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.


Messages - billballinger

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
The only fly in the ointment is the turn, I think I would aid the angle by rounding it to fit a 351C intake but maybe round the entry to match the turn in the heads.  The front 4 angle forward and the back four angle baclk.  It would take a little modeling and testing, but a bias turn in the intake like your sheelt metal intake was a work of art in that it ket everything a straight shot.  The entries would have to turn slighly around for the port angles to match.  I would think the turn would start immediately at the intake attachment to allow a smooth transition to th already short port and short side.

JMO.  But I have been screaming for this for years, you could service roller lifters, use a mirror to watch pushrod sweep and contact areas.  I also like the fact that it is a dry top, you can have a 1X4 for the street and a 2X4 for the strip, or have an EFI top with injectors, rails, throttle body and a plug in for a Fast setup.  The possibilities are 20th to 22nd century !

Your handmade sheet metal intake for the BT HRs is a work of art!

2
FE Technical Forum / Re: "Rebuilt" 390 1966 F100
« on: March 05, 2013, 02:51:55 AM »
I would grind the 428 crank and leave everything else as it is.  I don't know what cam you have, but just pull the engine and use your cam and lifters unless the break in went bad, you will see because there will be metal shavings all over.If it did go bad put another very close to a stock '69 390 2V car cam , (Ken Heard  can whip you one up and get you some properly reconditioned older lifters, the old stuff is better than the new, they are junk, the old ones are better metal, I recommend Ken at Oregon Cams for his knowledge of the FE and he won't sell you anything you don't need) he has very good regrinds on the shelf and good lifters already broke in, but I believe he can break them in for you)  pull the pistons and rods keeping everything in order including where the top ring gap was with a sharpie.  Change your bearings if needed, if they are the same size leave them in there, clean , clean , and clean, did I say clean? The crank and bearings cannot be clean enough and swap the crank in, Be sure to center the thrust bearing of course as you are torquing it according to the Ford Shop Manual.  Put in a new rear main seal also, ask around here for the best practice on that you can plug your oil return if you are not careful, go easy with the silicone. Put your rods and pistons back in exactly as they were, including the ring gaps, some rotate, but the top and 2nd ring gap should be 180 degrees apart, and if they rotate, they should rotate pretty much together replace your oil pump gasket, and if you feel comfortable reuse the pump and the rod, if not replace it. A bad cam break in needs a new pump.  Reseal the pan and put it back in the truck.  Even if you have a stock cam and intake, 416 ci is always good.   It will be a gorilla pulling with the small cam.  If you can still see hone marks, and it is within specs for taper put it back together without boring or honing as long as it wasn't using oil, which if it really is rebuilt it should be fine in that regard.  Have the valves ground and put in hardened exhaust seats in a set of C8AE-Hs, they are the best truck head around among stock ones and get a set of truck headers made for the late head.  Also, put Viton valve seals on the intakes andumbrellas on the exhaust. It might use a little oil between changes, but it cools the valves and guides, this is very important on the exhaust. Put an 1850 Holley on or just keep the Edelbrock and get the distributor curved to  where you can get about 12 initial and 36 total with the vacuum advance plugged. Use a ported vacuum advance an adjustable one that has an allen screw in the cannister and adjust it until you have no ping flooring it at low rpm or climbing a hill. Wait until its broke in to do this. . Have a buddy with a 410 loan you his flywheel and have your flywheel balanced to the external balance of a 410-428.  This is important, the 410-428s are balanced with the flywheel or flexplate.  Forget internal balance, it is a waste of money in this situation.  If the engine was jumping around before , get the numbers off of your flywheel and post them here, you might already have a 410 flywheel.  Check the firing order closely.   This sounds like a perfect match for your application, and you'll love it.

Keep the  Performer.  If you have a stock cam your powerband it will top out at 4500-4800 and will live forever, and in a truck will have power like a 450 inch six cylinder, or a 7.3 Diesel. If it is a daily driver, you would very surprised at how well you will like this setup, and the MPG, towing capacity will surprise you.  I don't know what you have, but it would make for a very economical use of a truck engine.  Trust me the low and lower mid range will knock your socks off, and at about 5000 shifting, it will feel much stronger than you could imagine it would do.

