Author Topic: Killer Blair Patrick FE Dyno Results  (Read 4323 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2388
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Killer Blair Patrick FE Dyno Results
« on: December 03, 2011, 01:09:53 AM »
I've been talking to Blair lately about my high riser build, and he forwarded me some results from dyno tests on a couple of his recent builds so that I could post them up here.  The first one is a real overachiever in my book, with 511 cubic inches, Blair's Pro-Port heads, 13.6:1 CR, 270@.050 roller cam, and a tunnel wedge intake with two 660 Holleys.  The tunnel wedge on this one was a normal MR tunnel wedge.  Here's the dyno sheet:



Holy buckets, 854 HP at only 6400 RPM!  And 700+ lb-ft from 4300 to 6400!  Even Blair was pretty surprised by that one.

The next engine is a 520 cubic inch engine that is a little milder, but uses the same cam, 11:1 compression, Blair's heads that flowed about 10 cfm better than the heads on the previous engine, another tunnel wedge intake and 800 cfm carbs.  The tunnel wedge on this one was a high riser version, and this version has a higher internal volume than the MR tunnel wedge.   Blair felt that this resulted in the increase in peak HP rpm to 6700. It used spacer plates and some machining operations to get the valve cover rail and port match right. Here's the dyno sheet:




I calculated the DCR on the first engine and it was pretty high for pump gas, around 9.75:1.  But the second engine's DCR was only 8.0:1, making it a really good candidate for a street engine.  The last point is that according to Blair, these engines are run on the same dyno he runs his Super Stock engines on, and the power those engines make on the dyno corresponds to the track times they produce.  Meaning that these are honest power numbers.  Pretty impressive, if you ask me...
« Last Edit: December 03, 2011, 11:51:15 AM by jayb »
Jay Brown
- 1969 Mach 1, Drag Week 2005 Winner NA/BB, 511" FE (10.60s @ 129); Drag Week 2007 Runner-Up PA/BB, 490" Supercharged FE (9.35 @ 151)
- 1964 Ford Galaxie, Drag Week 2009 Winner Modified NA (9.50s @ 143), 585" SOHC

   

CaptCobrajet

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Re: Killer Blair Patrick FE Dyno Results
« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2011, 11:06:45 AM »
 :) The most fun I have had in a while!  I could not explain about 50 of the hp, but that was a good kind of problem.  We honed those engines a little different, and those 660 carbs were really good for the combo.  We tried a worked-over set of 750's and lost about 10 hp on the 511.  This is my first post on this Forum.......looks like a good place to hang out!!

BP

XR7

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: Killer Blair Patrick FE Dyno Results
« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2011, 11:50:42 AM »
Hi Blair! Good to see you on here! Wow... very nice engines you built there. I sure hope your customers have beefy rear ends and transmissions behind those two, definitely some parts breaking torque & HP on hand!

Thor


RJP

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: Killer Blair Patrick FE Dyno Results
« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2011, 07:10:09 PM »
Are those BSFC and A/F numbers correct?

CaptCobrajet

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Re: Killer Blair Patrick FE Dyno Results
« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2011, 01:03:02 PM »
Yes the A/F is pretty much dead-on.  I have seen pretty consistent numbers from RacePak data in the cars after having been on Jim's dyno.  The BSFC's are a little light by the numbers, but those are the kind of numbers we generally see.  They are probably about .08-ish too lean-looking based on other dynos I have used.  The O2 sensors and the Lambda are the first place I look, then I look for trends in the BSFC. Generally, they are tied together pretty well.

afret

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 243
    • View Profile
Re: Killer Blair Patrick FE Dyno Results
« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2011, 06:02:50 PM »
What effect does the angle of the header tubes near the flange on most cars with shock towers have?  Do you have any port designs to account for this or is it a non issue?  How much of a compromise is there for your intake ports designed for regular cast intakes like the Victor compared with ports designed for all out sheet metal intakes?  Thanks.

