1
FE Technical Forum / Re: Block Fill
« on: April 15, 2026, 06:06:30 PM ».
There are no stupid questions, only stupid people who delete them,
Dedicated to Building and Racing the Ford FE Engine
News:
SMF - Just Installed!
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
There are no stupid questions, only stupid people who delete them,
2
Vendor Classifieds / Re: Both are sold.
« on: March 10, 2026, 12:12:20 PM »
It's not really a big deal, it is what it is. Flow #'s are
just a guide, something showing a potential.
A Dyno shows results to a degree.
As to the lower flow #'s, I figured that would happen
due to the larger Int valve. But I was also glad that I
was correct about the top end flow.
just a guide, something showing a potential.
A Dyno shows results to a degree.
As to the lower flow #'s, I figured that would happen
due to the larger Int valve. But I was also glad that I
was correct about the top end flow.
3
Vendor Classifieds / Re: Both are sold.
« on: March 09, 2026, 03:45:25 PM »
As far as I know, my ported (Jay's) TP heads which were ported by JC, are the only ones with a 2.300" Int valve, the rest of Jay's TP heads that Joe has ported, are with a 2.250" valve. And all the heads that I have compared my flow numbers with, including your Ported Cast Iron TP heads you were going to use on your 397ci TP dyno mule, all had better low lift flow to .600" lift, but mine didn't really start flowing untill .600" @ .357 to 425 cfm @ .900" lift, but the relevant numbers because of the cam would be 390cfm @.700
As to LSAngles, I was looking more at the lift numbers and .050" numbers,
For this build I preferr the PSI springs.
As to LSAngles, I was looking more at the lift numbers and .050" numbers,
For this build I preferr the PSI springs.
4
Vendor Classifieds / Re: Both are sold.
« on: March 08, 2026, 07:39:27 PM »If it's a cam that Comp ground for me, they will give a lobe lift and then the rocker ratio is generally the lowest ratio that's available for that engine family. So with the FE, Comp's cam cards will always show a gross lift calculated with a 1.73 rocker. Bullet will generally not be like that.
That's why you always do the math yourself when you're staring at a cam card, just to double check things.
Cams are chosen by valve events. Each engine build can require different valve events. That's why sometimes there is a large difference in cam specs.
Most guys focus on the .050" duration and the LSA, but completely skip other key specs that play a huge role into things, such as the advertised duration, lobe spans, .200" duration, .050" overlap, advertised overlap, etc.
Regarding your camshaft:
It's a billet core. You can get away with more aggressive lobes/lift/etc. on those cores. Just because the .050" durations were within a few degrees of the cam that was ground for Cody's engine doesn't mean that they will behave the same way.
What will help your situation the most is that your heads are ported. Cody's heads were not. Adding 75-80 cfm to a cylinder head should do nothing but add more power and raise the peak hp rpm. So I would expect a lot more horsepower with your build and a much higher horsepower rpm peak.
I was just referencing Codys cam, but your correct my heads are ported so that will make a difference, but his heads will have better lower Int numbers but mine have much better exh numbers the intire range, but still not as good as should be.
The Bullet cam was orignaly intended for the 397ci TP Dyno motor wasn't it, so I was also checking that build, those cast iron TP heads were ported by JC, and they had much better lower Int numbers too .600" also, but mine start flowing after .600" lift and that Bullet cam I read is ground to provide better flow numbers from .200" on, so will see, also it's said that lower LSA like higher lift cams. Also, I have a good feeling about this cam.
I have a question, which PSI springs did you use for the Cast Iron TP heads ? I've been reseaching parts to finish my heads, Pac Racings Springs, their Circle Track ones have some options, and I even looked at Manley, but I like the the PSI springs their Sprint Cup springs, because they use the Max Life treatment on their springs, which increase their running life .
I am looking at thei PSI CT 1526 ML
Valve Lift .715
Dia. 1.460"
Seat 213 @ 1.960
Open 532 @ 1.245
Coil Bind 1.150"
Distance to coil Bind 0.095"
Recommended Distance to Coil Bind:
Push Springs: .060" to .100"
Spring Rate 447 Lbs/ Inch
5
Vendor Classifieds / Re: Both are sold.
« on: March 04, 2026, 04:14:56 PM »
I, compared the cam I just bought for my 494 TP Build: 265/278 @ .050", 108 LSA, .715" gross lift with 1.76 rocker. This cam card showed a Lobe Lift of .406 so gross lift was correct.
