valve lifts, the numbers are close to the same, although the Edelbrock head is slightly better at 0.100" lift (89 cfm vs 77 cfm), and at 0.200" lift the FE Power head is slightly better (160 cfm vs. 156 cfm). Flow numbers at 0.700" lift for the stock Edelbrock intake port are 260 cfm, and for the FE Power intake port the flow numbers at 0.700" lift are 403 cfm. Again, this is with the same cross sectional area for the port opening. It is a huge, huge improvement.
I don't have flow data for BBM CNC ports, so I can't compare to those. However, I assume that to make good flow numbers, those ports have to be enlarged. This means port velocity will be reduced due to a larger cross sectional area of the port. This will reduce the port's ability to flow as the intake valve is closing. It's not just about flow, after all, flow and port velocity, and of course the valve job, are all very important.
I think that the RE (Raised Exhaust) version of the FE Power heads will make more power than the SE (Stock Exhaust) version, just because they flow a little better, and also a better header design can be fabricated without the shock towers in the way. But the SE exhaust port still flows way, way more than a stock exhaust port, so despite being down 20 cfm from the RE exhaust port, it is still capable of supporting a big power level. In fact, the SE exhaust port flows 248 cfm at 0.700" lift, which is almost as much as a stock intake port flows! Imagine that...
So, here's the downside of the FE Power heads: No stock FE intake will fit, and stock FE rocker arm assemblies will not fit. One of my special intake adapters, with raised ports and a raised valve cover rail, will be required with these heads. Also, either a custom fabbed intake, or one of my three intake versions, will have to be used on the intake adapter. And, in order to miss the port with the pushrod, a large offset is required on the intake rocker. Here are two CAD drawings of what the pushrod configuration looks like:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/Pushrod Location 1.JPG)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/Pushrod Location 2.JPG)
As a result of this, the whole package, including heads, intake adapter, and rocker arm assembly, has to be purchased.
I hope that clears up the questions without sounding too much like an advertisement. I'm getting pretty close now to being ready for dyno testing with these heads, so with luck I'll have dyno data and be ready for production by the FE Reunion at the end of April. We will see...
-
Jay do you think these will be the key to a 1000hp,FE?
-
I hope so, that is one of the design objectives.
-
I recently flowed a set of the BBM CNC'd heads, and was disappointed. Less than 340 cfm at .750" Many of the Edelbrocks have CNC programs that flow 338-340 cfm at .750". Many hand ported Edelbrocks flow that number over the years, also. 360-370 cfm seems to be the upper limit of all the aluminum heads available on the market at this time. The BT HR will go higher, but unless the latest version of the HR heads has improved, the ones I have flowed/and or ported still are in the 330-370 cfm range unless you start going to .800" or above. Jay's head will no doubt go 440-450 cfm with some finesse and a good valve job. Joe-JDC
-
A more basic question. Does the raised valve cover rail give more room on a shock tower car assuming a stock style cover? Working room around the plug and wires. Probably with a spacer to raise and clear a big lift cam operation.
What are the cc of the intake and exhaust ports? I read a lot in this thread as well as the vendor are but didn't recall seeing it.
Many Thanks!
-
The raised valve cover rail will give LESS room in a shock tower car, and it won't surprise me if the valve covers would have to be removed in a shock tower car to change the plugs. Valve cover spacers should not be required, even with a very big cam.
I don't have the port volumes, but if you are looking to compare the port volume to a stock type head, you can't. The port is significantly longer in the FE Power heads, because it has been raised so much. Even the exhaust port on the SE head is longer than a stock port, because it bends around more like a header tube, rather than a sharp angle like stock.
-
Will the RE version of the heads work in a 1964 Galaxie with stock front suspension (assume custom built headers)? Putting aside the tunnel ram intake, will either, or both, of the other two intake options fit under the flat hood, and if not, will they fit under the tear drop bubble hood?
Does the slaughter level of performance apply to both the SE and RE versions of your heads, or only to the RE version? Will the SE & RE versions blow away the BBM CNC ported heads across the lift range, or mainly at maximum lift?
The "slaughter level of performance" LOL! Cracks me up ;D
I don't want this to sound like an advertisement, but here is the deal with my heads. They have an unfair performance advantage over all the other heads that are currently out there. The whole idea behind the head package is similar to the idea behind a Yates style 351C head package, where the ports are raised so high that a special intake manifold is required.
On the FE Power heads the intake port is raised nearly 1-1/2" over a factory medium riser port. It is higher than a high riser. The valve cover rail is also raised proportionately. This allows a very generous, smooth short turn on the port.
In addition, the port is straightened out. Stock FE intake ports, except cammer and tunnel port ports, all hook towards the center of the engine and aim the intake charge at the cylinder wall. My heads straighten the intake port so that the cylinder wall is less of an obstruction to flow.
