Tunnel Port FE on the dyno:

[machoneman]

http://www.amosauto.com/Articles/General/Tech/fe-tunnelport

[rcodecj]

Great article! The one thing I don't get is:

"We weren’t too sure if the timing pointer had been exactly degreed to the balancer, so we started with a very conservative 32° of timing as Chris varied the rpm between 2,000 and 3,000 with a light load on the dyno to seat the rings.

I find it odd that with such an important build that they did not check  actual TDC to verify the balancer marks.

[ScotiaFE]

I find the whole build odd.
Not much 68/69 TP NASCAR stuff on the thing.
It is good to see they figured out how to get a FE running though.
It was touch and go there for a few  paragraphs, I thought my old 390 was going to best the TP for a while. LOL

[jayb]

I haven't had time to read the whole article yet; busy, busy, busy!  But I was rather underwhelmed by the HP and torque numbers.  It reminded me of a cammer build article a while back where they made 430 HP.  What's the point?

[machoneman]

They ended up with 546 hp @ 6,000 and 516 lbs/ft at 5,000, not bad IMHO.

Yes, they seemingly didn't get the initial and therefore total timing right until a few pulls, why we don't know. Almost seemed like SBC guys on the timing issues yet the builder is an ex H-M race guy.

The carbs were the biggest issue and while I can understand the initial reluctance to swap on better/bigger/tuned carbs, aiyecarumba! If they knew early on the carbs were at fault, why waste time and head-scratching?

Anyway, the cam wasn't that hot and I like to hear Jay's reply (time permitting!) and also Barry's on what the heck the hp would have been with the hotter cam mentioned. Was 600 hp possible with basically stock/OEM Ford TP parts?


 

[Hemi Joel]

...I find it odd that with such an important build that they did not check  actual TDC to verify the balancer marks.

I agree, verifying the timing marks is engine building 101....   That motor deserves a more serious effort. At least it seems that way from here in the peanut gallery...

[drdano]

"Check out the aluminum valve spring retainers and factory shaft rockers. We exchanged the retainers for some lightweight steel ones from Lunati. I didn’t want to take any chances on destroying this engine after all these years!"

Seriously?     Who thought it would be a good idea to keep the factory rockers?  No end stands at least?  Shesh...

[Royce]

I see the tunnel port went to a noted Y Block tuner to extract more horsepower from the FE!

[Joe-jdc]

I was in the shop recently and saw the engine after Ted worked on it.  You must remember many engine owners will give you a bucket of bolts, and expect a miracle.  Ted only "tweaked" the engine and was not allowed to change things to come up with a "better" combination of camshaft, compression, etc.  They hit a target goal, and quit, so to speak.  Joe-JDC.

[Barry_R]

It was an odd build to cover in an article - at least in the way they went about it.  We did a dual quad tunnel port for a customer a little while back that had a fairly small roller cam and was stroked to 468 in an effort to get more low/mid-range out of the big port cross section.

The package ended up making over 600HP and is definitely a handful in the Mustang - it has small tires and will go into a wheelspin induced power slide in the first three gears with any hard throttle application.  Soggy throttle response is definitely NOT in evidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdquFWLe1TQ&feature=player_detailpage

[machoneman]

Wow Barry and I didn't know it was one of your engines! Makes we want selloff all my SBF stuff!

[Barry_R]

The one in the orginal article sure was not - no idea how you build an engine and not know TDC....

The one we built was detailed on the FE forum a while back...
http://www.network54.com/Forum/74182/message/1327114902/Warning+-+FE+Content%21++Some+dyno+data+on+a+Tunnel+Port

[machoneman]

Thanks for the links Barry.   Those old OEM TP's have lots of life left in them from your testing.