From posting.php?mode=edit&f=1&p=544353
I don't wanna post hog, so I'll start another thread.
The whole performance scene has to consider port on port induction and sizing the whole system to suit a target rpm range. EFI engines do this by design, and the alloy head XE Falcon heads were designed for BMW style EFI, and made easy 350 hp ratings with 12 pound of boost and 1.3" ports.The whole system during the Mike Vine and AIT and Bensons and Mike Hall turbocharging era was about making the Garret T3 60 turbo cover off a restrictive system. To this day, people like Does10's and others think a restrictive set up, makes more turbo boost and drg times, but actually power is the same EFI or carb,it has a minumum venturi size, and if not doen right, it will fail to yeild the power in the right part of the rev range.
For turbo or non turbo, the right head is the one which fits the cam. I'd use the 250 head for a start, then go back to the small log.
I don't like the large ports unless they are being filled up with equal portions of air and fuel. David Vizard and Kenneth Duckworth were right, Detroit and its too big ports in the canted valve Cleveland 335 and Lima 385 era were always necking down the port size because they'd gone to big.
See what too small little 9 port and 12 port converted Holden186 and 202 heads do, and the Ford 170 200 ports are then quite big. Or what Ford did with the small ports in the alloy head 1980 XD to 2002 AU engines...port area was very small because it was all about shape and short turn radius, and swirl. The Classic Inlines goes on another step, and mixes mixture motion with cfm to get off the scale power from a 4-bbl, but one venturi per port will allow a 15% smaller port than the Classic inlines with no loss on power if done right.
I started building my 6-bbl carb adaptor on the log head because the only parts not doing there job were the intake manifold ports. The exhast can be made to flow 65 to 80% of intake, and the cams around can cope with everything else. Its the lack of detonation with the non cross flow, non canted valve head, and access to good valve material, valve quality, and sizing the cam to suit the application that make these engines cheapand easy. The cost of good Cleveland valve parts and gun gear is expensive, and alloy heads can pull out studs and need more time and attention on valve gear. The canted valve heads are rougher than the non cross flow heads, and that shakes the old crank, block and camshaft, and on a high performance Ford, you don't want the grief of cam failures due to vibration.
The X-flow turboed is more like a AVESCO 5000 cc engine, and needs to be very carefully researched...mike, you will have absolutely no problem doing sub 10's or lower with a turbo EFI 250 because there is so much unshroaded valve curtian area. George's Cortina when he had it proved that a nice big 291 degree cam under boost would just incinerate everything, Cleveland 351 style, at the drop of a hat.
Iron Ford six heads are like Windsor iron 289 heads, you have to do a lot of carefull work to get them to do anything. They are more alolng the lines of Torana style items, which just need a lot of duration, and a lot of Weber/Dellorto style venturi matching to come close to an X-flow or Classic Inlines, but that's what they used to do in the 60's, the Peter Brock era, a little 200 cube engine was really happy with triple 2" HD8 Jag or Aston Martin carbs flowing 265 cfm at 1.5" each, and just a cam reving to 6500 rpm, and you had a fun 250 hp with ease.
When looking at the top flight Hemi 265 with 294 hp net at 5500 rpm from triple 45 mm Webers with 40 mm chokes, it had port areas up to 2.2 sq in, and 1.96" intakes on a 3.91" bore engine. To match that, a little 202 Holden had to rev 30% higher to 7200 rpm, but it was perfectly safe with the good hi silocon cast pistons, the low load stress solid lifter cams and excellent quality valves and rods. And a set old DCOE 45's made an E49 style power peak.
A 3.68" bore 200 engine with the right stuff can match those E49 power figures, reliably with that Holden style Aussie know how. As I keep saying, if Crosely can do 205 hp at 5300 rpm with just cast pistons and rods and hundreds of sub 16 second C4 passes, then with Street Sedan style technolgy from the dark ages, you can go to 250 and 300 hp with an extra 1500 to 1900 rpm. US Pinto racers have been putting out that much with normally aspirated 2300's and C4's and 5:1 geared 8" diffed rides for ages.
It's a no brainer!
