FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: blykins on January 09, 2021, 12:16:06 PM
-
Got her back together this morning.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50817880042_bd3f33d097_z.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50817880002_9dc162cc31_z.jpg)
I feel pretty solid about her and I think the head work will really bring it alive. Got a couple of customer engines to dyno first but will have it on the pump in the next few weeks.
I'll offer this up as a two parter:
1. Guess the horsepower on this one. Same engine except with 40 more cfm of flow. Did lose a couple cc's to the valve job and chamber work.
2. I'm wanting to try another intake manifold after the next dyno session. Leaning towards an adapter and a tunnel ram. Any other suggestions on something that's a little outside of normal?
-
Tunnel ram? Webers?
-
T Ram would make more power eh?
That’s my vote.
-
2. I'm wanting to try another intake manifold after the next dyno session. Leaning towards an adapter and a tunnel ram. Any other suggestions on something that's a little outside of normal?
Outside the normal ? How's about an adaptor and a CrossBoss with an Inline Autolite ?
-
Victor vs tf
-
Victor vs tf
That would be a good one, but I'm trying to keep things "vintage" looking. Kinda either looking at Webers or a Tunnel Ram right now.
-
Victor vs tf
That would be a good one, but I'm trying to keep things "vintage" looking. Kinda either looking at Webers or a Tunnel Ram right now.
Reworked tri-power with bigger carbs if necessary or cross-ram?
-
You're not going to make more power with anything but a tunnel ram.
-
420 hp.
-
420 hp.
Bob, it made more than that with unported heads. :D
-
Will loan you an early Ed. 2 x 4 intake and 2 400 cfm AFB's
Also have an Ed. 3 x 2 intake with the small bolt pattern and 3 x WW stromberg 2 barrel carbs from Dodge 318 mill
All carbs will need kits though ...
Ricky.
-
I would like to see a comparison of that Streetmaster I ported for you earlier last year against the -F intake. Joe-JDC
-
You're not going to make more power with anything but a tunnel ram.
I think the Webers outpowered the Tunnel Ram in Jay's testing.
-
Brent I offer up a real vintage FE intake for you to try, a TW and some 660's.
-
Brent I offer up a real vintage FE intake for you to try, a TW and some 660's.
I appreciate it, Greg. I used a TW on my 390 so I’d kinda like to try something new and different.
-
420 hp.
Bob, it made more than that with unported heads. :D
Ouch! I actually missed the dyno test results in Round 1. O.k. how about 479 hp?
-
485HP. Heck, the rocker upgrade has to be worth 10HP ;)
How about Hilborn stacks with electronic injectors? Might give you an excuse to try wasted spark at some point.
-
I witnessed a Weber test on a 427 at a local dyno shop They really held it back vs a Performer RPM or a BT dual plane. Plus the guy spent hours getting them tuned.. Sure look neat though , and awesome throttle response
-
I witnessed a Weber test on a 427 at a local dyno shop They really held it back vs a Performer RPM or a BT dual plane. Plus the guy spent hours getting them tuned.. Sure look neat though , and awesome throttle response
It was the cat daddy over all the intakes in Jay's intake comparison on a 428.
-
Something different? Maybe....
-
Ok with JUST the head porting, vs the prior Torq 405 and HP 433:
JDC Ported Heads:
Torq 423 at 4600 +18
Powr 475 at 6100 +42
I then had some fun.
Thinking of Ford's 44-page performance summary & plan from Aug 68 over on fordfe.com - I noted, in all that 44 pages, Ford's lack of EXHAUST PORTS is not even mentioned ONCE. Even today, the Rule of Thumb is, "heads will "support" a HP of twice their intake flow". I suppose a good exhaust/intake ratio is implicit, but all the emphasis is in intakes, as is obvious in the 44-pages of Ford stuff.
So I went in the Gonkulator, pretended to be JDC, and ported JUST the exhausts ,not the intakes:
Torq 411 at 4600 +6
Powr 460 at 6200 +27
OK, so you dont get the WHOLE gain, but much of it.
