Dyno day Aug 14 - 2 ways to make power - guess, throw stones, pretty pics etc

[My427stang]

Joking around a bit, but I am taking 2 to Dale Meers dyno on the 14th. Brent took the day off, always awesome to hang with him and help on the dyno runs.  We use the same dyno, but given it's a much longer drive for me, I wait until I have two.

I really need to get a local dyno, but don't have a lot of faith in the Land and Sea electrical ones out here, and love to go visit Brent, Dale and the gang there.

Two engines, one 457 cid, the other 461 cid, very different in execution.  Details below each one.  Happy to discuss, would love to hear guesses/estimates, and will report back



First up is a C-scratch 428, 4.25 stroker, 457 inches, 10.69:1 compression w/ Racetec 1.5/3.0 mm ring pack, .045 quench, flat top, CJ iron heads, 2.15/1.70 11/32 valves, CnC ported by Craft flowing just under 300 cfm, but a good exhaust valve and port.  Cam is a Comp Cams custom hyd roller to my specs, 241/241 @ .050 single pattern, 112 LSA on 107, .633 lift, Brent's rockers, and a Ford tunnel wedge.  We will make a pull or two with a pair of repop 465s, then bring out Drew's big guns, a pair of modified 3310s (750 cfm) with annular primaries and downleg secondaries (correct if I missed something Drew)  Original recurved Ford distributor, no vacuum, with a Pertronix....and it DOES have a windage tray, it has a Canton screen type and an old school Milodon 9 quart oil pan.



Next is a CX scratch 428, 4.25 stroker, 461 inches, 10.55:1 compression w/ Racetec 1.5mm/3.0 ring pack, .045 quench, full dish, Trick Flow heads, unmodified, but blueprinted and spring pressures corrected, 11/32 2.19/1.63, typically flow approx 335 cfm, but a little less exhaust flow and MUCH better chamber.  Cam is a custom Oregon cams ground to my specs,  hyd roller 233 @ .050 intake, 242 @ .050 exhaust, 113 LSA on 106.5, .600 lift, Brent's rockers, and an RPM intake that has had some light port matching and plenum work.  It will have a QFT HR780VS carb, and a recurved Pertronix Flamethrower. (Funny I have never had one of these distributors, but two found their way to my shop)....and it DOES NOT have a windage tray, it has a Canton 7 quart T-pan.



It will be interesting, will the old school 457 out-power the new Trick Flow, or vice versa?  Eager for comments and guesses, will post back on Sunday

[HarleyJack17]

Close heads, but a little more lift, "better" intake....Something tells me they will not be far apart. This is a good DYNO Day!
I don't know why but my gut says the iron headed motor will make more peak power, but feel the TFS headed motor may have the overall advantage across the curve. The subtle differences matter, and are hard to pin point.  The divider mod may be the edge for the TFS motor., it definitely adds flow which it will suck up with the heads.....very interesting, at least to me.

My guess is a net difference, 22 HP either way....flip the coin.

[plovett]

My guess is that the Trick Flows will come out on top.  Based on previous results posted here they are hard to beat.  The Tunnel Wedge is gorgeous, though. Thanks for sharing the results.

pl

[My427stang]

It will be interesting to be sure. 

TW has more intake and carb, more compression, more cam by 8 degrees, more overlap by 5 degrees.  Trick Flow has 40 cfm more intake flow, and smaller cross section in both head and intake and 4 cid

As a reference:

The Tunnel Wedge engine is similar to the all iron CJ I did a year ago, that made 520 HP / 530 TQ...added 1/2 point of compression, 4 degrees cam duration, narrower LSA and a TW. 

The Trick Flow engine is similar to the the last painted TFS head that made 568 HP /  577 TQ, but 2 degrees less intake lobe, more overlap, quite a bit more more exhaust lobe,  RPM intake instead of a PI worked by Joe, and a little more compression

They both should be fun, will be a good exercise in seeing if cam, intake and compression can catch a better cylinder head.

Going into this, the owners had two very different goals, we just be happen to be in a dyno drag race LOL.  The TW was built as a period correct rowdy iron build for an documented Mustang racer, the owner valued the original look more than the added power of a modern head. The TFS is all hot rod, but has to pull a big Gal around with an AT w/ OD.