Also, the valves in my heads are moved from the stock location. This again gives room for a better chamber, and better flow into the cylinder.
The net result is a head which flows 60% more than an Edelbrock head, with the same port cross-sectional area. The flow is dramatically improved at all lifts over 0.200". For example, stock Edelbrock intake lift at 0.300" is 182 cfm, FE Power head at 0.300" is 233 cfm. At 0.400" lift, stock Edelbrock intake flow is 214 cfm, FE Power intake flow at 0.400" is 294 cfm. At the .100" and .200" valve lifts, the numbers are close to the same, although the Edelbrock head is slightly better at 0.100" lift (89 cfm vs 77 cfm), and at 0.200" lift the FE Power head is slightly better (160 cfm vs. 156 cfm). Flow numbers at 0.700" lift for the stock Edelbrock intake port are 260 cfm, and for the FE Power intake port the flow numbers at 0.700" lift are 403 cfm. Again, this is with the same cross sectional area for the port opening. It is a huge, huge improvement.
I don't have flow data for BBM CNC ports, so I can't compare to those. However, I assume that to make good flow numbers, those ports have to be enlarged. This means port velocity will be reduced due to a larger cross sectional area of the port. This will reduce the port's ability to flow as the intake valve is closing. It's not just about flow, after all, flow and port velocity, and of course the valve job, are all very important.
I think that the RE (Raised Exhaust) version of the FE Power heads will make more power than the SE (Stock Exhaust) version, just because they flow a little better, and also a better header design can be fabricated without the shock towers in the way. But the SE exhaust port still flows way, way more than a stock exhaust port, so despite being down 20 cfm from the RE exhaust port, it is still capable of supporting a big power level. In fact, the SE exhaust port flows 248 cfm at 0.700" lift, which is almost as much as a stock intake port flows! Imagine that...
So, here's the downside of the FE Power heads: No stock FE intake will fit, and stock FE rocker arm assemblies will not fit. One of my special intake adapters, with raised ports and a raised valve cover rail, will be required with these heads. Also, either a custom fabbed intake, or one of my three intake versions, will have to be used on the intake adapter. And, in order to miss the port with the pushrod, a large offset is required on the intake rocker. Here are two CAD drawings of what the pushrod configuration looks like:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/Pushrod Location 1.JPG)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/Pushrod Location 2.JPG)
As a result of this, the whole package, including heads, intake adapter, and rocker arm assembly, has to be purchased.
I hope that clears up the questions without sounding too much like an advertisement. I'm getting pretty close now to being ready for dyno testing with these heads, so with luck I'll have dyno data and be ready for production by the FE Reunion at the end of April. We will see...
-
Without test fitting I can't be 100% sure, but I'm about 95% sure (based on measurements of my 64 Gal) that the RE heads will fit and allow a good set of headers on a 64 Galaxie. Some trimming of the inner fenders may be required, again I don't know without actually bolting in an engine with the heads and mocking up some header tubes.
As far as fitting under a flat hood, the crossram intake setup will definitely fit, and the other intake setups definitely won't. If you went with a teardrop hood, I think it would be close, and I would say that if you went with the 4V or 8V setup and EFI it should fit no problem, because some of the available EFI throttle bodies are less than half the height of a normal carburetor.
-
Jay:
Are you planning on offering a head that looks like a factory head and fits factory intake and rockers?
-Keith
-
Why not just do a tunnelport-type configuration instead of the angled and offset pushrods? Seems like it might be more straightforward...
-
Jay:
Are you planning on offering a head that looks like a factory head and fits factory intake and rockers?
-Keith
Nope, there are plenty of good heads out there using the factory configuration. I wanted a head that was a step up in performance from those.
-
Why not just do a tunnelport-type configuration instead of the angled and offset pushrods? Seems like it might be more straightforward...
It definitely would be more straightforward, but I didn't want to deal with a pushrod tube through the middle of the intake port. My opinion is that a pushrod tube through the port just can't be good...
-
But, what if I like the pushrod in the intake port? I really want some power improved tunnel ports. Please. Please. Pretty please. Lol.
-
And, in order to miss the port with the pushrod, a large offset is required on the intake rocker. Here are two CAD drawings of what the pushrod configuration looks like:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/Pushrod Location 1.JPG)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/Pushrod Location 2.JPG)
Jay, without sounding too naive, how will pushrod to intake port clearance be? Being these are more for max effort builds, do you have an idea at what kind of lift that interference with the pushrod becomes an issue? What size pushrods were you thinking of using on this type of setup, 3/8 or 7/16"?
-
If the push rod went through the port you could fashion some kind of tricky little airfoil to direct the intake flow right where you want it.. ;D
-
Jay, without sounding too naive, how will pushrod to intake port clearance be? Being these are more for max effort builds, do you have an idea at what kind of lift that interference with the pushrod becomes an issue? What size pushrods were you thinking of using on this type of setup, 3/8 or 7/16"?