Then I turned back the clock and ported JUST the intakes, not the exhausts:
Torq 417 at 4500 +12
Powr 433 at 6000 +0
Porting the intakes ALONE did almost nothing compared to porting the Exhaust ALONE.
Of course porting both was better!
It doesnt matter so much today, because now we have SBF, FE, Cleveland, and Lima heads that actually have real exhaust ports.
But back then, a recognition that the exhaust has to get out would have changed a lot.
And now some FUN history. Detroit Dragway, the Dirty-D in the 3-1-3, is long gone.
Luckily I got to run there, only once IIRC, and only because Milan was closed so we drove all the way to Sibley at Dix.
From pg539 of the HAMB Junior Stock thread.
I guess 352's run ok after all.
352/250 of 64-65 was an underrated combo.
I have ONE trophy from DD that looks like the ones in the picture. At least i got to run at DD and roll around under the cars in the sharp gravel.
Why couldn't they have rounded the edges of the gravel, you know, for comfort?
-
I was going to offer a Joe ported Streetmaster but guess you already got one. :)
-
Ok with JUST the head porting, vs the prior Torq 405 and HP 433:
JDC Ported Heads:
Torq 423 at 4600 +18
Powr 475 at 6100 +42
I then had some fun.
Thinking of Ford's 44-page performance summary & plan from Aug 68 over on fordfe.com - I noted, in all that 44 pages, Ford's lack of EXHAUST PORTS is not even mentioned ONCE. Even today, the Rule of Thumb is, "heads will "support" a HP of twice their intake flow". I suppose a good exhaust/intake ratio is implicit, but all the emphasis is in intakes, as is obvious in the 44-pages of Ford stuff.
So I went in the Gonkulator, pretended to be JDC, and ported JUST the exhausts ,not the intakes:
Torq 411 at 4600 +6
Powr 460 at 6200 +27
OK, so you dont get the WHOLE gain, but much of it.
Then I turned back the clock and ported JUST the intakes, not the exhausts:
Torq 417 at 4500 +12
Powr 433 at 6000 +0
Porting the intakes ALONE did almost nothing compared to porting the Exhaust ALONE.
Of course porting both was better!
It doesnt matter so much today, because now we have SBF, FE, Cleveland, and Lima heads that actually have real exhaust ports.
But back then, a recognition that the exhaust has to get out would have changed a lot.
And now some FUN history. Detroit Dragway, the Dirty-D in the 3-1-3, is long gone.
Luckily I got to run there, only once IIRC, and only because Milan was closed so we drove all the way to Sibley at Dix.
From pg539 of the HAMB Junior Stock thread.
I guess 352's run ok after all.
352/250 of 64-65 was an underrated combo.
I have ONE trophy from DD that looks like the ones in the picture. At least i got to run at DD and roll around under the cars in the sharp gravel.
Why couldn't they have rounded the edges of the gravel, you know, for comfort?
Werb, it peaked at 6800 before. You will never see peak hp rpm go down with extra head flow and the same camshaft.
-
484 peak hp
-
502
-
493
-
476hp
422tq
-
I find it interesting all the theories being thrown around with this kind of build. It has been my experience that when increasing the head flow from a given flow to a higher flow, the horsepower does not go up at 2 hp/cfm, but only ~1 hp/cfm. I really only expect the 352 to gain ~38-40 hp over what it was before. Same with porting another intake manifold. Why? The median average airflow did not change 40 cfm. I would have to get the before flow figures at .050" lift all the way to the actual valve lift, and find the average/median flow, then do the same for the ported heads. The difference will not be as much as thought, and that difference x 2 will be the true horsepower increase to expect. Also, on these heads, the exhaust ports were ported to flow 184 cfm without a pipe, but add a header tube, and they jump up to 194 cfm or more depending on header size and length. That is 66%, and with the tube 69% bias. I usually like my heads to have at least 70% exhaust to intake flow, and prefer 72-74% if possible without a pipe. These heads have a 1.600" exhaust valve which makes it difficult to reach that 70% barrier. Put a 1.650/1.680" exhaust valve in with multi-angle valve job, and they will go over 200 cfm, which would get the exhaust ratio over the 70% with ease. Werby's guess at 475 will be close if I am right. Joe-JDC
-
When you put the ram on it, like to know what carbs and the jetting/etc. I'd like to put the ram back on the door car, but having a bit of issue getting the carbs (pair 4160 / List 1850 ) set right. That plus I need to get a small cap ignition for it.
