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 - blykins

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 298
16
FE Technical Forum / Re: Will be offering a new product for FE's...
« on: November 19, 2022, 04:55:25 PM »
It's taking me forever to reply on here.  Every time I click, it takes about 30 seconds to do what I clicked.

Dumpling,

I have a big ZERO experience with flat plane cranks, but that's one of the reasons I do dyno mules....so I can learn some new stuff that may lead to legitimate performance upgrades.

Obviously, no one makes a flat plane crank for the FE.  I do a bit of business with Bryant, so I asked them if they had ever done one.  They said no.  So that led to the question of what it would cost to do one.  Since they had never done one and weren't sure of the programming costs, they shot me a price of $10k.  Ok.....

So I called Winberg and asked them if they had ever done a flat plane FE crank.  Nope.   But they said they would do one for considerably less money than Bryant (but still $$$$).  So I have one on order.   Lead time is 24 weeks (I ordered it quite a while ago though). 

I don't know what to expect.  Counterweights are much smaller, which means the crank will be lighter, which means it will accelerate quicker.  I'm using custom aluminum rods with Honda rod journals, so the rotating assembly is going to be *very* light. 

Since flat plane cranks can't use the same firing order as a cross plane crank, that led me to having to order a custom camshaft for the engine.  I'm not talking about a regular custom grind, I'm talking about a *custom* camshaft.  There are a couple of firing orders that I could use, but the one that made most sense to me is the one that Ferrari uses.....so I ordered it with that firing order.

Onward and upward...

17
FE Technical Forum / Will be offering a new product for FE's...
« on: November 19, 2022, 10:53:11 AM »
I'm going to be offering an enclosed cam tunnel "kit" for FE's.  Enclosed cam tunnels have been around for decades and the horsepower gains have been solidly established.  Others in the past have completed "A-B" tests and have seen a difference of about 3%.  A pretty substantial little bump, especially when engines are in the 600-700 hp range. 

If you're like me, I'm not artistically inclined.  I'm not good with metal shaping at all.   So, I'm having these made with the help and ingenuity of a fellow forum member:





The front segment has a Tig welded side to fit around the distributor cutout. 

The tools will come with the kit.  There will be 2 aluminum flanged pieces that fit inside of the cam bearing that will serve as a platform to hold the tunnel segments until the epoxy sets up.  This needs to be collapsible, so there will also be some milled plastic pieces that fit under the aluminum supports.   They can easily be broken down and fished through the cam bearings to remove them. 

Typically guys use JB Weld or Splash Zone epoxy to hold segments like these in place. 

The camshaft and lifters will run submerged in oil.   Instead of draining onto the rotating assembly, the oil will collect in the lifter valley.  This can be evacuated through several different methods, from draining out the front of the block, to being scavenged with a dry sump scavenge point in the lifter valley. 

This has been a long time coming.  If some of you remember, I started this several years ago, starting out with an enclosed tunnel made of bronze, where the bronze acted as the cam bearings themselves.  Finishing the ID became the hard part and since I had planned to market these the entire time, I knew that guys wouldn't want to try and seek out a shop who had a line hone mandrel that would fit.   On top of all of that, I was not 100% convinced that a bronze bearing would last like a conventional cam bearing.  In lieu of my 397ci Tunnel Port dyno mule, which has a $$$ custom billet flat plane crankshaft, aluminum rods, a billet core flat tappet camshaft, etc., I didn't feel like putting it all in jeopardy with a cam bearing material that hadn't been tested.  Sometimes simplicity wins, so this setup just uses a standard cam bearing set and a set of formed/welded sheet metal covers that afix to the block. 

Still looking at some cost analysis, but hope to be advertising these in the next week or so.  Stay tuned, more to come.

18
FE Technical Forum / Re: Cam Bearings
« on: November 16, 2022, 12:54:22 PM »
Top oilers/center oilers have grooves in the block behind the cam bearings.   Side oilers don't.   So, if you use an F24 bearing in a 352/390/428/427CO block, you'll just have two entry points of oil to the camshaft through the bearing. 

If you use an F33 bearing in a side oiler, you will need to oil through the pushrods, because the secondary holes in bearings 2 & 4 which oil the heads will not be there.