[WerbyFord]

I guessed these in the Gonkulator, assuming for the all-important exhaust:
2x31 OPEN headers, 3.5 collectors 12" long.
Collector length makes a lot of difference so you might play with that if time.

For the TW 8v motor:
Twin 465 Holleys
Torq 563 at 4300
Powr 577 at 6000

Twin 3310D's (D for Drew)
Torq 575 at 4300
Powr 589 at 6100

For the TFS 4v:
Torq 587 at 4100
Powr 557 at 5500

The good old T-wedge would win down the track, assuming a suitable car.

Remember to Social Distance - stay at least 1 foot per 1000rpm away from any running dyno engine!

Nothing like the wholesome, clean sound of open headers.

[Joe-JDC]

This will be a real interesting comparison for sure.  If the RPM were worked a bit, I would have to give the edge to the TFS heads, but the camshaft and dual carbs will offset the difference a lot.  If the TW were on the other engine, no contest.  Joe-JDC

[HarleyJack17]

The TW is the maker or breaker LOL.....from what I have seen the FE's seem to love them!
That was kind of what I was getting at in my first post.
I am with Joe...swap them and the TFS will eat the other one....as it is, I feel the old iron is going to beat the "kid".

[My427stang]

I got in late last night, did a mad dash to dyno and back.  I will do a good write up but a few key points until I get back

1  - Neither missed a beat, and the TW motor pulled clean as a whistle to the 6400 RPM range as we looked to find peaks

2 - Peaks were about the same in HP, 550-ish, but the Trick Flow motor made more torque at almost 595 ft lbs.  I do however  think the TW motor made slightly more HP.  We had to split the day and had balancer swaps to do (see below) and I was unable to cool the room down for a final pull with the TW engine, typically after all the tuning is done, we do a final run.  We did on the TFS engine, we did not on the TW.  My gut tells me the TW engine would have pulled 565, but still have been lower on torque.

3 - The TW engine did not want any more than the 465 cfm carbs.  Although Drew's carbs (absolutely gorgeous), made single digits more power when bolted on, we didn't bother to tune too much, because numbers were acceptable, and I knew the owner wouldn't want to buy new carbs for 10-15 HP and didn't want to get inside a set of loaner carbs if I couldn't make a sale.  I think it was clearly a limit in the heads.  The Craft CnC program just won't hang with the TFS head.  Needless to say, the intake wasn't a bottle neck and I was AMAZED that the little carbs held the a/f mixture up through the peaks, but they did.  There is NO doubt in my mind, on a set of deep breathing heads, Drew's carbs would have quickly overtaken the 465s

4 - If anyone is using a rebuilt balancer from Damper Docs, go grab the ring NOW and see if it comes off or moves.  Don't even read the rest, run out there and check before you drive your car....I'll post pictures, but from pull #1, we had timing marks that didn't make sense.  Turns out that first fire, the ring slipped, and then I reached down and pulled it right off.  TDC had checked good at assembly, but all three pieces, ring, hub and elastomer, were not adhered.  Luckily we caught it and swapped the balancer before we started comparing carbs.  Thanks to Brent for pushing me to tweak the total more to try to get some power, if he didn't, we wouldn't have lost the timing marks, and likely wouldn't have made another pull with a carb swap...with date coded water pump, timing cover, some expensive pieces and 6400 RPM, it could have been ugly.   

Talk about an odd discovery, Brent running the dyno up, me on the light, and I didn't have any timing marks.  The joke on this dyno is that timing lights are always failing or damaged, so I checked connections to be sure and then had him shut it down.  When all looked good, we looked at the elastomer and it was in 1 piece but looked strange, I grabbed it and the ring popped right off.  Swapped the balancer, and what we thought was 38 degrees total, was really 45 degrees, which tells us it was bad from the first fire

Including this build, I have only used them twice, but I already went back to the the prior customer to be sure he checked his. I won't ever use another, it came apart easier than you could imagine.  Like it was held together with a lubricated strap....but was dry

More to come in a bit, getting pictures and pull numbers together and will post details. 

[plovett]

Congrat's on the good numbers and finding the balancer issue before it caused any harm.