-
How about 468 HP
430 TQ
-
When you put the ram on it, like to know what carbs and the jetting/etc. I'd like to put the ram back on the door car, but having a bit of issue getting the carbs (pair 4160 / List 1850 ) set right. That plus I need to get a small cap ignition for it.
Won't be using a tunnel ram. Found a new Weber intake and I'll probably head that direction sometime down the road.
-
Ok with JUST the head porting, vs the prior Torq 405 and HP 433:
JDC Ported Heads:
Torq 423 at 4600 +18
Powr 475 at 6100 +42
I then had some fun.
Thinking of Ford's 44-page performance summary & plan from Aug 68 over on fordfe.com - I noted, in all that 44 pages, Ford's lack of EXHAUST PORTS is not even mentioned ONCE. Even today, the Rule of Thumb is, "heads will "support" a HP of twice their intake flow". I suppose a good exhaust/intake ratio is implicit, but all the emphasis is in intakes, as is obvious in the 44-pages of Ford stuff.
So I went in the Gonkulator, pretended to be JDC, and ported JUST the exhausts ,not the intakes:
Torq 411 at 4600 +6
Powr 460 at 6200 +27
OK, so you dont get the WHOLE gain, but much of it.
Then I turned back the clock and ported JUST the intakes, not the exhausts:
Torq 417 at 4500 +12
Powr 433 at 6000 +0
Porting the intakes ALONE did almost nothing compared to porting the Exhaust ALONE.
Of course porting both was better!
It doesnt matter so much today, because now we have SBF, FE, Cleveland, and Lima heads that actually have real exhaust ports.
But back then, a recognition that the exhaust has to get out would have changed a lot.
And now some FUN history. Detroit Dragway, the Dirty-D in the 3-1-3, is long gone.
Luckily I got to run there, only once IIRC, and only because Milan was closed so we drove all the way to Sibley at Dix.
From pg539 of the HAMB Junior Stock thread.
I guess 352's run ok after all.
352/250 of 64-65 was an underrated combo.
I have ONE trophy from DD that looks like the ones in the picture. At least i got to run at DD and roll around under the cars in the sharp gravel.
Why couldn't they have rounded the edges of the gravel, you know, for comfort?
Werb, it peaked at 6800 before. You will never see peak hp rpm go down with extra head flow and the same camshaft.
Brent,
Not to worry!
The Gonk is peaking low on this one all the way around - the peak went up a tick vs the previous GONK so that's consistent, of course you'd expect that with a bigger anything feeding it, just as more cubes would lower the peak.
Those peaks can be tricky as many things about the exhaust in particular can have an influence. Of course the "G" isnt perfect either, just usually close.
-
I say it’s got 500 in it....
-
This will be a very good back to back type test. Nothing would please me more than to see 500 hp for Brent. Joe-JDC
-
This will be a very good back to back type test. Nothing would please me more than to see 500 hp for Brent. Joe-JDC
If it don't, it don't, and I for sure won't point my finger at anybody.
It was pushing 1.8 hp/cfm before. If it did that this time, it would be sitting at 504 hp.
-
Ok with JUST the head porting, vs the prior Torq 405 and HP 433:
JDC Ported Heads:
Torq 423 at 4600 +18
Powr 475 at 6100 +42
I then had some fun.