19
I have a deadbeat customer that has hung me out to dry on a brand new Bullet solid flat tappet camshaft. 

Specs are:  242/252 @ .050", 106 LSA, .593"/.598" gross lift.  I'll take $275 plus shipping for it. 

Also have a new set of Manley titanium exhaust valves, 1.625" head diameter, 11/32" stem, 5.460" OAL.  Brand new in packaging.  $350.

20
FE Technical Forum / Re: RPM copy from China information
« on: November 04, 2022, 09:39:14 AM »
As for me I'd rather spend my two extra hundo employing people working here.

And to support guys who are not just blindingly copying products in order to make a sale, but to support guys who have knowledge and interest in the hobby. 

I'm working on an aftermarket FE block and the main caps are numbered/scribed backwards...i.e. front cap was #5, rear cap was #1.  Not a big deal in any way, but you can tell the guys who were working on it were not familiar with basic engine building principles/nomenclature.

21
Non-FE Discussion Forum / Re: Real Ford Y Block 4V makes 613 hp NA
« on: November 04, 2022, 05:21:01 AM »
Good job, Joe.  Little engine runs hard.

Glad you're getting to do some playing now.

22
FE Technical Forum / Re: RPM copy from China information
« on: November 04, 2022, 05:19:04 AM »
Update:  I started tweaking the intake this afternoon to see how it will respond, and found a couple of places inside the runners that were porous, but not enough to leak air or fuel.  Still overall it is looking promising as a decent manifold for street usage.  There is not a heat crossover passage in the manifold.  Joe-JDC

That will be where the issues will lie.  They can copy port and runner shapes and maybe even hire someone to make "improvements" but their casting processes will always be suspect.   That one may not leak, but the next one may.

23
Any weigh the difference of weight between the different valves, larger stems to smaller ??

................

"Posted by: blykins
« on: September 26, 2022, 04:35:39 AM »Insert Quote
We do.

Doing a Tunnel Port with 5/16" valves right now.

I also do quite a few builds with 7mm stuff.

There's not a tremendous amount of flow difference with the small stem stuff, but on a build with longer, heavier valves (like Jay's heads), or a high rpm engine, the weight savings helps quite a bit.
...............

Brent, what about a street FE that does an occasional blast ....can ya correlate valve weight, cam specs/rpm to spring pressure ??



Ricky.

Absolutely. 

This is why guys were hitting 5500 rpm walls with hydraulic rollers 15 years ago.   They were porting heads, using 3/8" stem valves that were now 2.150"/2.190"/2.250", and using the same cam lobes that the SBF/SBC guys were using.  "My FE won't rev over 5500!  Hydraulic rollers are junk!"  Then they would add spring pressure to try and make it work, then overcome the hydraulic function inside the lifter and make things worse.  FE's have some of the heaviest valves out there, including the BBC.  The length, coupled with a thick stem, coupled with a big head diameter is just a big no-no. 

Any time you can reduce valvetrain weight, you are doing yourself a big favor.  You can use a more aggressive cam lobe and you can do it with lower spring loads.   Ten years ago, Cup guys were using 6mm-7mm hollow stem titanium valves with non-adjustable rocker arms on solid roller camshafts.  They were turning 9800 rpm with just 400-450 lbs over the nose.   Not saying everyone needs to run 6 and 7mm titanium valves, but the relativity is there. 

24
FE Technical Forum / Re: DSS Pistons?
« on: October 28, 2022, 05:17:55 AM »
Not putting down smaller rings.. but for a street build what are yall seeing ??

Do the smaller rings wear the block less ??


Ricky.

Less friction, more horsepower.  It's evident when you knock a piston/rod assembly down in the cylinder, so much less effort.   On my big bore FE's, I'm seeing 8 lb-ft of torque to roll the rotating assembly over (all the pistons/rings, cam, etc.) with a metric ring pack. 

There are no downsides to the thinner rings, even for a low-effort street build.

25
FE Technical Forum / Re: DSS Pistons?
« on: October 27, 2022, 07:06:44 PM »
A side note:

1/16" rings are 0.0625" thick,  1.50mm are 0.059055" thick - a huge difference of 0.0034"

I do like the 1.2 or 1.0mm rings - if available, but nothing wrong with 1/16" ring in a daily driver.