Qikbbstang

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 253
    • View Profile
I know Blair keeps his induction work away from any potential prying eyes
« Reply #6 on: December 05, 2011, 10:01:26 AM »
of his competitors and that makes sense. At PRI I'd personally  asked Blair about his work with the Port-O-Sonic and was given a few choice tidbits. The weak part of TGFEIC book is Jay's using Blair's Motor/POS combo and not offering up any details on the work that Blair's POS manifold had done to it. Having spoken to Blair about that POS manifold I know there were significant modifications done to it - that deviated far from a stock POS. The result is unlike any other manifolds tested in TGFEIC the Bair/POS section is essentially useless for the books implied purpose - that of helping the reader make manifold selections for given engine combinations.
     Perhaps now that Blair seems to be going beyond his POS based combo to the Ed head high rise Tunnel Wedge combo the perhaps now we can see some of that magnificent handywork that was done to his POS that's missing in the book. 
  On another related subject I can't for the life of me figure what the heck Blair's Ed head high rise Tunnel Wedge combo looks like. I guess I am tainted by the decades old KUNTZ Pale Rider article in Super Ford where the Ed heads were welded/filled to allow the ports to be high risers and my understanding of BBC Stud Girdles is near zero, so I have a mental block as to understanding what the combo even looks like from these following statements"
============================================
  I probably did not explain it well to Jay..........the spacers were on the second engine, and only to mate the ED head to the HR tunnel wedge at the valve cover. I changed the angle on the VC rail of the manifold to match the angle of all other FE heads, like the ED or any other Ford casting. The VC angle on the high riser tips the valve covers outboard. I milled the regular angle on the tunnel wedge until it just touches the tops of the runners.......then I made a spacer with a step that mated to the head at 1 inch thick and to the manifold at .500 thickness. The result is a spacer similar to a BBC stud girdle spacer, but it has a step cut away up around the manifold part of the VC rail. The normal gasket and valve cover then fit like normal. I put a few socket-head 8-32 screws in the spacers and a little silicone to seal.........the valve cover and gasket come on and off like any other, and no leaks!
The 511 had no spacers anywhere. I did move the pushrod tubes and work the ports from the flange up about three inches. Just a slag clean-up in the plenum and top of the runners. I think that engine was a case of everything working together to create a "happy" combo. It was the most fun I'd had on the dyno in a while! Thanks for the interest.
                          ------------------------
I wondered when someone would ask that. The ED Pro Port is cast so that the head is the height of the rocker boss all the way across the head. The HR port is not exposed. It has about .100 of meat above the port. I milled the T&D bar so there would be about .250 of gasket surface. .100 on the head and about .150 up on the T&D bar. I just milled it enough to accomodate the port, and then trimmed the manifold as needed so nothing interfered with the bar. I did have to shift the T&D bar a little for geometry. I had to use longer valves because the location of the bar is a little higher than normal. That made the valve tips too close to the rocker, so I slotted the head bolt holes a little and slid the bar toward the manifold. I then set the geometry and doweled the T&D bar to the head to insure the proper set up every time..........then milled the intake port flanges flush with the head above each port. Works like a charm. Then the valve cover rail..........and it was done. It allows me to put a good High Riser port with a raised floor in the ED casting with very little welding. The Pro Port has a thumb-sized hole just to get a tool started. If I was a computer guru I would post a pic or two but I don't have time right now to figure all that out. I plan to sell a "High Riser Kit" with my ports, intake milling, and fitted rails for the VC as soon as I get programs for the oddball milling done. A person would still have to send me a manifold and their deck height to get a nice set of rails that fit well.
====================================
---A Picture is worth 1,000 Words was never more true.----


machoneman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 825
    • View Profile
Re: Killer Blair Patrick FE Dyno Results
« Reply #7 on: December 05, 2011, 11:42:45 AM »
What effect does the angle of the header tubes near the flange on most cars with shock towers have?  Do you have any port designs to account for this or is it a non issue?  How much of a compromise is there for your intake ports designed for regular cast intakes like the Victor compared with ports designed for all out sheet metal intakes?  Thanks.

Afret, can't tell you about FE header dyno tests and due to competition, Blair and others may not want to reveal same either. Long ago though some fellow racers with a high 10 second car did the 351C hi-port aluminum plate conversion that Ford's own O.H.O. tech back then stated was good for about 20-25 h.p. But they did so in a std. Maverick chassis and the custom header tubes, as required, had sharp bends right out of the exhaust ports, hence no e.t. improvement to speak of. The next season, they dumped the OEM underhood sheet metal, went the 1/2 chassis route and added nice new custom headers with at least 6"-7" of straight tube before the headers started the downward turn. They did then pickup IIRC about a tenth or .15 in e.t.

I've wondered too in high hp applications like SS just how much hp is hindered due to the need to keep the OEM inner panels in place and run sharp downturns, unlike Gas and Super Gas classes with those nice, easy turn headers. 