3
FE Technical Forum / Re: "Rebuilt" 390 1966 F100
« on: March 05, 2013, 02:29:12 AM »
Make it a 410-416!









4
I would use the T&T and the LM on both banks  to dial the engine in to the highest MPH you can do on the track.  Then work on the suspension, tire pressure, slick compound, and mental focus on off the line ritual to shorten your 60 ft times, when you have that where you know from experience you are within the range check that you are still on the mph and you LM shows no fat spots. Try a degree of timing up and down, and see if your 60' improves while staying on the MPH and vice versa.  You can log these for the weather, and basic off the trailer starting points.  Most places you find a lot more, within a small range that you can't dial it.  Also try T&T in the heat, and as the sun goes down and when its cool as it is in the later rounds.  You can make your changes as you run rounds if you know the track gets slick as it cools, pull a degree of timing out to knock off some torque and adjust your dial accordingly. 

I used to do that without the LM, but if it had been around back then I would have snapshotted my data stream for various conditions, and folks would have swore i was a Morman walking around with a Bible of about every combination I could collect. 

Your best tuning tool? Ritualistic discipline driving the car, and keep your changes to small adjust able things on the car, and keeping a log with every condition that you can.  It is almost infinite, but you would be surprised at how few setups there are that will cover ranges of conditions, and slight changes on your dial  can do the rest.  But you don't know if you don't baseline it and keep track of what to do as the rounds go by.   Remember, you are racing yourself, what you do gives you predictable results, and you won't get spooked when a guy goes by and has to pedal it at the end.  You will 9.5 times out of 10 hit your dial and that is all that counts.       

5
worth 1,000 words and in this case may even be more. I have problems comprehending what you did to those stock ports:

??????
"I have to admit that i did do a little welding in the floor and on the short side, and on the exhaust laid a bead along the dead spot coming out of the valve.  By the time I smoothed it out, it had velocity and cross-section recommended  by flat tracker Shell Thuet, Yamaha's skunk-works guru for flat track Yamahas that Kenny Roberts won with.  The FE port as it is on the early head had that escalator in the intake floor, and a short side that acted like a dam.  The velocity was barely there, but the cross section was pretty good.  I just filled in that floor and then took the roof up even with what I had taken away on the floor.  Is ay I welded, but it was a guy about to retire who was a master welder in cast iron, heated it and welded it.  But they don't at first glace appear to be much different than an early head.  I just used the Shell Thuet , and the Norton, BSA, flat track shaped and adapted them to the cubic inches.  On the exhuaust, He filled the dead air to make it a more efficient "flue" like on a wood stove, the draft as soon as the valve opened was pulling hard. "

Well, if you look at Barry's new head, that is about close a similarity as i can say without saying too much mainly what I did was turn the intake floors and the short side radius into a gentle spillway, instead of turbulent rapids right at the bowl and then did everything necessary to have the least turbulence with the most flpw volume to fall in and follow the course with out too much speed that it breaks up.  If I had the money I woiuld just buy Barry's new heads, they are very well scienced and have advantages that took considerable welding on my C4's.  On the roofs, they had to contour to make the mixture cross over without breaking up and maximixe what could go straight without jamming the bore wall.  There is little to be gained out there.  You want to hit the piston pin straight so the flame front gives as big a whack as possible.

That was about it, i can't really draw a word picture, and I dont have any oictures. But I'd just buy Barry;s new heads, they are like an LS3 for the FE, and quite like everything I have learned optimizing  ports.  Mine are optimized for 394 ci, with the flow concentrated between .050-.550, they don't stall at .600, but they gain in the single digits, and stay quiet.  Like I said no big bragging numbers, but average  for my  ci and cam is well matched.   I like Barry's, because they have room to grow tp big inch engines without turbulence short of a Blair Patrick Pro port.   And, if the planets are aligned right at 445 they may be equal in the range of a street/ strip.  But I learned most of my stuff from Motorcycles and applied it to stock car engines.  The stock FE with some welding is a fine port. Kids don't know how good they have these days.:-)  Edelbrocks are good, but Barrys heads are a radical 21st century departure from them.  They are more LS/ Cleveland as you can do short of splayed valves.  For ports that all flow the wrong fore and aft angle they are damn good.       Keep in mind that FElony heads have 2.2 valves and mine are 2.03 the average flow is the same if you proprortion the bigger valves down, and is right in line with a 394 vs a 445.  If I had his heads my 394 might need a little more stroke :-), but if you look at the cutaways and pictures, my son who just regasketed the the heads said they are very close on the ports.  Makes me want to try some bigger valves:-)   But it is together and i am very satisfied in how it runs. 