I'm hoping to stick to 3/8" pushrods, and be able to tolerate at least 0.900" lift. I have an .880" lift cam that I'll be running on the dyno engine. The Solidworks model says that the parts as is will fit at that lift level, but if I have to adjust the machining on the intake adapter to make it work, then I will.
And by the way, I'm hoping that these heads work well for lesser builds, the idea being that the heads are so good that less cam and compression will be needed. It would be nice to have a 650 HP FE that idles at 700 RPM and has good throttle response. A really good cylinder head and the IR intake manifold will go a long way towards making that a reality. I will be building a 445 stroker dyno mule to test that all out at some point.
-
If the push rod went through the port you could fashion some kind of tricky little airfoil to direct the intake flow right where you want it.. ;D
It already goes right where I want it to, Royce ;D
-
That is a lot of sideway angle. Is it going to make an issue of side thrust on the rockers? I could imagine it squeezing the oil out and galling the rockers against each other or the stands. Perhaps shims and lots of lube.
-
Jay, without sounding too naive, how will pushrod to intake port clearance be? Being these are more for max effort builds, do you have an idea at what kind of lift that interference with the pushrod becomes an issue? What size pushrods were you thinking of using on this type of setup, 3/8 or 7/16"?
I'm hoping to stick to 3/8" pushrods, and be able to tolerate at least 0.900" lift. I have an .880" lift cam that I'll be running on the dyno engine. The Solidworks model says that the parts as is will fit at that lift level, but if I have to adjust the machining on the intake adapter to make it work, then I will.
And by the way, I'm hoping that these heads work well for lesser builds, the idea being that the heads are so good that less cam and compression will be needed. It would be nice to have a 650 HP FE that idles at 700 RPM and has good throttle response. A really good cylinder head and the IR intake manifold will go a long way towards making that a reality. I will be building a 445 stroker dyno mule to test that all out at some point.
Gotcha. I'm wondering if a 3/8" pushrod is a good idea on a .900" lift setup with the required springs to suit and that angle on the intake side. The pushrods I just had made for mine are .145" wall 3/8". That is as thick as I could get and for peace of mind. I would think maybe a 7/16" tapered would be needed?
I had a feeling you would also be aiming at a mild mannered high-ish hp combo as well. I completely understand that aspect, too. I'm sure that would appeal to many people.
-
That is a lot of sideway angle. Is it going to make an issue of side thrust on the rockers? I could imagine it squeezing the oil out and galling the rockers against each other or the stands. Perhaps shims and lots of lube.
Tom, side thrust is certainly a concern and one of the reasons I have to run this setup for a while on the engine before I release it to production. But I think that a couple of thin, spring steel washers between the rocker arms, and the rockers and stands, will allow it to live.
-
Hey Jay I would assume the lifter also. Might not be as bad with a non bushed lifter hole as compared to a bushed. I dont know just thinking out loud.
-
Just to be a pesky engineer..... assuming 10 degree pushrod angle, it'd turn a .900" lift cam in to an .886" lift cam. What pushrod angle does that end up being?
-
Just to be a pesky engineer..... assuming 10 degree pushrod angle, it'd turn a .900" lift cam in to an .886" lift cam. What pushrod angle does that end up being?
??? thought about that to. But since the rocker moves with the pushrod and lifter,,,,,
I dont think it reduce the lift and alter the angle
-
Am I noticing another issue.... the pushrods are blocking the manifold bolt holes!
-
??? thought about that to. But since the rocker moves with the pushrod and lifter,,,,,
I dont think it reduce the lift and alter the angle
Thinking......... ???
Being that the lifter is locked into a pure up/down movement and the rocker arm is locked into a pure up/down movement, yes that's right, it wont alter lift. What will happen is the lifter/rocker arm will have added stress on it because they are limiting that side-to-side movement that the pushrod would like to move in.
-
Am I noticing another issue.... the pushrods are blocking the manifold bolt holes!
I think it might just be an optical illusion of the software
-
What effect does the angled pushrod have on the lifters riding the cam lobes? Roller lifters?
-
The drawback with offset rockers is that it does place some lateral load on the rockers and lifters, but it's been done on FEs lots of times. You just have to keep it in mind and keep an eye on stuff. There's always a trade-off when doing something.
-
Although we are used to the FE having pushrods running relatively straight up to the rocker arms, and it seems strange to us, there are other engine families that have pushrods that angle up to the rockers. This isn’t a totally new idea, just for FE’s.
-
Am I noticing another issue.... the pushrods are blocking the manifold bolt holes!
Tom, that's correct based on that drawing, which is nearly 2 years old. The problem has been corrected, so that the pushrod no longer blocks the bolt hole on that side of the water jacket passage.