 
Bob Maag

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2388
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: Killer Blair Patrick FE Dyno Results
« Reply #8 on: December 05, 2011, 12:30:51 PM »
As you guys probably remember the cheap Dynomax truck headers did the best in the exhaust comparo published in my book, and I suspect that the reason was the 3"-4" of straight pipe coming out of those headers from the flange, before any turns.  None of the other headers had that.  For my high riser project, which is slated to go into a Mustang, I'm going to be using the Hooker adjustable race headers on the dyno, but I also plan to make a custom set of dyno only headers with straight pipes coming out of the flange for several inches.  I'm hoping that this will definitively answer the question on a higher horsepower engine.
Jay Brown
- 1969 Mach 1, Drag Week 2005 Winner NA/BB, 511" FE (10.60s @ 129); Drag Week 2007 Runner-Up PA/BB, 490" Supercharged FE (9.35 @ 151)
- 1964 Ford Galaxie, Drag Week 2009 Winner Modified NA (9.50s @ 143), 585" SOHC

   

afret

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 243
    • View Profile
Re: Killer Blair Patrick FE Dyno Results
« Reply #9 on: December 05, 2011, 03:40:43 PM »
Thanks for the info guys. 

machoneman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 825
    • View Profile
Re: Killer Blair Patrick FE Dyno Results
« Reply #10 on: December 05, 2011, 04:35:30 PM »
Once again, cool Jay! Bet they do make an even bigger difference on a big CID/high horse FE.
Bob Maag

fetorino

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
  • Tunnelport Cobra
    • View Profile
Re: Killer Blair Patrick FE Dyno Results
« Reply #11 on: March 03, 2012, 11:33:49 PM »
Maybe some Ported Tunnelport heads would help out those anemic results. ;)

It all goes to show it really is about hitting the right combo.  Head flow, cam, intake, carbs, compression, timing, combustion chamber all complimenting each other to make an overachiever.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 11:36:38 PM by fetorino »

machoneman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 825
    • View Profile
Re: Killer Blair Patrick FE Dyno Results
« Reply #12 on: March 05, 2012, 09:28:07 AM »
I'm not sure that even a new version of the tunnel port head would be better than the heavily modified ProPort heads. Hey, I'm a big fan of TP's as some fellow Ford racer pals of yore did run them and they were considered by many to be the best of the series.

'Course it would depend on just how radical say a raised intake port TP head would be, would it include a modern SC-1/Yates type chamber, etc.  But even assuming a custom intake, I do wonder if the modern TP could exceed the flow capacity of those monster ProPorts which are essentially a modern version of the old Hi-Riser heads. 

Any thoughts here Jay? 
Bob Maag

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2388
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: Killer Blair Patrick FE Dyno Results
« Reply #13 on: March 05, 2012, 09:50:18 AM »
I actually haven't gotten a close look at the good pro-port heads, but I assume that there is still a hook in the port to get around the pushrod.  The advantage of a tunnel port head is that the port is straight, and you just have to worry about the tube in the intake impeding flow.  I've been working with a high riser because the port is raised and that offers a clear advantage in terms of intake shot at the valve.  If you could raise a tunnel port port to the high riser level, it would offer an even bigger advantage, but again of course with the limitation of the pushrod tube in the port.

It would be interesting to see a flow comparison of a raised port tunnel port head, and a modern high riser or pro-port head, with the intake bolted to the head.  That would tell the story, I think...
Jay Brown
- 1969 Mach 1, Drag Week 2005 Winner NA/BB, 511" FE (10.60s @ 129); Drag Week 2007 Runner-Up PA/BB, 490" Supercharged FE (9.35 @ 151)
- 1964 Ford Galaxie, Drag Week 2009 Winner Modified NA (9.50s @ 143), 585" SOHC

   

Barry_R

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 238
    • View Profile
    • Survival Motorsports
Re: Killer Blair Patrick FE Dyno Results
« Reply #14 on: March 05, 2012, 06:07:09 PM »
Couple of serious sisters there - very cool.

DTS BSFC numbers are always kinda low - seems to be inherent in the software.  I tend to almost ignore the BSFC data other than a "backup" glance, and also go straight to the O2 numbers these days.  That second engine might intuitively have been hunting for a little more fuel looking at the O2 and fuel pressure numbers....but I am asuming that Blair already worked the combo for best results.

I have just left and right O2 on my dyno - but would really like to get to the point of having eight O2s - I think there is a lot to gain there in terms of cylinder variation.