To, the one Brett choose for for Cody's 482 TP Build: 267/280 @ .050", 113 LSA, .654/.645 gross lift I am guessing with 1.76 rocker, because I have noticed that the ones that show it, show a 1.73 rocker ratio. But, if you do the math, the Lobe Lifts on the cam card showed .380 x .375 work out to a rocker ratio of 1.72, so 1.72 x .380 = .6536 and 1.72 x .375 = .645
If you use a rocker ratio ratio of 1.76, then it works out to 1.76 x .380 = .669 and 1.76 x .375 = .660. I. don't know if I am missing something or computing it wrong ?
The differences between the 2 cams are the 2 deg's increase on both the Int & Exh on the .050 numbers on Cody's cam, the .046" & .055" increased valve lift on my cam. The only other major difference is the 5 deg increase from 108 to 113 on the LSA on Cody's cam.
To, the one Brett choose for for Cody's 482 TP Build: 267/280 @ .050", 113 LSA, .654/.645 gross lift I am guessing with 1.76 rocker, because I have noticed that the ones that show it, show a 1.73 rocker ratio. But, if you do the math, the Lobe Lifts on the cam card showed .380 x .375 work out to a rocker ratio of 1.72, so 1.72 x .380 = .6536 and 1.72 x .375 = .645
If you use a rocker ratio ratio of 1.76, then it works out to 1.76 x .380 = .669 and 1.76 x .375 = .660. I. don't know if I am missing something or computing it wrong ?
The differences between the 2 cams are the 2 deg's increase on both the Int & Exh on the .050 numbers on Cody's cam, the .046" & .055" increased valve lift on my cam. The only other major difference is the 5 deg increase from 108 to 113 on the LSA on Cody's cam.
6
Vendor Classifieds / Re: Both are sold.
« on: March 01, 2026, 06:06:54 AM »
Cam showed Fri, thanks.
So, Brent how do you think this cam will work in a 494 ci motor, with Jays Ported Tunnel Ports.
Motor specs: 4.300 x 4.250
Head specs: 8mm Hollow Stems x 2.300 Int x 5/16 x 1.735 exh
The seats were cut with a 5 angle valve job,
and I went with 45 deg angle seats.
Intake Flow Numbers
Lift Flow
.400 258.16
.500 308.48
.600 356.53
.700 390.40
.800 411.79
.900 425.16
TP Exh Flow Numbers
Lift Flow
.100 58
.200 119
.300 181
.400 208
.500 229
.600 240
.700 244
.800 247
The chamber bore size's, I had opened up to 4.300" to help to relieve
the Int & Exh shrouding to help with flow. Unfortunately, it was done
after the heads had already been flowed, so the current numbers
could be slightly increased.
So, Brent how do you think this cam will work in a 494 ci motor, with Jays Ported Tunnel Ports.
Motor specs: 4.300 x 4.250
Head specs: 8mm Hollow Stems x 2.300 Int x 5/16 x 1.735 exh
The seats were cut with a 5 angle valve job,
and I went with 45 deg angle seats.
Intake Flow Numbers
Lift Flow
.400 258.16
.500 308.48
.600 356.53
.700 390.40
.800 411.79
.900 425.16
TP Exh Flow Numbers
Lift Flow
.100 58
.200 119
.300 181
.400 208
.500 229
.600 240
.700 244
.800 247
The chamber bore size's, I had opened up to 4.300" to help to relieve
the Int & Exh shrouding to help with flow. Unfortunately, it was done
after the heads had already been flowed, so the current numbers
could be slightly increased.
7
Vendor Classifieds / Re: FS: NIB Custom Bullet Billet Core Solid Flat Tappet Camshaft
« on: February 18, 2026, 08:34:48 AM »
Payment sent yesterday
Now several afterthoughts, 1st, what Dist gear do you recommend for the cam, and do you have any ? remembering something about a possible issue.
2nd, what spring pressures do you recommend for this cam ?
Thanks
Now several afterthoughts, 1st, what Dist gear do you recommend for the cam, and do you have any ? remembering something about a possible issue.
2nd, what spring pressures do you recommend for this cam ?
Thanks
8
Vendor Classifieds / Re: FS: NIB Custom Bullet Billet Core Solid Flat Tappet Camshaft
« on: February 16, 2026, 02:43:01 AM »
Email Sent.
9
Vendor Classifieds / Re: FS: NIB Custom Bullet Billet Core Solid Flat Tappet Camshaft
« on: February 15, 2026, 12:38:03 PM »
I, am interested in this cam for a 482 Tunnel Port headed motor. Shipping cost's to 92691 ?
Got this one that's been laying on the shelf for several years.
It's a billet core solid flat tappet, so you'll have to run DLC coated tool steel lifters.
265/278 @ .050", 108 LSA, .715" gross lift with 1.76 rocker.
$350 plus shipping.
Fair offers accepted for either cam.