Small block Mopars use an almost unbelievable angle between the lifter bore and the pushrod, if I recall correctly its something like 22 degrees. So lifter wear is not a consideration. Pushrod angle is also not a consideration as far as I can see, it will not detract from lift or duration of the cam, and the angle is less than some other engines (Chrysler Hemi comes to mind). I really do think that the biggest single issue is the sideways force on the intake rocker. As Doug mentioned, it is present in other FEs with offset intake rockers, but not to the same degree as on my design. Again, testing will be important. My backup plan if the spring steel washers don't work is a thrust bearing. One way or another, I can make this valvetrain work...
-
I believe in you Jay , keep up the good work .
-
Will the dedicated intakes for these heads be of the adapter/centersection design? Or a single piece intake?
IF (<<<<<big "if") I wanted to, could I do my own tunnelport version through the adapter's ports? Doesn't seem like a major machining operation. IF I did that, how close would the rocker positions be to some "stock" configuration? ie, would a custom rockerarm setup still be required?
-
Will the dedicated intakes for these heads be of the adapter/centersection design? Or a single piece intake?
IF (<<<<<big "if") I wanted to, could I do my own tunnelport version through the adapter's ports? Doesn't seem like a major machining operation. IF I did that, how close would the rocker positions be to some "stock" configuration? ie, would a custom rockerarm setup still be required?
It uses an intake adapter design, see the thread in the Vendor Classifieds for some pictures.
You could put a pushrod tube through the intake, but you'd be on your own for porting the intake adapter, installing the tubes, putting the holes in the heads for the rocker shaft studs, and any rocker shaft stands. I'm sure it could be done, if that's what you really wanted. BUT, in all cases the valvetrain has to oil through the pushrods, there are no provisions in the heads for oiling in the standard FE fashion.
-
I am sure many of you have seen these previously, but in regard to crazy push rod angles, you are going to need to get way crazier than what Jay has going on here to even get close to the Mickey Thompson solution for his Hemi Headed FE back in the day.
(https://i.imgur.com/KQ6jEOp.png)
-
It would look like if someone wanted to tunnel the pushrod through the port they could use another set of those exhaust rockers on the intake side and spacers between the rockers. Then drill a hole in Jay's intake and sleeve it and widen the port in that area.
Not sure it would be worth it if the only issue is rockers wearing the edges and thrust bearings stop that.
-
All this speculation will be debunked when Jay's engine makes over 1000 hp on pump gas. Joe-JDC
-
All this speculation will be debunked when Jay's engine makes over 1000 hp on pump gas. Joe-JDC
Joe I’m all ready prepping my jaw for the coming holly @#$& jaw drop that is coming!
-
All this speculation will be debunked when Jay's engine makes over 1000 hp on pump gas. Joe-JDC
That's pretty optimistic LOL! I'd be happy with 900 HP for the unported, raised exhaust heads. What I'm really interested in is the comparison between my ported Edelbrock heads, my CNC ported Blue Thunder heads, and my unported FE Power heads. That will be an interesting and telling comparison...
-
Some years ago I had an extended discussion with Mose Nowland regarding the work that was done on TP heads and the flow characteristics in the area where the pushrod tube goes through.
The upshot, boiled down, was that there wasn't significant difference unless the tube was, itself, a restriction to flow. Shaping the runner so that there was no 'bottleneck' at that point got everything there was to get. I called him in the first place to find out what improvement there might be in 'shaping' the tube to make it oval, or pear-shaped, or some sort of airfoil. They weren't able to find any improvement by any shape changes.
This was at the time Brother Lon and I were setting up to use Dove TPs with Jim's 'Type 2' exhaust. The exhaust runners were raised, spaced-out, and re-shaped. I'd have to do some digging to find the numbers now, but they were a definite improvement.
KS
-
All this speculation will be debunked when Jay's engine makes over 1000 hp on pump gas. Joe-JDC
That's pretty optimistic LOL! I'd be happy with 900 HP for the unported, raised exhaust heads. What I'm really interested in is the comparison between my ported Edelbrock heads, my CNC ported Blue Thunder heads, and my unported FE Power heads. That will be an interesting and telling comparison...
Are you going to run the MULE with the E heads and BT heads before your heads?
-
That's the plan...
-
Let me know if you need a extra set of hands to turn wrenches for the swap.
-
Me first Me first!!! LOL
-
Jay,
Just curious if you thought about making or 3D printing any mock up (dummy) heads for engine mock up and header fab in chassis?
-
what im wandering is with the new heads,blocks, power adders etc. could the fe be a street outlaw caliper engine like bbc,sbc,hemi,etc?
-
Wow, 1000 hp on pump gas........that would be a serious piece. Not sure where to find an honest 1000 hp on pump gas NA from any platform. That is a huge number. Takes about 15:1 for my junk heads to make 1000 hp NA.
