Author Topic: Update on the FE Power Cylinder Head Testing  (Read 19641 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7400
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: Update on the FE Power Cylinder Head Testing
« Reply #60 on: October 13, 2020, 06:06:43 PM »
T&D offers shot peening as an option on their aluminum rockers, and it's ben recommended on more serious stuff - but they actively try to steer me towards steel for those applications.  The roller/roller tip rockers they made for me on SOHC builds are all steel.  Expensive, but might be a lesson in there for us - maybe some past experience on their part.  I have seen some WW and Jesel stuff with a very significant "arch" shaped rib across the top - would that help in your design - maybe move some load away from the thin cross section area?

Barry, did you see this thread?  The rockers are designed from 4140 steel, and look good to 50+ million cycles based on Bill Conley's analysis.  They do feature that arched rib you describe in your post.

http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=9248.0


I do have the 4140 investment cast rockers on hand now, but I need to build fixtures and machine them before I can run the engine again.  Probably 3 weeks out at this point...
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
- 1969 Shelby Clone, Drag Week 2015 Winner Modified NA (Average 8.98 @ 149), 585" SOHC

   

cammerfe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
    • View Profile
Re: Update on the FE Power Cylinder Head Testing
« Reply #61 on: October 13, 2020, 10:23:06 PM »
Ignoring cost for a moment, would the use of titanium be of help in making rockers that'll live with the loads you're seeing, but offer more 'rev-ability'?

KS

WConley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1157
  • No longer walking funny!
    • View Profile
Re: Update on the FE Power Cylinder Head Testing
« Reply #62 on: October 13, 2020, 10:52:49 PM »
Ti is not very stiff, especially when compared to steel.  Putting enough material in to get the stiffness you need would eliminate any weight advantage.

Interestingly, the lack of stiffness can be an advantage for connecting rods.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2020, 11:20:17 PM by WConley »
A careful study of failure will yield the ingredients for success.

Barry_R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1906
    • View Profile
    • Survival Motorsports
Re: Update on the FE Power Cylinder Head Testing
« Reply #63 on: October 14, 2020, 06:40:01 AM »
I was thinking of running the rib diagonally across to move load over the side of the central tube offset.  Interesting thought on the stiffness Biil - - do you see this as more of a fatigue failure instead of a strength deal?  Does the cyclic and offset loading on that rocker make things different compared to more vertical loads associated with other parts, and will the software used for analysis model such loads?  I ain't no engineer, but I like learning how this stuff works. 

WConley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1157
  • No longer walking funny!
    • View Profile
Re: Update on the FE Power Cylinder Head Testing
« Reply #64 on: October 14, 2020, 10:59:56 AM »
Barry - You want rocker arms to be as stiff as possible (or at least have decent vibration damping) so that you avoid resonances/ loss of spring control.  Ti and Aluminum do have comparable stiffness, but the vibration damping characteristics are better with aluminum.  Here's a chart I dug up (for 6061 aluminum but 7075 has similar damping):



Titanium is a lot better in fatigue than aluminum though, so I can see it working in the right situation.  I've read about people trying Ti rockers in some race applications, but it's caused valvetrain control problems.  That's why you don't generally see them.

Yeah tying the rib over diagonally could provide some benefit, but we found that the stress levels in the tube twisting were OK.  Doing it the way we did saves just a little bit of weight.  Oh - the FEA software does account for all of loading conditions / stress.  Indeed this is a fatigue problem!  With the original aluminum arm a crack developed over thousands of cycles that eventually caused a failure.  If it was a strength problem the arm would have failed right away.

My comment on stiffness for other parts has to do with impact.  Rods take repeated huge hits, especially under detonation conditions.  A Ti or aluminum rod is more "springy" than a steel rod, so the peak impact hit to the bottom end is reduced.  A good example is bicycle frames.  Riders rave about Ti frames vs. steel frames for comfort.  You hit a pothole with a Ti frame and there's a lot less jolt to your butt.  Main bearings appreciate this!

Sure, Ti retainers are pretty common now, but a retainer flexes a lot less than a rocker arm.  The vibration damping of a retainer is way less important as a result.  They seem to work great, especially with smaller conical or beehive springs.

« Last Edit: October 14, 2020, 11:04:14 AM by WConley »
A careful study of failure will yield the ingredients for success.

cammerfe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
    • View Profile
Re: Update on the FE Power Cylinder Head Testing
« Reply #65 on: October 16, 2020, 02:32:15 PM »
Better now than later! (And please keep in mind that when you are able to ship the set I have ordered, I expect to go to better than 7K---land speed, you know. ;))

KS

FE_4_ME

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Update on the FE Power Cylinder Head Testing
« Reply #66 on: November 21, 2020, 09:59:13 AM »
Any updates?

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7400
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: Update on the FE Power Cylinder Head Testing
« Reply #67 on: November 21, 2020, 04:15:10 PM »
OK, here's a quick update.  Lots happening on this project but it all seems to take too long >:(  Right now I'm trying to finish up the rocker arms, which are the biggest hurdle to getting back on the dyno.  The picture below is of two of the rockers that are nearly finished, plus some of the raw castings that I start with:





Here's a close-up of the two rockers that are mostly machined.  You'll notice that the intake rocker isn't finished on the adjuster end.  This is because I have not yet completed the fixture necessary to put the hole for the adjuster in that rocker at an angle, to match up with the intake pushrod angle.  The fixtures are the long pole in the tent on this project; they seem to take forever to machine. 