6
FE Technical Forum / Re: Had chance to dyno my 390 again
« on: February 14, 2013, 10:48:27 PM »
That thing runs hard.... I had/have a very similar combo dynoed and posted on here ... made almost exactly the same torque and horsepower at roughly the same rpm... Big difference with mine is the cam duration and lobe separation... what ICL did you use Bill? If you remember from all those years ago lol.

Yours is no slouch at all.  I have to admit that i did do a little welding in the floor and on the short side, and on the exhaust laid a bead along the dead spot coming out of the valve.  By the time I smoothed it out, it had velocity and cross-section recommended  by flat tracker Shell Thuet, Yamaha's skunk-works guru for flat track Yamahas that Kenny Roberts won with.  The FE port as it is on the early head had that escalator in the intake floor, and a short side that acted like a dam.  The velocity was barely there, but the cross section was pretty good.  I just filled in that floor and then took the roof up even with what I had taken away on the floor.  Is ay I welded, but it was a guy about to retire who was a master welder in cast iron, heated it and welded it.  But they don't at first glace appear to be much different than an early head.  I just used the Shell Thuet , and the Norton, BSA, flat track shaped and adapted them to the cubic inches.  On the exhuaust, He filled the dead air to make it a more efficient "flue" like on a wood stove, the draft as soon as the valve opened was pulling hard. 

Thats about it really,  The machinist was left with a good short side for his valve job, and I got the flow from .050.-.550 average up with 2.03/1.56 valves to what even ported 2.09/1.65s were doing.  They laid off at .600, but that was right for what i was building.  I miss that.  Days I'll never see again.   

7
FE Technical Forum / Re: Had chance to dyno my 390 again
« on: February 14, 2013, 02:48:16 PM »
I measured it it .010 because I planned to run my lash at .019, got a bunch of new SP rockers and measured them to make sure I had 16 at 1.76. The duration came out just at 230° @.050. It was an older Magnum series and it had 141° at .200 lift, 110°LSA and 106 ICL.  It is a 270S solid, and with the head work I had done and Mario428's Holley SD it was like all of planets aligned. :-)

I have always believed in the combination.  I filed the top rings at .022 and the 2nds at .019.  That's about all I remember, what was your cam?

8
FE Technical Forum / Had chance to dyno my 390 again
« on: February 13, 2013, 06:08:15 AM »
My son pulled the 394 out of my truck to go in the Galaxie.  He left for a day and would tell me where he went.  I found out when he came home.

He borrowed a 750 3310 from the guy, but took my Crites 2" headers over and they dynoed it.  It has C4AE-Gs I ported that cam out with a higher average from .050-.0550, than a CJ, which I attribute to the excellent valve job based on 45° but had some fairly uncommon angles with it and I worked the short side to the middle. Its a 1999 270S, which had 141° degrees duration at .200 like the other Magnums with lash at .019, My flow numbers were very fat from .200-.550,  but were not bragging numbers above that Mario428's Holley SD with a 1" spacer, he is a genius because they matched my heads like a dream. The heads had 2.03/1.56 valves but I had done a lot of rubbing on the heads and they were very quiet on the bench. It was at 37° of timing. 

He didn't keep the sheet because I can't read it any way, but it made 438-443 hp from 5600-6200, and 448-454 lbs ft from 3700-4000, the numbers just got there and lofted.  with the open Crites.  It has been 13 years since I built it, and it pulled the same numbers.  I have decided that 4.30's for gears and the C6.  Many people have come up with lower numbers on 390's. but mine I guess is just an anomaly.  He would not tell me who dynoed it, but the guy was scratching his head and swore it was a 428.  He said it pulled like a little monster for what it is from 1800-6200.   Something that is ironic is that Tommy-T has given me a 3310 with a secondary metering block conversion to run on it.  Good bye Edelbrock, I worked really hard on an 800 AVS converting it to an AFB and tuning it.  I don't know what it dynoed, but I expect my 3310 to be quite similar to my latest results.

