Fuel distribution IS an issue with direct port injection, just as it is with carbs, because of reversion, resonance, and boundary layer effects on the fuel in suspension in the airflow. Below is datalog of the same 588" 385 motor I mentioned in an earlier post. The datalog is from an engine dyno pull where we used eight AFR sensors mounted in the primary tubes of the dyno headers.

The tested RPM range is from 4500 - 7500 although the graph covers roughly 3500 to almost 8000. Look at Cylinder #2, the Red line in the bottom graph. During a WOT pull it goes as low as 10.7:1 AFR, and then 2 seconds later it's running at 13.5:1. The mid line is 12.5 AFR.

Cylinder numbering:
Top Graph: (Yellow=1, Blue=3, Purple=5, Green=7)
Bottom Graph: (Red=2, White=4, Blue=6, Yellow=8)

You'll see the traces for each cylinder move around quite a bit but variation narrows at around 5500 rpm through 7500 which is the target WOT operating RPM.

You can see a video of the setup here: http://www.bangshift.com/blog/Dyno-Video-A-598ci-1014hp-Ford-Big-Block.html

Jay, looking at this differently for a moment, what are the differences, parts, assembly, cam etc. between this version of the engine which shows that appearant piston to valve interference problem and the last version(s) that didn't form priro Drag Weeks etc.?

Given the way the valve intersects the bore and the piston face I'm wondering about those particular valves hanging up on the compression stroke bleeding power, and causing the piston to knock it closed otherwise its hard to understand how the witness mark can be so far from the scribed valve diameter.

You can obviously expand the radial size of the valve relief but you haven't actually discovered the source of the interference.

Also, what is that black curled up substance we see in the pictures? Carbon, or blackened valve material?

Jay, hopefully the T&D deal works out on the pushrod hole location. The other factor that might help is going to a lrger diameter lifiter, a .904 or .932 with an offset push rod cup would give even more room.

I am really pleased with how the .904's worked on the 588" build.

As to manifold, XR7's idea about a dry manifold, e.g. the wet parts are separate along with a vally tray would really simplify a lot of other considerations and allow you to experiment wi the dry side only in terms of runner length, plenum configuartion, carb or TB or IR etc. You might want to add a bolt hole or two in the head to make the attachment process easier and cleaner or look at bringin water into the head from the front like the C460 and other 385 style heads.

I know all this moves away hrom certain FE centric design ideas but you are pushng the evelope anyway and most of these parts are after market custome stuff as well instead of NOS unobtainium so why not?

Keep up the great work its inspiring for me too.

Jay, not surprisingly I too have followed this closely and was surprised that you didn't know about the start up timing retard function. I did the same when I switched from an MSD Digital six box that had that same feature and we replicated it in the EMS-pro's software setting.

When we were chasing my signal problem during day one of the 588's engine dyno session, we had tested the sensor using our EDIS Dyno, (the wheel mounted on a bench grinder as I don't have a lathe at home) a got the same solid square wave once the connection was fixed.

Back when the sensor input was more fussy (pre-Jay Brown mod) I'd found that the air gap was really sensitive with the LS-1 sensor (Scott tells me that you determined its electrically the same as the Hamlin) and we settled on .029.

Other notes, my shielded sensor cable bundle's ground is drained at the mount on the engine rthater than the common gorund point.

We haven't checked for the wheel becoming magnatized either. BTW we learned that Ford sells a superseeded part number version of the used  Turbo four cylinder EDIS wheels we've been sourcing on eBay for these conversions. Cheaper and better availability. The one I have in the car is a new one Ford Part Number F2lz-12a227-BB, the one i used before was eBay F2LE-12A227-BC.

I'm going to work on a document regarding these kinds of installs as we've all chased a similar set of problems and have worked through a lot of the same issues. Having this better documented would make life better for Scott I think.

I don't think the oil pan is the issue, certainly not at this level of difference. As to the water pressure or not, Drag Week cars are street cars first race cars second as they have to live through a 1000 plus miles of highways, backroads, freeway, in town traffic and then make a few passes at each track and then pack up and do it again. A proprtly functioning cooling system is table stakes and that means running a pressurized system to keep down hot spots that become detonation points and ensuring the engines ring seal and associated components stay in top shape through the drives.

It also means ease of service which makes running coolants like the Evan's stuff cost prohibitive and complex if you have to pull the motor down during the event on the side of the road. The more stuff that can be easily replicated, replaced or repaired the better.

Jay, I'd give a X2 on the dry sump, or even an external wet sump/vacuum like the Peterson set-up I run. My pan is a fornt sump "T" style Canton road race pan with a windage scren I added, but in the bck the screen practically lays on the pan bottom, not ideal but it clears the steering linkage and the brace that crosses over form the lower control arm mounts.

The big benefit is no distributor oil pump drive issues, full scraper and screen, but less plumbing.

I think you've done incredible work to date and we look forward to seeing the new car. I think you'll be more than competive even with the 510. I'm glad I won't be in Modified N/A.