Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - MeanGene

Pages: 1 ... 37 38 [39]
571
Member Projects / Re: FE Intake Adapter
« on: February 08, 2014, 02:18:33 PM »
No hurry on that, because I won't be able to do much with them until I get some of the basic machining operations programmed.  But at some point down the road it would be good to them, to see how they match up with a raised medium riser port.

They might match up pretty good, as these Dove HR's have been cut for race T&D's, which didn't leave much of the roof, and then the roof was filled slightly with Devcon

572
Member Projects / Re: FE Intake Adapter
« on: February 05, 2014, 05:59:44 PM »
I was at the foundry today, taking a gander at the first prototype high-riser casting.  Now that the standard intake adapters are running fairly smoothly in production, I can start thinking about doing the programs for this bad boy:





This casting has not yet been heat treated and is still covered with some casting sand; it will be a couple of weeks before I get my hands on it.  It is also a full 20 pounds heavier than the raw medium riser casting!

This one is going to be trickier to machine than the medium riser casting, just because of it's size.  Right now, when the 4th axis on my CNC machine spins the castings around and moves them into position for the various machining operations, the casting itself comes very close to hitting some of the tools in the toolholder.  The high riser casting would definitely hit some of them if run through the same operations, so I may have to split the machining into a few different operations, with limited tools in the toolholders.  I have to admit I'm kind of looking forward to that challenge.  Meantime, I have a couple of weeks to just continue running the medium riser adapters, and try to get some work done on my SOHC project...

That's my baby LOL... Thinking about doing rubbings of the flanges on my ported Dove HR heads and the injectors to send to you, to see how they match up

573
Non-FE Discussion Forum / Re: Yellowbullet flap
« on: January 15, 2014, 08:48:39 PM »
The new owners may have bitten off more than they can chew.
They have a rep for buying and wrecking automotive forums with embedded ads and popups.
The "bullet" is perhaps the most vitriolic, wild, contentious, and entertaining forum in the automotive world.
The membership there is known for taking down those that deserve taking down - could be interesting to watch this one play out.

Would that be the owners of the FTE site? That place is ALL about how much ad space they can sell- really gives my Ad-Block a workout LOL

574
Makes you wonder what it would have done at about 13.5:1, with a ported Victor and an 1150, and a nice solid roller- I'd bet a coupla clams we might find out in the near future lol...

575
Private Classifieds / Re: WTB: Looking for 390 Short Block Odds & Ends
« on: December 16, 2013, 01:19:55 PM »
Location is important- many of us have these parts, local pickup is usually better than shipping

576
Non-FE Discussion Forum / Re: Pictures of Old Drag Cars
« on: December 15, 2013, 04:45:39 PM »
NASCAR never banned the SOHC engine, they just hit it with a weight penalty that would have made it uncompetitive, so Ford told tham to pack it and pulled the program. Kinda like NHRA with the Clevelands- there's even an area on NHRA's own site where they admitted they gave the Chebbies (Jenkin's Vega in particular) a large weight advantage to please the large number of ticket-buying Chebbie lovers. The four-door Maverick fit into a loophole
Scroll down in the below page, beside the pic of Jenkin's Vega, where you'll find "Recognizing that the vast number of fans drove Chevrolets, NHRA reconfigured the rules to allow cars with small-block wedge engines to run at a lighter weight break."

http://www.nhra.com/story/story.aspx?F_y=2012&F_m=3&F_d=29&CustomURL=pro-stock-legend-bill-grumpy-jenkins-dies&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1


http://www.nhra.com/userfiles/file/ndlivefiles/features/PSInnov.pdf

577
FE Technical Forum / Re: To much crankshaft end play
« on: December 07, 2013, 11:39:17 AM »
Better a little loose than a little tight, but make sure you actually only have .010- more than that and I would work on tightening it up

578
A gentleman around here used to bracket race a bright red early 80's Corvette, and it ran easy 10.50's or better- no decals or obvious stuff, and maybe 10" slicks. Saw him running at Sears Point one Wednesday night (before the mufflers rule), and watched a couple Chebbrainwashed kids with a 396 Chebbelle walk over to him and ask him why his car was so much faster and louder than theirs- so he opened the hood and showed them the 2x4V High Riser- coulda put a bowling ball in their open mouths
I still have the deep rear sump pan off that car out in the shop

579
FE Technical Forum / Re: Rod ratio -stroker cranks
« on: November 28, 2013, 12:48:08 PM »
I don't focus on rod length more than, as Joe put it, the longest (readily available, reasonably priced, and strong enough) possible, without making a crusade out of it. To put it very simply, a longer rod (which is closer to parallel to the cylinder all through the cycle) transfers energy to the crank, with a little energy pushing out against the cylinder walls due to the leverage. A shorter rod, with greater angularity, pushes against the walls just a bit more- very little, but a bit- so a (very) miniscule amount of power loss and additional wear and tear is just logical- but it would have to get to a pretty severe angle to be worth worrying about, and in the average range of rod ratios, probably not enough to notice or measure. So I go with the longest readily available and proper strength part that will fit, and don't spin about it any more. The 4.25/ 6.7 is a well proven combo that works pretty well (as is the 3.78 or 3.98/ 6.49), and the price is right- move on to @.050's and LSA's where you can REALLY fuss and spin LOL
I see examples of this every day at work, where we use large excavators, CAT 345's and 330's, and most everyone prefers a "long stick"- no pun intended- which is the vertical part that hangs from the boom- the connecting rod between the boom and bucket, as you can just reach farther and do more work with it. A "short stick" will "crowd" stronger horizontally, as in digging and loading the bucket, with more severe angularity (leverage)- like pushing against a cylinder wall. A long stick loses a small amount of horizontal strength, or crowd- which is good in an excavator, but wasted energy in an engine- as in pushing against the cylinder walls. Funny thing, the long stick and short stick lift the same amount of weight vertically- one can nit pick the slight difference in weight of the long stick (or connecting rod) but the total lifting work produced is still the same

580
FE Technical Forum / Re: FE in 65 Falcon
« on: November 26, 2013, 11:21:00 PM »
Paul Mastro has a 454 stroker in his, with an MII front end- lots of room, and a serious sleeper
Or, you could do this...




Pages: 1 ... 37 38 [39]