As for a final cap off to what down sizing the packages does and how independent runner intakes do the work, go buy back issues of the July 1977 and November 1981 Wheels Trans Australia 80 and 90 mph (not including stops) 2648 mile Sydney to Melborne runs. That was like 130 KM/H
See http://www.alfaclubvic.org.au/forum/ind ... pic=3851.0
First year was 32 hours 58 minutes in a 4-speed single rail 4-bbl dual exhast 207 hp 302 Clevleand with 34 US gallon tank, doing something like 7 US mpg gallon at that average. Then the Alfa Romeo Alfetta got an auxilary tank for 33 gallons total (51 lites plus 70) and got it down to 29 hrs and 14 minutes, 5 seconds, or 90 mph average exluding fuel stops. And did 13.6 US miles per gallon. The saving in fuel was more in having 2500 pounds rather than 3800 to push, and a 20% drop in frontal area, but that little engine did the same low 17's hugh 16's quarter mile time, and when a TurboDelta turbo charger was added in one Wheels 1982 RX-7/ Alfetta/ Starion/ 944 Comparo it when right to into the 15.8second bracket with low boost and no modsexcept for 7:1 compresion ratio, oil cooler and a few non engine performance mods.
http://www.alfaclubvic.org.au/forum/ind ... pic=5716.0
The counter point is that the USA were going the European high performance route with the Foxes, Mustangs and Capris, but then suddenly it looked like that was then gonna take out the Windsor and replacing it with a Mazda 626 Turbo based car, so suddenly the incensed public forced Ford to back track to the 5.0. The 2.3 got a spice up, but the Mustang, Capri and T bird and even Merkur customers were voting with the feet becasue it never had the torque, and then the engine that Edsel Ford II said they'd like to see in the US got sidelined. Its now getting rediscovered,and no matter what head, you can make it soar into the 200 to 300 hp bracket with suppreme ease!
All this is about how it was in 1980's, everyone was dropping independent runner Ferrari, Maserati engines, and Alfa US engines were Spica injected for emissions reasons. But they were really something. And that's where the cluey Six cylinder guys are heading, grabing period 60's, 70's and 80's Box top Falcons and Foxes, shoving in the oddest hi performance Inline six Ford engine ever made, and then just sort of...go wucking futts.
xrwagon":2ke4jzb6 said:
I don't wanna post hog, so I'll start another thread.
The whole performance scene has to consider port on port induction and sizing the whole system to suit a target rpm range. EFI engines do this by design, and the alloy head XE Falcon heads were designed for BMW style EFI, and made easy 350 hp ratings with 12 pound of boost and 1.3" ports.The whole system during the Mike Vine and AIT and Bensons and Mike Hall turbocharging era was about making the Garret T3 60 turbo cover off a restrictive system. To this day, people like Does10's and others think a restrictive set up, makes more turbo boost and drg times, but actually power is the same EFI or carb,it has a minumum venturi size, and if not doen right, it will fail to yeild the power in the right part of the rev range.
For turbo or non turbo, the right head is the one which fits the cam. I'd use the 250 head for a start, then go back to the small log.
I don't like the large ports unless they are being filled up with equal portions of air and fuel. David Vizard and Kenneth Duckworth were right, Detroit and its too big ports in the canted valve Cleveland 335 and Lima 385 era were always necking down the port size because they'd gone to big.
See what too small little 9 port and 12 port converted Holden186 and 202 heads do, and the Ford 170 200 ports are then quite big. Or what Ford did with the small ports in the alloy head 1980 XD to 2002 AU engines...port area was very small because it was all about shape and short turn radius, and swirl. The Classic Inlines goes on another step, and mixes mixture motion with cfm to get off the scale power from a 4-bbl, but one venturi per port will allow a 15% smaller port than the Classic inlines with no loss on power if done right.
I started building my 6-bbl carb adaptor on the log head because the only parts not doing there job were the intake manifold ports. The exhast can be made to flow 65 to 80% of intake, and the cams around can cope with everything else. Its the lack of detonation with the non cross flow, non canted valve head, and access to good valve material, valve quality, and sizing the cam to suit the application that make these engines cheapand easy. The cost of good Cleveland valve parts and gun gear is expensive, and alloy heads can pull out studs and need more time and attention on valve gear. The canted valve heads are rougher than the non cross flow heads, and that shakes the old crank, block and camshaft, and on a high performance Ford, you don't want the grief of cam failures due to vibration.