If the Jay heads do that on pump gas, it will be time to get them approved for Pro Stock.
-
Some years ago I had an extended discussion with Mose Nowland regarding the work that was done on TP heads and the flow characteristics in the area where the pushrod tube goes through.
The upshot, boiled down, was that there wasn't significant difference unless the tube was, itself, a restriction to flow. Shaping the runner so that there was no 'bottleneck' at that point got everything there was to get. I called him in the first place to find out what improvement there might be in 'shaping' the tube to make it oval, or pear-shaped, or some sort of airfoil. They weren't able to find any improvement by any shape changes.
This was at the time Brother Lon and I were setting up to use Dove TPs with Jim's 'Type 2' exhaust. The exhaust runners were raised, spaced-out, and re-shaped. I'd have to do some digging to find the numbers now, but they were a definite improvement.
KS
I wonder tho, even if quantity is not disturbed, does it disrupt the quality of airflow?
-
Some shapes are aerodynamically inert. An example: The radar disc on an AWACS plane neither lifts or drags. I know some builders spent a lot of time giving the pushrod tube a teardrop or airfoil shape. That didn't help. You can spend a lot of time perfecting the shape of something but you can't make it disappear. The pushrod tube in a TP still plays into the area of the port even if it doesn't cause turbulence in the port.
-
There's tons of testing to prove that any added object will create drag and induce turbulence, and that shape plays a big role in it. An airfoil is much more efficient than a round tube..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbjB2gR32L4
On that AWACS plane, you can bet there were millions of dollars spent on shape, design and perfect location to minimize any effect on the planes flying characteristics.
But in an intake port, I have a guess that the reversion pulses have a way of negating that effect. Maybe even eliminating it. I'm sure it plays a role in it, either way.
-
Some shapes are aerodynamically inert. An example: The radar disc on an AWACS plane neither lifts or drags.
That makes no physical sense. Where did you get that idea? You could have neutral lift at some specific speed under certain specific conditions, but zero drag? That is simply ridiculous. Where did that idea come from?
paulie
-
Some shapes are aerodynamically inert. An example: The radar disc on an AWACS plane neither lifts or drags.
That makes no physical sense. Where did you get that idea? You could have neutral lift at some specific speed under certain specific conditions, but zero drag? That is simply ridiculous. Where did that idea come from?
paulie
Actually the AWACS radome does create extra drag, but the shape creates enough added lift so that the overall lift/drag ratio is not adversely impacted.
In some cases adding things (drag) can even increase overall efficiency. Take the winglets that have sprouted on nearly all commercial aircraft. They add drag, but the energy recouped from the wingtip vortices more than makes up for it!
-
...
That makes no physical sense. Where did you get that idea? You could have neutral lift at some specific speed under certain specific conditions, but zero drag? That is simply ridiculous. Where did that idea come from?
paulie
In a past life, I had the opportunity to spend a week or so with the engineers and scientists at Wright Laboratories at Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio. Aerodynamics and Computational Fluid Dynamics are so far away from my knowledge center –as you have observed- that I might not correctly describe things. But anyway, I had a good discussion with an aerodynamics engineer specifically about cutting edge theory. That turned to the AWACS disc. I was curious how such a large appendage affected the performance of the aircraft. He told me more or less what WConley wrote. The engineer specifically said the disc is aerodynamically inert as far as the plane’s performance is concerned. He used those words. He said the lift and drag balanced out, again, like WConley wrote. So, maybe he was dumbing it down for me so that a layman would understand the theory. I did understand him and acknowledge here the use of the word “inert” isn’t scientifically suitable in this context and may upset some.
-
When I made the statement about Jay's heads, it was a bit "tongue in cheek" to stop the nit picking about the heads fitting shock tower cars and him coming up with new ideas for more options. He has done a massive undertaking with this project, and should not be nit-picked to death about the little things at this time. His heads are for serious folks who want to make massive amounts of horsepower without killing the parts to get it. I just wish I had a vehicle that could use them, for I have a 530 CI FE shortblock that would be ideal for them. Joe-JDC
-
... I just wish I had a vehicle that could use them, for I have a 530 CI FE shortblock that would be ideal for them. Joe-JDC
Gots any partickee ler body style in mind?