It’s not just the top or 2nd ring, a 3/16” oil ring pack thickness is huge compared to the 3mm ring pack.  It also sheds a lot of weight.

26
FE Technical Forum / Re: DSS Pistons?
« on: October 27, 2022, 12:43:40 PM »
A 4032 is generally best for a naturally aspirated street engine because the piston/cylinder clearances are tighter at around .003-.0035". 

The DSS stuff uses what is now getting to be an antiquated piston ring size.   You really don't see 1/16" rings anymore as most aftermarket stuff (even for FE) has gone to at least 1.5/1.5/3mm if not 1mm/1mm/2mm. 

I would personally look at a Racetec piston.  If you go through one of us on here that deals direct with them, the pricing will be favorable and we can even do custom bore sizes so that you don't have to bore a block to the next size up.  If you just have shadows in a cylinder wall, cylinders aren't perfectly round anymore, etc., then something like that will usually clean up in about .005" instead of going to a .030" over, .040", etc.

27
Yes, it will all boil down to what the heads are and how well they work.   For instance, a TFS head on a 390 will make about 540 hp @ 6000-6200 with a hydraulic roller.  I have also made 540 hp with a 390 and ported CJ heads with a hydraulic roller, at 7000 rpm. 

The solid roller lifters require more spring pressure because of lash.  It takes more spring load to keep things from bouncing around uncontrolled.  It also will depend where on the lobe the actual lifter contact takes place as it may accelerate the lifter and that also requires more spring load.

It would be hard to not want to use solid roller lifters if you already have them.   It would save you money.  However, if I were planning to use solid roller lifters, I'd stick them on a solid roller camshaft with moderate lobe aggression.   Comp Cams also has a few lines of hybrid lifters that aren't visible in the lobe catalogs.  They kind of bridge the lines between hydraulic and solid.  I've used them with both style lifters successfully.  If you could sell them and buy a quality set of hydraulic roller lifters, you could hit your horsepower and rpm goals and not have to worry about the lifters down the road.







28
Sure, but that was because the correct components were not used to begin with, or the correct measures were not taken with the components that were used.  Even something as simple as excessive lifter bore clearance can cause issues.

Again, it all boils down to what valvetrain components are being used and what the rpm/horsepower goals are, which have not been discussed yet.


29
A HR camshaft designed for an FE would have very gentle lobes (lower acceleration rates).
I agree people choose HR cams that are too aggressive for use in an FE.
One can either choose a gentle lobe cam and run the hydro roller lifters, or for better performance with
the more aggressive HR cam, run a solid roller lifter.
Even the more aggressive HR cams are nowhere near the aggressiveness of most SR profiles.
Coupled with tight lash (~0.006") the lifter lifetime is increased substantially.
I would trade lifter lifetime for higher power output using a slightly more aggressive profile.
I have discussed a mild SR with Jones Cams - that is not off the table yet.

(I also have a "free" set of Crower SR lifters from my 385 build inventory)

I don't think I'd call them all "very gentle" because it depends on the valvetrain.  I have some pretty aggressive hydraulic rollers for FE's that do just fine because of the valvetrain part selection.  They are not the "all-out" hydraulic roller lobes that are used for small block stuff though. If you're stuck with a 3/8" stem valve, then yes, you would need to be more on the "gentle" side than aggressive.  If you're running 11/32" stem valves, or even smaller, then you can get away with quite a bit, and I would favor the hydraulic roller lobes that I use over a "mild" solid roller lobe.  Unless you're planning something over 7000 rpm, I don't think the difference in power would be enough that it would make much difference.  Remember, you lose duration to lash. 

30
Non-FE Discussion Forum / Re: Ford 302 Tunnel Port
« on: October 22, 2022, 05:22:34 AM »
We will see what the race TP heads I have will do with a more radical combination.

I think a lot of guys are getting the street heads confused with the race heads.  They are completely different, even the valve sizes and combustion chamber designs are 180 from each other.  These are the street heads, with little 1.950"/1.500" valves. 

The heads like rpm, that's a given.   But I think the story is that the bottom ends wouldn't hold the kind of rpm that was necessary to get the most out of the heads.  Who knows.

The heads measured about 185cc in the intake port volume.   I think if you were to jam a 185cc AFR head down on a 302 you would probably get a little soggy bottom end too.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 298