Thinking of Ford's 44-page performance summary & plan from Aug 68 over on fordfe.com - I noted, in all that 44 pages, Ford's lack of EXHAUST PORTS is not even mentioned ONCE. Even today, the Rule of Thumb is, "heads will "support" a HP of twice their intake flow". I suppose a good exhaust/intake ratio is implicit, but all the emphasis is in intakes, as is obvious in the 44-pages of Ford stuff.
So I went in the Gonkulator, pretended to be JDC, and ported JUST the exhausts ,not the intakes:
Torq 411 at 4600 +6
Powr 460 at 6200 +27
OK, so you dont get the WHOLE gain, but much of it.
Then I turned back the clock and ported JUST the intakes, not the exhausts:
Torq 417 at 4500 +12
Powr 433 at 6000 +0
Porting the intakes ALONE did almost nothing compared to porting the Exhaust ALONE.
Of course porting both was better!
It doesnt matter so much today, because now we have SBF, FE, Cleveland, and Lima heads that actually have real exhaust ports.
But back then, a recognition that the exhaust has to get out would have changed a lot.
And now some FUN history. Detroit Dragway, the Dirty-D in the 3-1-3, is long gone.
Luckily I got to run there, only once IIRC, and only because Milan was closed so we drove all the way to Sibley at Dix.
From pg539 of the HAMB Junior Stock thread.
I guess 352's run ok after all.
352/250 of 64-65 was an underrated combo.
I have ONE trophy from DD that looks like the ones in the picture. At least i got to run at DD and roll around under the cars in the sharp gravel.
Why couldn't they have rounded the edges of the gravel, you know, for comfort?
Werb, it peaked at 6800 before. You will never see peak hp rpm go down with extra head flow and the same camshaft.
Brent,
Not to worry!
The Gonk is peaking low on this one all the way around - the peak went up a tick vs the previous GONK so that's consistent, of course you'd expect that with a bigger anything feeding it, just as more cubes would lower the peak.
Those peaks can be tricky as many things about the exhaust in particular can have an influence. Of course the "G" isnt perfect either, just usually close.
Werby, can you recreate the last on in terms of hp and rpm? A 700 rpm difference is significant and wondering if you back into the first round then add airflow, where does it end up?
-
Ross et al:
I went back and Re-Gonkulated this thing – no way I can get the peak at 6800rpm without just “making stuff up” but I can now get:
Torq 432 at 4700 +28 from Gonk of prior dyno
Powr 490 at 6400 +57 from Gonk of prior dyno
I had guessed more advance before but Brent noted the ICL=105 on the old thread, so that’s only 1 degree advance, and the Gonkulator likes that better up high. Getting near 500hp now, within 2% which is well within the Gonkulator’s +/- range.
It is possible that a quick RPM gain on the dyno is making the peak higher by taking away a few ponies down low.
The YouTube movie, if it’s the dyno pull, is about 5 seconds to gain 2300rpm or about 460rpm/second. That may be enough to cost a few ponies during the pull, and “let go” of them on the top when the RPM’s stop going up, so the apparent peak is higher. Maybe! Again though, it’s not unheard of that the Gonkulator HP peak would be 400rpm low as that’s only about 6%. Good enough for pro bono work.
I’d try a couple different rev rate dyno pulls, eg 500rpm/second, then maybe 200rpm/second.
It’s also possible that the cam is “fatter” in the middle, I’m just working off the .050 duration. The .100 or .200 duration would help – Ford used to give the .100 duration on all their cams.
Either way, there’s a range – 472hp to 490hp, and I’d bet more on the 490hp with the right ICL=105 in there.
-
My program is low at 6250 too, with 472 HP.
I can input actual head flow and the CC lobe, if given. Here, since no lobe # was given, I had to pick from the .050 & ~lobe lift. Like Werby, I can get a few more HP and rpm, if I run the cam straight up but, loose average HP.
I can vary the headers by tuned rpm (7k in this case) but, can't input actual header dimensions.
I don't know if the Gonk can adjust for ring pack friction but, mine doesn't. I've heard it can be as much as 20 HP.