-
What the...............^
-
What the...............^
Doanchoo gno Merikan? I was asking Joe if, perhaps, he had a preference for a certain FoMoCo conveyance that could house said 530. Sheesh! ::)
-
When I made the statement about Jay's heads, it was a bit "tongue in cheek" to stop the nit picking about the heads fitting shock tower cars and him coming up with new ideas for more options. He has done a massive undertaking with this project, and should not be nit-picked to death about the little things at this time. His heads are for serious folks who want to make massive amounts of horsepower without killing the parts to get it. I just wish I had a vehicle that could use them, for I have a 530 CI FE shortblock that would be ideal for them. Joe-JDC
No worries. I understand what you mean now. I was just shocked at the way you wrote it and had a knee jerk reaction. Sorry about that. And I also understand that devices like winglets can reduce overall drag even though they themselves add drag. Interesting stuff for sure.
paulie
-
Got rid of my '69 Mach I with shock towers cut back, so I don't currently have anything short of a late model Fox body. That gives me an idea---
On the AWACS dome, when I was still active duty, the aircraft were restricted to a certain MPH because of stresses caused by the domes to the aircraft structure. The aerodynamics have improved, but I think if you were to have access to the flight manuals, there is still a speed limit on the airframe.
Joe-JDC
-
Got rid of my '69 Mach I with shock towers cut back, so I don't currently have anything short of a late model Fox body. That gives me an idea---
Joe-JDC
OK, just checking in case you were thinking lightened Galaxie roller or something.
-
Some shapes are aerodynamically inert. An example: The radar disc on an AWACS plane neither lifts or drags.
That makes no physical sense. Where did you get that idea? You could have neutral lift at some specific speed under certain specific conditions, but zero drag? That is simply ridiculous. Where did that idea come from?
paulie
Actually the AWACS radome does create extra drag, but the shape creates enough added lift so that the overall lift/drag ratio is not adversely impacted.
In some cases adding things (drag) can even increase overall efficiency. Take the winglets that have sprouted on nearly all commercial aircraft. They add drag, but the energy recouped from the wingtip vortices more than makes up for it!
I read somewhere that. The "Pro Stock" scoop under the belly on the Mustangs that is for
the radiator Ads drag but the increased volume of the air heated by the radiator creates a
"Jet" propulsion that more than compensate the drag. It was called....something,something effect
-
What the...............^
Doanchoo gno Merikan? I was asking Joe if, perhaps, he had a preference for a certain FoMoCo conveyance that could house said 530. Sheesh! ::)
Just astounded at your presence. As most folks are when you walk in a room I’m sure. ;D
Nice to hear from you.
-
Jay,
Just curious if you thought about making or 3D printing any mock up (dummy) heads for engine mock up and header fab in chassis?
Keith, I could do that but it would be more expensive than you'd think, probably $600 per head by the time the plastic and print time is taken into account. So, I really wasn't planning on doing that...
-
Some shapes are aerodynamically inert. An example: The radar disc on an AWACS plane neither lifts or drags.
That makes no physical sense. Where did you get that idea? You could have neutral lift at some specific speed under certain specific conditions, but zero drag? That is simply ridiculous. Where did that idea come from?
paulie
Actually the AWACS radome does create extra drag, but the shape creates enough added lift so that the overall lift/drag ratio is not adversely impacted.
In some cases adding things (drag) can even increase overall efficiency. Take the winglets that have sprouted on nearly all commercial aircraft. They add drag, but the energy recouped from the wingtip vortices more than makes up for it!
I read somewhere that. The "Pro Stock" scoop under the belly on the Mustangs that is for
the radiator Ads drag but the increased volume of the air heated by the radiator creates a
"Jet" propulsion that more than compensate the drag. It was called....something,something effect
I'll try to control myself with this thread hijack, but I did spend a lot of time in the aeronautical engineering labs at school. Heo - you're describing the Meredith Effect. The same thing was used on the P-51 Mustang to generate extra thrust from the belly-mounted radiator duct:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_effect
OK - I'll shut up now. I promise I'll be posting more relevant stuff in the near future!
- Bill
-
No! Bill, we want to hear more from you!
Gee, we could also use you over on the old FE Forum too!
-
Some shapes are aerodynamically inert. An example: The radar disc on an AWACS plane neither lifts or drags.
That makes no physical sense. Where did you get that idea? You could have neutral lift at some specific speed under certain specific conditions, but zero drag? That is simply ridiculous. Where did that idea come from?
paulie
Actually the AWACS radome does create extra drag, but the shape creates enough added lift so that the overall lift/drag ratio is not adversely impacted.
In some cases adding things (drag) can even increase overall efficiency. Take the winglets that have sprouted on nearly all commercial aircraft. They add drag, but the energy recouped from the wingtip vortices more than makes up for it!
I read somewhere that. The "Pro Stock" scoop under the belly on the Mustangs that is for
the radiator Ads drag but the increased volume of the air heated by the radiator creates a
"Jet" propulsion that more than compensate the drag. It was called....something,something effect
I'll try to control myself with this thread hijack, but I did spend a lot of time in the aeronautical engineering labs at school. Heo - you're describing the Meredith Effect. The same thing was used on the P-51 Mustang to generate extra thrust from the belly-mounted radiator duct:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_effect
OK - I'll shut up now. I promise I'll be posting more relevant stuff in the near future!