The X-flow turboed is more like a AVESCO 5000 cc engine, and needs to be very carefully researched...mike, you will have absolutely no problem doing sub 10's or lower with a turbo EFI 250 because there is so much unshroaded valve curtian area. George's Cortina when he had it proved that a nice big 291 degree cam under boost would just incinerate everything, Cleveland 351 style, at the drop of a hat.
Iron Ford six heads are like Windsor iron 289 heads, you have to do a lot of carefull work to get them to do anything. They are more alolng the lines of Torana style items, which just need a lot of duration, and a lot of Weber/Dellorto style venturi matching to come close to an X-flow or Classic Inlines, but that's what they used to do in the 60's, the Peter Brock era, a little 200 cube engine was really happy with triple 2" HD8 Jag or Aston Martin carbs flowing 265 cfm at 1.5" each, and just a cam reving to 6500 rpm, and you had a fun 250 hp with ease.
When looking at the top flight Hemi 265 with 294 hp net at 5500 rpm from triple 45 mm Webers with 40 mm chokes, it had port areas up to 2.2 sq in, and 1.96" intakes on a 3.91" bore engine. To match that, a little 202 Holden had to rev 30% higher to 7200 rpm, but it was perfectly safe with the good hi silocon cast pistons, the low load stress solid lifter cams and excellent quality valves and rods. And a set old DCOE 45's made an E49 style power peak.
A 3.68" bore 200 engine with the right stuff can match those E49 power figures, reliably with that Holden style Aussie know how. As I keep saying, if Crosely can do 205 hp at 5300 rpm with just cast pistons and rods and hundreds of sub 16 second C4 passes, then with Street Sedan style technolgy from the dark ages, you can go to 250 and 300 hp with an extra 1500 to 1900 rpm. US Pinto racers have been putting out that much with normally aspirated 2300's and C4's and 5:1 geared 8" diffed rides for ages.
It's a no brainer!
As for a final cap off to what down sizing the packages does and how independent runner intakes do the work, go buy back issues of the July 1977 and November 1981 Wheels Trans Australia 80 and 90 mph (not including stops) 2648 mile Sydney to Melborne runs. That was like 130 KM/H
See http://www.alfaclubvic.org.au/forum/ind ... pic=3851.0
First year was 32 hours 58 minutes in a 4-speed single rail 4-bbl dual exhast 207 hp 302 Clevleand with 34 US gallon tank, doing something like 7 US mpg gallon at that average. Then the Alfa Romeo Alfetta got an auxilary tank for 33 gallons total (51 lites plus 70) and got it down to 29 hrs and 14 minutes, 5 seconds, or 90 mph average exluding fuel stops. And did 13.6 US miles per gallon. The saving in fuel was more in having 2500 pounds rather than 3800 to push, and a 20% drop in frontal area, but that little engine did the same low 17's hugh 16's quarter mile time, and when a TurboDelta turbo charger was added in one Wheels 1982 RX-7/ Alfetta/ Starion/ 944 Comparo it when right to into the 15.8second bracket with low boost and no modsexcept for 7:1 compresion ratio, oil cooler and a few non engine performance mods.
http://www.alfaclubvic.org.au/forum/ind ... pic=5716.0
The counter point is that the USA were going the European high performance route with the Foxes, Mustangs and Capris, but then suddenly it looked like that was then gonna take out the Windsor and replacing it with a Mazda 626 Turbo based car, so suddenly the incensed public forced Ford to back track to the 5.0. The 2.3 got a spice up, but the Mustang, Capri and T bird and even Merkur customers were voting with the feet becasue it never had the torque, and then the engine that Edsel Ford II said they'd like to see in the US got sidelined. Its now getting rediscovered,and no matter what head, you can make it soar into the 200 to 300 hp bracket with suppreme ease!
All this is about how it was in 1980's, everyone was dropping independent runner Ferrari, Maserati engines, and Alfa US engines were Spica injected for emissions reasons. But they were really something. And that's where the cluey Six cylinder guys are heading, grabing period 60's, 70's and 80's Box top Falcons and Foxes, shoving in the oddest hi performance Inline six Ford engine ever made, and then just sort of...go wucking futts.