10
FE Technical Forum / Re: Edelbrock head NASCAR version
« on: December 20, 2025, 06:28:00 PM »Did they, do they make a head with NASCAR embossed on the face of head? If so, what is different about them?
Thanks
It's the FE Pro Ports that are NHRA Super Stock approved and embossed on the end of the heads with NHRA. You can read up on the Pro Ports.
And when FE's were used in Nascar back in the sixties, there were no Aluminum Edelbrock heads.
11
FE Technical Forum / Re: Crane ductile iron Rockers
« on: July 25, 2025, 07:27:10 PM »
Hi
I have a set of those rockers, and I posted a picture of them mounted on my Pro Ports, and Blair Patrick responded that those rockers are short on ratio, I asked how much and the best he could remember was around 1.6". He said the lost of lift wasn't as bad as the lost of valve speed, due to less ratio.
Here's a post about the rockers: https://www.fordfe.com/viewtopic.php?p=1112033#p1112033
I have a set of those rockers, and I posted a picture of them mounted on my Pro Ports, and Blair Patrick responded that those rockers are short on ratio, I asked how much and the best he could remember was around 1.6". He said the lost of lift wasn't as bad as the lost of valve speed, due to less ratio.
Here's a post about the rockers: https://www.fordfe.com/viewtopic.php?p=1112033#p1112033
12
FE Technical Forum / Re: Corn in the Comet
« on: May 30, 2025, 07:47:59 PM »
Heads Up for everyone.
AV fuel has deicing agents for the cold at higher altitudes, and can be an issue for our high compression, big buck motors.
AV motors are low compression, and run in the 3,500 to 3,800 rpm range.
[ :)quote author=Rory428 link=topic=12785.msg137240#msg137240 date=1748565072]
Curious how much he special carb, new fuel pump, and other mods cost? Compared to a couple of barrels of Sunoco or VP race gas. I sure wish race gas only cost $10. a gallon here in Canada. I usually get 2 seasons from a 55 gallon drum, usually used VP C12, my las barrel was Sunoco Supreme, as it was a bit cheaper than the VP (at "only $1550. for a 55 gallon barrel!) That worked out to $28. Canadian per US Gallon. I did a back to back to back test between the Sunoco Supreme, Sunoco Standard, and LL 110 "Av Gas", (my local dragstrip is a municipal airport between race weekends), and my Fairmont ran exactly the same with all 3 fuels on the same rack, on the same day. Guess I will be running the AV gas once I use up all the Sunoco. We don`t`have E85 readily available here, some guys do run Alcohol/Methanol, but that requires a new carb (or fuel injection), fuel pump, fuel lines, and draining the fuel system between race weekends, and lubricating the system . Does E85 require similar maintenance ? More work than I wan to deal with.
[/quote]
AV fuel has deicing agents for the cold at higher altitudes, and can be an issue for our high compression, big buck motors.
AV motors are low compression, and run in the 3,500 to 3,800 rpm range.
[ :)quote author=Rory428 link=topic=12785.msg137240#msg137240 date=1748565072]
Curious how much he special carb, new fuel pump, and other mods cost? Compared to a couple of barrels of Sunoco or VP race gas. I sure wish race gas only cost $10. a gallon here in Canada. I usually get 2 seasons from a 55 gallon drum, usually used VP C12, my las barrel was Sunoco Supreme, as it was a bit cheaper than the VP (at "only $1550. for a 55 gallon barrel!) That worked out to $28. Canadian per US Gallon. I did a back to back to back test between the Sunoco Supreme, Sunoco Standard, and LL 110 "Av Gas", (my local dragstrip is a municipal airport between race weekends), and my Fairmont ran exactly the same with all 3 fuels on the same rack, on the same day. Guess I will be running the AV gas once I use up all the Sunoco. We don`t`have E85 readily available here, some guys do run Alcohol/Methanol, but that requires a new carb (or fuel injection), fuel pump, fuel lines, and draining the fuel system between race weekends, and lubricating the system . Does E85 require similar maintenance ? More work than I wan to deal with.
[/quote]
13
FE Technical Forum / Re: Break-in Oil Question
« on: April 05, 2025, 04:59:13 AM »
The Brad Penn oils, such as the 10w-30, 20w-50 and even their SAE 70w and their other oils still have levels of the minerals such as phosprous & zinc, just not at the level of thier 30w break-oil. And their multi grade oils are a Semi-Synthetic Blend.
The full synthetic blend oils are thin and tend to have leak issues, from what I've seen. I, am happy with the Brad Penn oils. My water cooled motors I run their 20w-50 Semi-Synthetic Blend, and my air cooled motors I run their SAE 50w here in So California.