- Bill
I'll stop too. :-X Just gotta say that I don't believe the radiator on the Mustang actually produces a net thrust. People talk about it like it does. Anytime energy is moved or changes from one form to another, some is lost.
It reduces the net drag of the cooling system for sure. The laminar flow wing deal is debatable, too.
JMO,
paulie
-
No! Bill, we want to hear more from you!
Gee, we could also use you over on the old FE Forum too!
Thanks Bob! I've got a couple of cool projects I should be posting about in the next couple of months. As for the other forum, the Tapatalk privacy sinkhole is not my cup of tea. I'm always reachable here though!
-
Some shapes are aerodynamically inert. An example: The radar disc on an AWACS plane neither lifts or drags.
That makes no physical sense. Where did you get that idea? You could have neutral lift at some specific speed under certain specific conditions, but zero drag? That is simply ridiculous. Where did that idea come from?
paulie
Actually the AWACS radome does create extra drag, but the shape creates enough added lift so that the overall lift/drag ratio is not adversely impacted.
In some cases adding things (drag) can even increase overall efficiency. Take the winglets that have sprouted on nearly all commercial aircraft. They add drag, but the energy recouped from the wingtip vortices more than makes up for it!
I read somewhere that. The "Pro Stock" scoop under the belly on the Mustangs that is for
the radiator Ads drag but the increased volume of the air heated by the radiator creates a
"Jet" propulsion that more than compensate the drag. It was called....something,something effect
I'll try to control myself with this thread hijack, but I did spend a lot of time in the aeronautical engineering labs at school. Heo - you're describing the Meredith Effect. The same thing was used on the P-51 Mustang to generate extra thrust from the belly-mounted radiator duct:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_effect
OK - I'll shut up now. I promise I'll be posting more relevant stuff in the near future!
- Bill
COOL! It's posts like this that keep me coming back, I would not have ever thought using the waste heat from cooling system could reduce drag or potentially give some amount of thrust.
-
COOL! It's posts like this that keep me coming back, I would not have ever thought using the waste heat from cooling system could reduce drag or potentially give some amount of thrust.
Look in to the amount of thrust and downforce that zoomie headers on Top Fuel cars can generate. There's some serious forces going on there!
-
COOL! It's posts like this that keep me coming back, I would not have ever thought using the waste heat from cooling system could reduce drag or potentially give some amount of thrust.
Look in to the amount of thrust and downforce that zoomie headers on Top Fuel cars can generate. There's some serious forces going on there!
Its the same with the exhaust on a for example a P51 and other planes there is a reason why they are shaped like they are. They give quite a bit of thrust
-
Jay,
any update on head progress
-
Everything is done and ready to run on the dyno, except that I am STILL waiting for valve springs from PAC >:( They were supposed to ship Monday, but I haven't received them yet...
-
What combination are you gonna run ( single 4 Barrell) any new pictures
-
Thanks for the update. I've waited months for interior parts for the Cougar. Gave me extra time to research and refine other aspects of the restoration. Guess you've been staging as much as possible during the wait.
-
What combination are you gonna run ( single 4 Barrell) any new pictures
My rather ambitious goal was to run some ported Edelbrock heads with a good single 4 intake and a tunnel ram, then same with a set of CNC ported Blue Thunder medium riser heads, then run both pairs of my heads (Stock Exhaust and Raised Exhaust) with all three cast intake options (4V, 8V, and crossram). I'd like to have all that comparison data, and I'll get it all eventually, but right now I'd kill for the damned valve springs and just run one set of my heads to see what they do. It has been ridiculous waiting for the valvesprings to arrive...
-
did you get all the casting issues ironed out with the heads?
-
Yes, at this point I believe that the casting issues have been resolved. I've had 6 or 7 good head castings in a row now, so no issues there...
-
Is there something extremely specific to those valve springs, so that a similar set from someone else won't work? Lots of spring suppliers out there
-
If I didn’t have a job that takes up most of my free time I would volunteer to be a garage monkey to help swap heads intakes ,run for cool drinks, etc...I would only ask for a dry place to sleep.
-
Is there something extremely specific to those valve springs, so that a similar set from someone else won't work? Lots of spring suppliers out there
I only go with Comp and PAC for springs, haven't tried the others, and I really don't want to experiment with a new supplier on this setup. Comp has a triple spring that will work, but then I'd need new retainers to go with them, and I've already got the PAC retainers. Plus, the PAC springs I've selected are dual springs, which will be lighter and work better at high engine speeds. So I've decided to wait for the PAC springs. Hopefully soon...
-
I felt a great disturbance in the force, like thousands of voices cried out at the same time...
“ deliver the damn springs already....”
-
If I didn’t have a job that takes up most of my free time I would volunteer to be a garage monkey to help swap heads intakes ,run for cool drinks, etc...I would only ask for a dry place to sleep.
