Author Topic: 390 Build  (Read 4194 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

WerbyFord

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 335
    • View Profile
Re: 390 Build
« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2020, 11:28:06 PM »
Edelbrocks and a 230* once again eek over 400hp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftQzzTis4iE&t=24s

This edition of Ebrocks and a 280H didn't get to 400hp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxUNbXov_Y

The above engines, appear to be almost identical. Maybe Barry could fill us in, on what is different?

On the Stan Weiss site, the out of the box Edel's flow,  the same as the bowl ported C1's with CJ valves but, the C1's flow a little more on the Ex.

With a FT cam, it appears that you need about 230 @ .050 to make 400 HP.

Near as I can tell, the only diff is the cam - Comp 270H => 387hp, Comp 280H => 412hp.

(EDIT see below post Frank you're right, they're BOTH 280H cams. So they look identical except for the carb size, 735cfm vs 750cfm which makes no difference, and 4 cubic inches due to .020 bigger bore, again nil diff.
I don't know where the 25hp difference would come from.
Maybe the secondary wasn't opening all the way on one of them?
If I Gonkulate the 387hp version with a 450cfm carb it comes in about right on, ie secondary barely opening.)

(EDITEDIT: The last dyno in your set of links, the PBAM link, dyno'd at 364hp. Gonkulator puts it at 401hp. Also a "750 vac sec" - I wonder if that particular carb had a habit of not opening on the dyno? Maybe it had the L78 "Black" spring in it, which is actually a spare front coil for the car in case you break one during hard cornering? That would make sense but I cant imagine Barry not making sure the secondaries opened all the way. So long ago, who knows.)

Maybe Barry R will chime in with more.

The Gonkulator comes in higher than most of Barry R's 390 dyno tests, but hits his 445 dyno tests mostly right on. We never could figure a reason why - the Gonk hits the average 390 build right on, +/- 3% or so.
A lot of FE dyno headers are too big for the little 390 builds. Headers are complicated.

Yes, the c1ae-a etc heads with CJ valves can be made to flow like 428CJ heads with some work, and even like Ed heads now that the Ed heads don't flow as well as they did pre-2000 or so. But, the c1ae-a etc still wont make the torque and power of the Ed heads because the velocity and burn isn't as good. The Ed
 heads aren't that great, but theyre better than most of the 1960s-era Fe iron.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2020, 08:23:22 PM by WerbyFord »

frnkeore

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1128
    • View Profile
Re: 390 Build
« Reply #16 on: August 30, 2020, 02:03:11 AM »
Werby,
I copied this directly from the you tube text:

387 HP, Cam is a Comp 280H hydraulic with 230 duration at .050 and .519 lift. Carb is a 750 vacuum secondary.

412 HP,  Comp 280H hydraulic flat tappet cam, factory 735 CJ carburetor.

That's why I asked the question.

I suppose the ring pack, could account for the some of the HP, if they were different and also the quench?

Also, I found a C8AE-H head on the SW site that also flows, 266 CFM (w/smaller than CJ valves), done by a friend that I got to know after that.

Yes, there is more to it than cfm but, velocity can be tested and swirl. That would tell the story. Has there been any direct tests between cast iron a Edel heads of the same cfm rating?

Edel heads run, 258 (CJ60059), 250, 249 & 248 (6006), out of the box. There is also one listed at 270, (CJ60069). The C1AE, is 259, with just bowl work and 282 with bowl and port blend (I averaged the above C1 numbers). The C8AE-H, is ported using just a 2.055 intake and 1.558 EX and is 266. All at .600 lift. I'll ask Steve about it, next time I talk to him.

Ex was 205 on the C1, 174 on the C8, 174 to 183 on all the out of the box Edel's.

« Last Edit: August 30, 2020, 02:11:40 AM by frnkeore »
Frank

Heo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3281
    • View Profile
Re: 390 Build
« Reply #17 on: August 30, 2020, 02:29:48 AM »
Edelbrocks and a 230* once again eek over 400hp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftQzzTis4iE&t=24s

This edition of Ebrocks and a 280H didn't get to 400hp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxUNbXov_Y

The above engines, appear to be almost identical. Maybe Barry could fill us in, on what is different?

On the Stan Weiss site, the out of the box Edel's flow,  the same as the bowl ported C1's with CJ valves but, the C1's flow a little more on the Ex.

With a FT cam, it appears that you need about 230 @ .050 to make 400 HP.

Near as I can tell, the only diff is the cam - Comp 270H => 387hp, Comp 280H => 412hp.
Maybe Barry R will chime in with more.

The Gonkulator comes in higher than most of Barry R's 390 dyno tests, but hits his 445 dyno tests mostly right on. We never could figure a reason why - the Gonk hits the average 390 build right on, +/- 3% or so.
A lot of FE dyno headers are too big for the little 390 builds. Headers are complicated.

Yes, the c1ae-a etc heads with CJ valves can be made to flow like 428CJ heads with some work, and even like Ed heads now that the Ed heads don't flow as well as they did pre-2000 or so. But, the c1ae-a etc still wont make the torque and power of the Ed heads because the velocity and burn isn't as good. The Ed
 heads aren't that great, but theyre better than most of the 1960s-era Fe iron.

Hi Werby can you gonk my 390 .060 over ,10.47 to one, C4 heads with bowlwork and CJ valves, S 282 cam ,Streetmaster portmatched and plenum opened up, one inch four hole spacer, 750 vacuum ,cast iron shortyheaders



The defenition of a Gentleman, is a man that can play the accordion.But dont do it

frnkeore

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1128
    • View Profile
Re: 390 Build
« Reply #18 on: August 30, 2020, 01:07:05 PM »
I changed out the cam, in my program, with no other changes to anything.