Can't wait to see the details.

pl

[My427stang]

OK, so here is the more exact data.  In both cases, realize the chart somehow is slightly off the graph, I tend to use the data off the chart because it has more info.  Not sure why, but the graph extrapolates slightly differently if you are comparing.

But first....a good look at the Damper Docs damper...just seemed to be held together with something that didn't stick to anything.  Buyer Beware!  They do have a good rep, we'll see what they say

FYI - I always install with an installation tool, and it came to me in a box from the company.  Given that it started slipping on initial fire, my guess is it was a bad bond from the start.    Talk about lucky, if it would have let go, it would have been a very different day!



Here is the 457, although it would look like it was still climbing on the graph, the numbers were leveling off after 6000.  Watching the dyno I saw 6400 on the tach, without so much as a burble.  It was very clean, not sure why the chart stopped where it did, must where it stopped collecting based on load.  This was built to be a 6000 rpm peak, so it's where we want it, so no surprise. It liked 38 degrees of timing, no surprise there either

Ironically, the two 465s had the slightly higher HP peak, and the two 750s had the higher torque peak, backwards to what you might think.  545/545 vs 544/558,  HP is within spitting distance and I would call them equal, but it does show Drew's carbs were working nice, and should tell people yet again that "small carbs for more torque" is a fallacy.

I make no excuses for this engine, it is a fun and bad mofo, but there were some differences in the dyno runs when you look at both.  First, note the engine temps, I think there was 10 more HP if we finished up with a cool down, however, losing the balancer, checking everything out, and doing some carb swaps ran me out of time and I wanted to give both motors time on the pump.  Second, we saw the most torrential rain storm I have driven in for a long time and the weather changed significantly at lunch time for the second engine.  Although the dyno will adjust, I do think the TW would have been called the winner for peak HP if things were a bit more stable, but likely not by a wide margin.  In a 4 speed 4.11 68.5 Mustang, this will be a stout runner



450s


750s


Here is the 461, it was a pretty easy dyno run after switching balancers back.  We ended up at 32 degrees of timing.  A little less than normal, but in the ball park, likely due to the shallow dish and tight quench. This was a gentle and happy build.  558/594 peaking at 5750 RPM.  It also had no problem at all hanging in as high as we wanted to pull.  This one is going in a 63 or 64 Gal, with a 4 speed AT Chevy box conversion.  The curve should very nice for the use.  Less drag car than cruiser, but should still be able to scare wives and small children at ease





In the end, two very happy motors, one more snarly and vicious attitude than the other, but both will be very strong runners.

I will put the exact build details in the dyno section in separate write ups

[plovett]

Very cool.  Thanks for sharing.  What do you attribute the big difference Between the two engine at lower rpms to?  Heads?  Intake?  Cam?  All of the above?

pl

[My427stang]

The CJ heads have a huge port volume and the TW has a med riser port but huge plenum and short runners.  BBM TW would be much worse

The TFS heads have a small port volume, more flow, and the RPM has longer runners and smaller plenum, that makes a really responsive port

Additionally, the bigger intake lobe and more overlap required to hit the desired RPM peak,  you trade for low end.  This engine would have likely been very happy with a medium riser dual plane, as many of us discuss here.

[Tommy-T]

Man!

There really is a ton of information from this comparison test.

Say no to stock balancers. I know many of us have used them for years with no problems (me too), but if that outer ring would've come off at 6K it would still be bouncing around that dyno cell. If you're gonna see 5K plus regularly, it's a bad idea.

Note that the iron head motor had a full CNC port and chamber finish and was still 40cfm short of the Trick Flows. Point being a better part of the cost of the Trick Flows was spent on the iron heads only to come out with an inferior part. I know, cast iron is cool...but it's kind of silly.

That said, having a vastly superior head did not guarantee a clear winner in horsepower. With the number of 600 horsepower builds with Performer RPM intakes, I at least was surprised.

The difference between the big 'n little carbs is surprising. Reading these results and others seem to indicate that carb size, unless they are too small, and header primary size seem to have very little to do with total horsepower production...although some seem to fixate on them.

The hydraulic roller cam seems to work. Putting a "squishy" cam in an FE is, well, umm, "icky". But these crisp dyno sessions going beyond 6K is impressive.