The photo below shows the first fixture that is used to machine the rockers; in this case the rocker castings fit into pockets in the machined steel fixture, they are clamped down with bars that go across the fixture, and then the holes for the rocker shaft and roller tip shaft are machined.  This particular fixture took 4 days on the CNC to get those pocket cut right:




There are a total of four fixtures that are needed for the rockers, and I have three of them machined, and also have run the first pair of rockers on them.  The fourth fixture is the one that puts the angled adjuster hole in the intake rocker, and I should be done with that one in a few days.  Then I can write the programs to machine the adjuster hole, and test machine the first intake rocker.  Once that is finished, I can machine a complete set of the rockers with just a little more work.

However, there are also rocker parts that need to go off to heat treat yet, and that will take 7-10 days, plus I need to order new pushrods which will take a week or so, so I'm probably 2-3 weeks out before the engine is running again on the dyno.  I was expecting to be running by now, but as usual there have been delays.  In fact, I had a CNC machine that I use for a variety of products, including these rockers, come up with an electrical fault a couple weeks ago, and it was down for over a week.  Plus the motor on my air compressor went out, so I had to get a new one of those, and of course the first one I got was defective, and quit after two days  :(  Everything is up and running again now, but you can never tell what is going to happen to slow you down.

On the positive side, I sent both the 4V and the 8V intakes, plus a new intake adapter with the modifications I found I needed after running the first one, down to Joe Craine.  Joe flowed the intakes and found that while the 4V intake was pretty good, the 8V intake needed some work.  He tweaked them both up for me, so I'll be taking some careful measurements on these and modifying the production model to match.  Joe also was of the opinion that having the manifolds split in half for easy porting wasn't really necessary, so I think I'll revise the production versions to make them single piece, rather than two piece. 

Also, I got in touch with SCE gaskets and now have 5 sets of the gaskets that I need to install the intake adapter and intakes.  I was really tired of manually cutting out gaskets LOL!  The new SCE gaskets look great, and in addition to the intake gaskets they sent me a pair of their new MLS steel head gaskets, which look really nice.  I'll be installing those before I run the engine again.

In summary, two steps forward, one step back, but getting closer to more dyno time...

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
- 1969 Shelby Clone, Drag Week 2015 Winner Modified NA (Average 8.98 @ 149), 585" SOHC

   

GerryP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 561
    • View Profile
Re: Update on the FE Power Cylinder Head Testing
« Reply #68 on: November 21, 2020, 05:22:00 PM »
Once finished and running at a full head of steam, it will probably be listed as the Eighth Wonder of the World, just below the Great Wall of China.

fryedaddy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1249
    • View Profile
Re: Update on the FE Power Cylinder Head Testing
« Reply #69 on: November 21, 2020, 05:56:41 PM »
im so glad that people like Jay,barry,brent,blair,joe,etc.the list goes on,haven't given up on the fe.it used to be bad back in the 70s-90s,everybody laughed at a fe.mostly chevy guys.they just weren't much aftermarket support.i have daydreamed for years about the fe being competitive. THANKS TO ALL THE ABOVE. YOU ARE OUR HEROES!
1966 comet caliente 428 4 speed owned since 1983                                                 1973 f250 ranger xlt 360 4 speed papaw bought new

cjshaker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4449
    • View Profile
Re: Update on the FE Power Cylinder Head Testing
« Reply #70 on: November 21, 2020, 08:20:49 PM »
Those rockers definitely give a warm fuzzy feeling now that they're in steel.
Impressive work on the fixtures. I was picturing something that did one rocker at a time.
Doug Smith


'69 R-code Mach 1, 427 MR, 2x4, Jerico, 4.30 Locker
'70 F-350 390
'55 Ford Customline 2dr
'37 Ford Coupe

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7400
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: Update on the FE Power Cylinder Head Testing
« Reply #71 on: November 21, 2020, 09:08:30 PM »
Thanks for the kind words.  Doing one rocker at a time would not be economical; too much setup time, and my own time, to make them saleable at any reasonable price.  In fact for operations 3 and 4, I can only do four of the rockers at once, but I can live with that and still keep the costs down. 
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
- 1969 Shelby Clone, Drag Week 2015 Winner Modified NA (Average 8.98 @ 149), 585" SOHC

   

cammerfe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
    • View Profile
Re: Update on the FE Power Cylinder Head Testing
« Reply #72 on: November 21, 2020, 11:43:37 PM »
Jay, you mentioned both the single and double four barrel manifolds. Is the cross-over EFI set-up something you also designed, or is it, perhaps, something originally intended for something else?

If it's something you designed and will make, it's my intention to use such a thing as the beginning, with suitable deletions and additions, to hold turbos on both sides of the engine I have in my head. (I have most of a whole car in there...)

KS

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7400
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: Update on the FE Power Cylinder Head Testing
« Reply #73 on: November 22, 2020, 10:39:06 AM »
Jay, you mentioned both the single and double four barrel manifolds. Is the cross-over EFI set-up something you also designed, or is it, perhaps, something originally intended for something else?

If it's something you designed and will make, it's my intention to use such a thing as the beginning, with suitable deletions and additions, to hold turbos on both sides of the engine I have in my head. (I have most of a whole car in there...)

KS

I did design the crossram from scratch, Ken.  I looked at using parts from some of the Borla manifolds, specifically the runners for their 351W crossram, but the butterflies were too small to make the power I wanted and the runners wouldn't fit together given the port configuration of my heads.  Not to mention that they were stupid expensive...
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
- 1969 Shelby Clone, Drag Week 2015 Winner Modified NA (Average 8.98 @ 149), 585" SOHC

   

mbrunson427

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 914
    • View Profile
Re: Update on the FE Power Cylinder Head Testing
« Reply #74 on: November 23, 2020, 11:39:11 AM »
Jay, I'm not sure what the price is, but I have seen that Manton pushrods seems to have a ton of experience in rocker arms that have the same geometry as yours. Maybe they could make you a batch and save you all the effort?

http://rollerrockerarms.com/



Mike Brunson
BrunsonPerformance.com