I used the std CC, HFT, 5216 lobe, 280/230, on 110 LSA, set at 105.
Frank

WerbyFord

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 335
    • View Profile
Re: 390 Build
« Reply #19 on: August 30, 2020, 07:46:42 PM »
Heo,
Gonkulator says
Torq 427 at 3800
Powr 406 at 5700
Kind of soggy below 3000 but that's when the Streetmaster starts to howl.
Make that +/- 10hp due to the variance in how those CJ-upgraded heads turn out.

Is it in that big 64 Gal with the kneebangers (bumperguards)? Trans / gears / exhaust?
I had to take those off my dad's car to fit it in my tiny 20x20 2nd garage, as big as the building codes would allow.

Heo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3281
    • View Profile
Re: 390 Build
« Reply #20 on: August 31, 2020, 01:53:45 AM »
Heo,
Gonkulator says
Torq 427 at 3800
Powr 406 at 5700
Kind of soggy below 3000 but that's when the Streetmaster starts to howl.
Make that +/- 10hp due to the variance in how those CJ-upgraded heads turn out.

Is it in that big 64 Gal with the kneebangers (bumperguards)? Trans / gears / exhaust?
I had to take those off my dad's car to fit it in my tiny 20x20 2nd garage, as big as the building codes would allow.

Werby,

Yes it's in the kneebanger Galaxie.  C.O.M with a converter built for a couple of hundred rpm higher stal speed
2,80 ish gear, don't remember exactly, 2,78 or 2,82 255/ 70 15 tires 2,5 inch exhaust with straight through mufflers just in front of the bumper
Yes kind of...I would not say soggy but a little tame below 2,5 to 3000 rpm ,when it really starts to pull
what would a performer rpm do for it?
I have all the parts to build a 447 stroker just had not had the time to do it. What would it make with the same combination?



The defenition of a Gentleman, is a man that can play the accordion.But dont do it

WerbyFord

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 335
    • View Profile
Re: 390 Build
« Reply #21 on: August 31, 2020, 09:40:12 AM »
Heo,
Well, a lot to do here. Rather than us hi-jacking this post, how bout can you start a thread on your car, maybe copy our posts into it (or we can just re-create what's here so far).

With a MX trans (beefed I hope?), maybe 2200 stall, and 2.80 gear I'd say that big Gal (I'm guessing about 4170 curb weight?) is way too tall for that cam & intake. But, lots of fairly easy things to try.

I upgraded my dad's tired (37 years since we rebuilt it) 396cid to a 440cid and he was quite happy. It would even fishtail the 3.00 gear now and then. I'm partial to those 60s Gals.

frnkeore

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1128
    • View Profile
Re: 390 Build
« Reply #22 on: August 31, 2020, 07:11:57 PM »
I talked to Steve (Magnotti) today, regarding porting FE heads. He said that he increased the velocity with his port work and the smaller valve/higher flow, would also confirm that. His exhaust flowed 192 and 211 with a 2" pipe @ .600. The key to doing what he was able to do, was keeping a larger radius on the short turn, while cutting it back. He did those C8 heads back in '95 and the intake flanges, were not enlarged.

He also said that one reason that he did well with it, is because he's a Pontiac guy and the later Pontiac's are also 14 deg valves. He doesn't just open the ports to as much flow as he an get but, shoots for a 72% ratio so, he does the Ex first and then shoots for it to be 72% of the of the intake.

Frank

Heo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3281
    • View Profile
Re: 390 Build
« Reply #23 on: September 01, 2020, 10:15:41 AM »
Heo,
Well, a lot to do here. Rather than us hi-jacking this post, how bout can you start a thread on your car, maybe copy our posts into it (or we can just re-create what's here so far).

With a MX trans (beefed I hope?), maybe 2200 stall, and 2.80 gear I'd say that big Gal (I'm guessing about 4170 curb weight?) is way too tall for that cam & intake. But, lots of fairly easy things to try.

I upgraded my dad's tired (37 years since we rebuilt it) 396cid to a 440cid and he was quite happy. It would even fishtail the 3.00 gear now and then. I'm partial to those 60s Gals.

Your right Werby i start a new thread



The defenition of a Gentleman, is a man that can play the accordion.But dont do it

Barry_R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1906
    • View Profile
    • Survival Motorsports
Re: 390 Build
« Reply #24 on: September 02, 2020, 09:10:31 AM »
Edelbrocks and a 230* once again eek over 400hp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftQzzTis4iE&t=24s

This edition of Ebrocks and a 280H didn't get to 400hp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxUNbXov_Y

The above engines, appear to be almost identical. Maybe Barry could fill us in, on what is different?

On the Stan Weiss site, the out of the box Edel's flow,  the same as the bowl ported C1's with CJ valves but, the C1's flow a little more on the Ex.

With a FT cam, it appears that you need about 230 @ .050 to make 400 HP.

Might have been the 735 Holley versus the low dollar 750 - the 735 is a better carb, and allows better jetting control on the secondary side.  Might have been the fact that the better one was a smaller bore, vey low mileage block and had better ring seal.  Might have been a better day for testing - even though correction factors compensate for many things, a hot rainy day will still affect numbers compared to a cold dry day.  I might have just done a better job of tuning on the "good" one that day...