The single pattern camshaft is not dead. Some engine builders may think it is...but this comparisson says otherwise.

Thanks Ross, for sharing this information. Seems like you had fun, except for the rain. It rained here in sunny SoCal. 104* outside and rain.

[My427stang]

Man!

There really is a ton of information from this comparison test.

Say no to stock balancers. I know many of us have used them for years with no problems (me too), but if that outer ring would've come off at 6K it would still be bouncing around that dyno cell. If you're gonna see 5K plus regularly, it's a bad idea.

Note that the iron head motor had a full CNC port and chamber finish and was still 40cfm short of the Trick Flows. Point being a better part of the cost of the Trick Flows was spent on the iron heads only to come out with an inferior part. I know, cast iron is cool...but it's kind of silly.

That said, having a vastly superior head did not guarantee a clear winner in horsepower. With the number of 600 horsepower builds with Performer RPM intakes, I at least was surprised.

The difference between the big 'n little carbs is surprising. Reading these results and others seem to indicate that carb size, unless they are too small, and header primary size seem to have very little to do with total horsepower production...although some seem to fixate on them.

The hydraulic roller cam seems to work. Putting a "squishy" cam in an FE is, well, umm, "icky". But these crisp dyno sessions going beyond 6K is impressive.

The single pattern camshaft is not dead. Some engine builders may think it is...but this comparisson says otherwise.

Thanks Ross, for sharing this information. Seems like you had fun, except for the rain. It rained here in sunny SoCal. 104* outside and rain.

Thanks for the good words.

I agree with you on the heads, I will say though, in this case, the owner and I had a long discussion...no, weeks of discussions...and I enjoyed it.  We wanted to make sure were going the right way with his car.  It actually almost was a BBM or TFS headed build at one point but heritage won. 

This car has a pedigree, it was a Ford racer campaigned by a West Coast guy, and the owner wanted it to remain in a "could have been raced then" configuration.  Not an actual copy, but what seemed logical for a car raced when it was raced.  So we went into it knowing that.  In fact, thegoal was to hit 530-ish HP, and accept a 50 HP loss for heritage.  I was happy to beat it and hit the RPM peak where we wanted it

The TFS headed engine could likely have gone up quickly, it would have let itself loose with more cam

What I think we see here is one engine using all of its cylinder head, the other using all of it's camshaft.  It was a cool comparison

As far as the balancers....man oh man, can you imagine if it let go?  I will look closely, never know if the ring has a little crack, that would certainly expand with a little heat and cause the bond failure.

[jayb]

Ross, those are great motors and will obviously work well for your customers.  Having said that, the curves shown on the dyno data have been smoothed, and are therefore a little misleading.  Look at the second set of results.  The HP curve is nearly flat from 5500 to 6250, at 550 HP.  Looks great!  Now, look at the corresponding numbers:

5500:  555 HP
5750:  558 HP
6000:  545 HP
6250:  547 HP

The data shows that something is happening with that engine between 5750 and 6000 RPM, because power is dropping off.  And it is dropping off in a non-linear fashion.  I will almost guarantee you that it is valvetrain control, probably the hydraulic lifters giving up.  Seen it literally dozens of times before on my dyno, and a couple times I've pulled the hydraulic lifters and replaced them with solids, just to see if it was the lifters.  And it was.  There's a quick blurb in my book about it, along with a graph.

Now let's look at the first set of data.  The graph shows a steadily increasing horsepower level from 5500 to 6250.  Again, it looks great.  Now look at the data:

5500:  539 HP
5750:  545 HP
6000:  545 HP
6250:  544 HP

The HP is rising up to 5750, then it goes flat.  But that is not what the smoothed curve shows.  Again, it looks to me like something is happening with the valvetrain between 5750 and 6000 RPM that is flattening the curve.  Again I would suspect the hydraulic lifters.

The moral of the story is, look at the numbers, not the smoothed curve.  Or else, take the smoothing out of the curve plotting algorithm.  You may notice on the dyno results that I post that the curves are rather jagged; they don't look as nice, but they may tell you more. 

Also, I know everyone loves hydraulic lifters, but I think they should never be used on a performance engine that is destined for more than 5500 RPM.  JMO, of course