I feel good putting that motor in now, These were the same number it pulled in 1999!  I want a hotter roller-cam engine with 500+ hp, but this one should be fun!  It is a combination that came together I guess, I put a lot of detail into everything. And the machine work was done with torque plates, and very precise.   So, it should make for a good cruiser!

9
FE Technical Forum / Re: Edelbrock 427 Heads on a 390 block
« on: March 22, 2012, 10:54:55 AM »
I don't believe they went with the MR spacing, they should be the same. A 2.19 has plenty of room, but I know on a C4AE-G, a 2.19 valve causes a very noisy and turbulent port.   I measured .220 space to a std 4.05 bore on the intake side, but the exhaust is tight, .060.  You might consider a small bore relief over there.  Anyway, my guy has the turbulence and noise on my C4AE's with 2.19's and will be working on them soon.  Just a heads up, you may want to have flowed to make sure they are not turbulent or noisy on your bore size. I would imagine BarryR's 2.2's StageX heads have the right work done.

 

10
FE Technical Forum / Re: My new FE powered car!
« on: October 21, 2011, 06:54:21 AM »
Beautiful!.  I have always wanted a '58 Fairlane 2dr Custom, no frills, just a 352 Auto.  In high school I put a 3X2 setup on one for a guy and changed to a 390 PI solid cam and headers.  He wanted a top loader of course, so there was a little surgery involved. This was in the mid-70's, and he gave a lot of newer cars grief.  It sounded so good.  6V open and those dual Thrush cans, it was downright beastly.  He kept the dog dishes and colored wheels too.   

11
FE Technical Forum / Re: Morel hydraulic Roller lifter
« on: August 09, 2011, 10:02:29 PM »
Bill
I think I am just going to order a set of 8.35 bottom of cup measured pushrods and send them to you to test fit.  Keep them if they work, return them if they don't.  No money involved.  I know I can eventually use them if they don't fit - and they'll tell you whether that size is correct or not.


That would be a huge help, but if they fit I will have the Smiths cut down and roll on.  I appreciate it! You could just send one or a pair.  It doesn't look like anything is going to go off as planned anyway as far as the work.  Thanks!

Hey Barry did you get my e-mail.  I am kind of in a bind with my push rods.  Can you call me at (573)431-0040 or shoot me an e-mail.  I think I have a fairly clear picture. 

Thanks.

12
Non-FE Discussion Forum / Re: New/Old guy
« on: August 05, 2011, 08:59:42 AM »
Bill, you don't know me but I've sure read a lot of your posts "over there" and it's good to see you here. Thanks for joining us.

Lou Manglass

Thank you Lou.  I will enjoy reading your posts also.  I am catching up on my correspondence, or I would have thanked you all sooner. 

13
Non-FE Discussion Forum / Re: New/Old guy
« on: August 05, 2011, 08:57:54 AM »
Welcome Bill!  Glad to see you here.  :D

You are a gentleman and a scholar, great company makes for great discussion.

14
Non-FE Discussion Forum / Re: New/Old guy
« on: August 05, 2011, 08:56:56 AM »
Hey Bill,

Good to see you're still kickin'.....over here at least! Glad to see your post.

Thanks.  I still look in over on the old forum, but there are folks who just don't understand what we founded that forum for.  It was kind of like a pub.  I miss that.  It is more like a biker bar now, and hate having to carry a gun just to talk about cars.

Backatcha! :)

15
Our 2011 Mustang V6 is only 227 ci, makes 305 hp at 6500 rpms, and 285 lbs ft at 4250, N/A and still gets 30 mpg per tank on my wife's commute. I believe that the barriers between power , efficiency, and emissions are not mutually exclusive.  A V8 of 250 ci could easily do the same thing and and probably make 350 hp with the same degree of aplomb without forced induction.  The 6R80 is a combination Simpson/Ravigneaux transmission that is highly efficient, and the fuel and timing systems are becoming so sophisticated that they can achieve power and mileage combinations that only Ray Bradbury could have dreamed of in the 1950's.

I don't believe that the need for performance will ever die.   

Pages: [1] 2 3