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 5 ... 298
Will use a hydro roller grind with solid roller lifters.

I see guys doing that, but what it means is that the camshaft was not designed correctly in the first place. 

If a hydraulic roller cam can't be used with a hydraulic lifter, then it means that the lobe was too aggressive, the valvetrain was too heavy, or a combination of both.  FE's have some of the heaviest valvetrains of any engine family and it takes a certain combination of parts to get them to work easily.  When you get the right combination of cam lobes, lifters, spring loads, etc., then it's very easy to hit 7000-7500 rpm with them. 

If the goal is to use a very aggressive lobe to make more power, then by all means do it, but why not just use a lobe that's specifically designed for a solid roller application?  There's a risk involved with running solid roller lifters on the street.  If that risk is going to be taken on a 5500-6000 rpm engine, then I don't see the need in specifying a "hydraulic roller" camshaft.   A hydraulic roller lobe with a solid roller lifter will still need a lot more spring load than it would have required with a hydraulic roller lifter and unless it's a "hybrid" lobe, the lash requirements will be much different as well, usually much tighter (.005-.006").

Both of my porters have retired.   I'm looking for another. 

But FWIW, these heads out of the box will support 670 hp out of a 449ci engine with a .700" lift cam.   On a typical street 445, they will make 550 hp and 590 lb-ft with just a 231° intake lobe on a hydraulic roller, and make 15" of vacuum.

I know we made a big deal at the beginning when we first started using them about the flow backing up at .625-.650", but to be honest, I'm not really sure it puts a dent in anything. 

It depends on what the rest of the parts consist of, whether it's a cast or steel crank, etc.   Obviously, heavy pistons and rods would put you in a worse spot than the opposite, and there's a big difference in piston/rod weights out there.  A Mahle piston and a Molnar rod on a 4.250" cast crank would put you in a really nice spot...

Bearing clearances are not checked on the stroker kit assemblies. 

Non-FE Discussion Forum / Re: Ford 302 Tunnel Port
« on: October 21, 2022, 04:13:41 PM »
Spun this one up today.

386 hp @ 6600, 355 lb-ft of torque to back it up. 

Intake lobe is just 221° @ .050" and I feel that this little engine didn't do too bad for such a mild combination. 

You can internally balance it, but it will require a good bit of heavy metal.

Non-FE Discussion Forum / Re: 460 Stroker Camshaft Question
« on: October 16, 2022, 09:13:28 AM »
Will it work?  Sure.  You could throw almost anything in there and it would work.  Will it be optimal?  No. 

Your heads will flow about 360 cfm at peak lift, but that peak lift is pretty far away from the lift on your cam.  At your lift, the heads will flow about 300 cfm.  So you have a pretty small cylinder head feeding a large engine.  It will be fairly short winded. 

Three things control where a camshaft will put the peak hp rpm:  1.  The displacement  2.  How well the cylinder heads work.  3.  If you have enough duration split for the engine to get the exhaust out efficiently.   

You say the cam did well in a 466, now you're adding about 70 cubic inches.  That will "dumb down" the cam by quite a bit.   Your heads work well, but they only do real well at .700-.800" lift.   In addition, the intake/exhaust duration ratio is pretty low, which usually necessitates a fairly large duration split.   FWIW, on the 520-530 ci BBF's that I do, most of them have 400 cfm heads at lift and it takes mid 240's on a hydraulic camshaft to get them to peak at around 5500-6000 rpm.   You're already losing effective duration because it's a solid cam. 

That's why I'm saying that it will work, but it's not optimal. 

FE Technical Forum / Re: Knock off Performer RPM
« on: October 15, 2022, 01:32:38 PM »
There's a lot of stuff made of unobtanium these days.   I don't know what's going to happen with the industry. 

FE Technical Forum / Re: Knock off Performer RPM
« on: October 15, 2022, 12:57:32 PM »
The Chinese "copy" is a better casting than the one they copied.

Have you seen a set in person?  I have. 

ProMaxx wanted my cylinder head business, so they sent me a set of FE heads and a set of SBF heads to check out.  I looked at them and then shipped them back.  It's the principle of something being directly copied in order to sell them cheaply....i.e. ProMaxx, ProComp, Speedmaster, etc.  ProComp/Speedmaster did that with MSD, CHI, you name it, and all of their stuff is junk. 

As Joe said, CNC/hand-ported Edelbrocks have been going to 360-380 cfm for years.  Nothing special about a 345cfm FE head with a 2.190" valve.  A Trick Flow head is pretty much there, but with a much smaller port.

FE Technical Forum / Re: Knock off Performer RPM
« on: October 15, 2022, 10:18:34 AM »
ProMaxx originated from a guy named Stevens.  It's a Chinese copy of an Edelbrock.

Shoot me an email and we can discuss it.

Vendor Classifieds / I have 15 pair of Trick Flow heads available.....
« on: October 12, 2022, 07:09:06 AM »
Get them while they're hot.  $2480 a pair for the 1.550" hydraulic roller spring.  Plus shipping and taxes where applicable. 

Non-FE Discussion Forum / Re: Ford 302 Tunnel Port
« on: October 09, 2022, 05:28:43 AM »
I'm doing another one for the same guy.  It's for his road race car.   I have a World Products block here for it, Bryant crankshaft, Dyers rods, etc.  It will get a custom sheet metal intake, along with a dry sump system, etc. 

Non-FE Discussion Forum / Re: Ford 302 Tunnel Port
« on: October 08, 2022, 04:16:34 AM »

Non-FE Discussion Forum / Ford 302 Tunnel Port
« on: October 07, 2022, 07:34:51 PM »
Just finished this one today, gonna dyno it on the 21st.  Just an exotic little Ford. 

This one was built using a factory Boss 302 block, Eagle crank, Scat rods, custom Racetec pistons, and one of my custom hydraulic rollers.  10:1 compression, fairly mild camshaft, pair of 600's done by Drew P, factory distributor done by Jim Woods.  Intake was vapor blasted by Bobby Crumpley.

FE Technical Forum / Re: Trick Flow heads....
« on: October 06, 2022, 05:01:01 PM »
I've done more builds with the TFS heads than I can remember at this point. 

What it boils down to is which rocker arm system you use.  The Harland Sharp complete adjustable rocker system seems to bolt on without any issue.  Most other rockers I've used will require some stand work. 

These are fairly new with Precision Oil Pumps.  Just call them and have him send you a set. 

I've also arranged with POP to offer 1/4" longer stand studs for TFS heads.  They have a 1/4" longer base thread, for more thread engagement for extra spring loads.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 298