Jay has plenty of help waiting, if he needs it. Most of the stuff is a one man job, and Jay does the work of 2 guys. LOL.
-
Would be really cool if someone could be there just video-ing the testing and such, would make for some great YouTube videos.
-
Would be really cool if someone could be there just video-ing the testing and such, would make for some great YouTube videos.
I have to agree with this. I would love to watch it.
-
I am not 100% sure and I may be confusing this with another dyno operator, but I think Jay has a video camera mounted in the dyno room...
-
I am not 100% sure and I may be confusing this with another dyno operator, but I think Jay has a video camera mounted in the dyno room...
If he doesn't, I have a Go Pro he can use.
-
Jay needs an App... Fe Power TV Live streaming.. maybe even subscription to defray all the costs he as incurred to advance the ball forward on the FE
-
+1 he definitely needs to setup some cameras lol.
-
I don't have a permanent camera mounted in the dyno room, but I've set up a tripod and taken videos in there before. One of the issues is always lighting. There's a computer screen above the engine that records RPM, HP, and Torque, and it's fun to watch that while the engine is running. But it never seems to show up on the videos, it's always just white because the camera focuses on the engine and surroundings, which are much darker. Also, the sound of the pumps in the dyno room, and the fan on the back wall, tend to mask the sound of the engine, at least until it gets up to speed. It would be nice if I could filter that out somehow.
Regardless, I will certainly be doing some videos of the engine with the heads installed.
-
Jay needs an App... Fe Power TV Live streaming.. maybe even subscription to defray all the costs he as incurred to advance the ball forward on the FE
+1 for that also, I was thinking that very thing when I read your post.
I’m sure it’s more of a hassle than jay has time for, but it would be cool to somehow organize a group donation that would pay for a camera or two lighting, and some editing. I imagine a few 15-20 min “ episodes “ could be made, even some following the design and casting process. I would pay a good chunk of change just to see the birth and testing of a cylinder head. Maybe set up a paytrion account ( or whatever it’s called....)
Of course this is a ton of extra work and headache above and beyond everything else Jay is dealing with.....
-
Gentlemen---
This is JAY we're talking about. I'm sure you all know that, by special divine dispensation, Jay is blessed with 25 hours in every day and he never has to sleep. (At least, that's the only reason I can come up with for him to be able to accomplish what's coming from him.) ::) ;)
KS
-
You would need a dedicated microphone to get rid of the background noise and more lights to even out the light between screen and engine.
-
Gotta be some enterprising high school student that wants to earn some extra credit that could design and install the system, to let Jay keep working on new and exciting FE products,. It sure would be nice to monitor in real time all the cool stuff going on in the dyno cell.. But then again he might want to avoid being hacked by the competition and have his secrets stolen
-
Bumping this ol'thread to inquire about the current state of these performance parts. It's been some time and lord knows it's a crazy world out there. So what's the word? I recall Brent mentioning in a Youtube video that some FE head evaluations might be coming up? I've been able to drive my Cougar only twice this season but sorely reminded that She's in need of a new mill. I'm planning to use these heads for a 390 based build and it looks like I'll have plenty enough power to go A to B no problems.
-
The delays are extremely frustrating, for me and I'm sure my customers as well. I have started delivering some heads, but they are only trickling out of the foundry at a very slow pace. Things have picked up a little bit recently, as I received about half of the intake adapters for the package that I've ordered in the last month. Also, still working to get all the dyno testing finished, which seems like it's on the verge of happening when some other crisis occurs and I have to put it off.
Once the dyno testing is done, I can get the tooling for the final intake designs (looks like there will be five of them), and also start machining the rocker assemblies. I appreciate everyone's patience on this, we are for sure getting closer...
-
which seems like it's on the verge of happening when some other crisis occurs and I have to put it off.
This situation is happening in many (all?) industries/families. A lot of things have to align and go just right for anything to progress. No frustration on my part. I work in the Sound and Lighting Industry which is hopefully about to emerge from a 2 year funk.
-
Any pictures of some of the final products you have gotten?
-
So what intake systems are on deck for evaluation? A tall & short single carb, tall & short dual quad and the cross ram?
-
Tall and short 4V are set, I will be casting both of those. The short 8V (which looks like a tunnel wedge) is also set. Two of the four tall 8V manifolds have been tested, along with the tunnel ram. I have one more tall 8V to test, but the original version shown in the pictures earlier looks like it may be tough to beat. But the tunnel ram is a torque monster, made 763 foot pounds which is just over 1.5 foot pound per cubic inch (!), so I might do that one regardless. The tunnel ram falls off in power after 6400 RPM though. And I am definitely doing the IR crossram intake, just got it installed today and hopefully will test early next week, along with the last tall 8V.
I will post pictures and dyno data of all the manifolds I tested when I finally get the testing finished, hopefully very soon...