The full synthetic blend oils are thin and tend to have leak issues, from what I've seen. I, am happy with the Brad Penn oils. My water cooled motors I run their 20w-50 Semi-Synthetic Blend, and my air cooled motors I run their SAE 50w here in So California.
14
FE Technical Forum / Re: Edelbrock RPM intake
« on: March 02, 2025, 01:44:55 PM »Has anyone tested the Edelbrock RPM intake with a notch in the plenum divider like the Blue Thunder intake? Thanks Chuck.
Are you talking about the 1" to 1.250" little notch towards the back of the plenum divider on Blue Thunder Intake ? Which, there were some other aftermarket manifold companies also had cut them.
If so, the companies that did cut those notches, were so that the 3 Barrel Holley could be used on there manifolds.
15
FE Technical Forum / Re: My Tunnel Port Heads Build
« on: February 23, 2025, 08:55:05 PM »
I, got my heads back after reworking the exh. Originally I went with th SE exh port on the Tunnel Ports with the 1.675" valve, same as the FE Power Cylinder heads with the SE exh port with te 1.675" valve which were flowing around 260 cfm @ .800" lift with no porting.
The problem, the SE exh ports with the 1.675" valve on the TP heads didn't flow the same numbers as the FE Power Cylinder Heads with the SE exh port and the 1.675" valve. The chambers on the TP heads were stock, and so were not designed like the FE Power Cylinder Heads, which had modified chamber locations, relocated valve locations with shorter & longer port lengths.
I, was concerned with the exh, so I had them ported, so the SE port with the 1.675" valve and ported, didn't flow worth a crap.
I, had shrouding issues, I wanted a 4.250" bore chamber hence the shrouding issue. Ended up opening the Chamber to a 4.300" Bore to help relieve the shrouding issue a little.
Next, it was recommended to increase valve size to 1.750", to open the throat of the valve seat for better flow. It was also recommended to run a Tulip valve instead of the nail head design I was using. I believe the Tulip was a 25 degree angle, and the weight from the 1.675" valve to the 1.735" Tulip went from 106g to 118g. As you can see the 1.750" valve is now 1.735" and that was due to flow testing, which determined that the Valve Margins need to be increased to help flow, I measured the magin and it's at about .090", I don't know what it was before the valve was cut down from 1.750" to 1.735".
Flow 1 is with the port work and the 1.750" valves installed.
Flow 2 is with the valve margin increse 4.300" chamber bore
and chamber work around the exh valve, which picked up
mid range
TP Exh Flow Numbers
Lift.......Flow1.....Flow2
0.100......55..........58
0.200....107........119
0.300....157........181
0.400....189........208
0.500....210........229
0.600....230........240
0.700....242........244
0.800....247........247
The chamber bore increase to 4.300" may have help to relieve
the Int shrouding slightly and help with flow
My TP Heads Int Flow Numbers
.400 258.16
.500 308.48
.600 356.53
.700 390.40
.800 411.79
.900 425.16
The problem, the SE exh ports with the 1.675" valve on the TP heads didn't flow the same numbers as the FE Power Cylinder Heads with the SE exh port and the 1.675" valve. The chambers on the TP heads were stock, and so were not designed like the FE Power Cylinder Heads, which had modified chamber locations, relocated valve locations with shorter & longer port lengths.
I, was concerned with the exh, so I had them ported, so the SE port with the 1.675" valve and ported, didn't flow worth a crap.
I, had shrouding issues, I wanted a 4.250" bore chamber hence the shrouding issue. Ended up opening the Chamber to a 4.300" Bore to help relieve the shrouding issue a little.
Next, it was recommended to increase valve size to 1.750", to open the throat of the valve seat for better flow. It was also recommended to run a Tulip valve instead of the nail head design I was using. I believe the Tulip was a 25 degree angle, and the weight from the 1.675" valve to the 1.735" Tulip went from 106g to 118g. As you can see the 1.750" valve is now 1.735" and that was due to flow testing, which determined that the Valve Margins need to be increased to help flow, I measured the magin and it's at about .090", I don't know what it was before the valve was cut down from 1.750" to 1.735".
Flow 1 is with the port work and the 1.750" valves installed.
Flow 2 is with the valve margin increse 4.300" chamber bore
and chamber work around the exh valve, which picked up
mid range
TP Exh Flow Numbers
Lift.......Flow1.....Flow2
0.100......55..........58
0.200....107........119
0.300....157........181
0.400....189........208
0.500....210........229
0.600....230........240
0.700....242........244
0.800....247........247
The chamber bore increase to 4.300" may have help to relieve
the Int shrouding slightly and help with flow
My TP Heads Int Flow Numbers
.400 258.16
.500 308.48
.600 356.53
.700 390.40
.800 411.79
.900 425.16