Blowing 3 Gees on my Six

[Luke76]

Thanks Richard for all that info on the gearing, tires and tranny. I am going to file this away for later because I think I do need to do some tinkering in that area. It's good to know I can bolt on an AOD, too.

Right now though so the thread doesn't wander I am going to focus back on the engine rebuild which is nearing completion. I have two issues at present:

ISSUE #1: 289 Spring Specs & Coil Bind Issues
I think I may have a problem with my springs and the new cam/rockers, but I just don't think I have the correct specifications to know for sure. I need to order a spring tool so I can take one off and make some more measurements.

The Classic Inlines website doesn't have quite as much info on their springs as I would like and I have not found concrete specs elsewhere on the 289 springs they sell. CI only gives two pieces of info:
- Installed Height: 1.68" (see here)
- Coil Bind Height: 0.53" (see here)

Why they bother giving an installed height I don't know, this will vary for each build and is something you have to measure. Mine measure at ~1.60" presently.

Also it is confusing because when I think of coil bind I think of the height at which the coils are touching each other (spring completely compressed), but CI defines Coil Bind Height as "Difference between installed height and Solid Height". They don't list a "Solid Height" anywhere for the 289 springs.

Anyway, the Spec Card for my Cam lists:
Valve Lift = 0.480"

What I would really like to know about my cam is lobe lift, not valve lift, since valve lift is dependent on the rocker ratio. I don't know if the cam card really means "lobe" lift or if it is assuming a standard 1.5 ratio, or what.

If my "lobe" lift is indeed 0.480" and I have 1.65 ratio rockers, my valve lift is a pretty incredible 0.792". With my current installed height of 1.60" and assuming a 0.060" safety margin, I'm pretty sure I'm way beyond coil bind with my present setup. But whether I have the correct numbers, I don't know.

Clearly I need some more info... Can anyone shed a bit of light on this?

Of course I can also remove one of the springs and measure "solid height" as soon as I get a spring removal tool.


ISSUE #2: Torque Converter Selection
So far all I have been told about torque converters is that I can't trust the published stall specs. If I am going to "bow to superior knowledge" I'd like to hear what that knowledge would be, but I still haven't seen a specific recommendation. I listed two TCs earlier as possible suggestions, a B&M 2400 and a B&M 3000 but didn't hear anything else from FSD on the matter.


Luke

 

[electrorc]

ISSUE #1: 289 Spring Specs & Coil Bind Issues
I think I may have a problem with my springs and the new cam/rockers, but I just don't think I have the correct specifications to know for sure. I need to order a spring tool so I can take one off and make some more measurements.

The Classic Inlines website doesn't have quite as much info on their springs as I would like and I have not found concrete specs elsewhere on the 289 springs they sell. CI only gives two pieces of info:
- Installed Height: 1.68" (see here)
- Coil Bind Height: 0.53" (see here)

Why they bother giving an installed height I don't know, this will vary for each build and is something you have to measure. Mine measure at ~1.60" presently.

It's been several months since I ran into the same issue with mine (with different springs), but I'm thinking you're right that you'll have an issue. CI's cam page here lists the valve lift with a 1.65 ratio as 0.485".

For the spring measurements, CI's 2 specs will get you a solid height--fully compressed--of 1.150" (their installed height-their coil bind spec). So with your current 1.60" installed height, that'd be (1.60" installed)-(0.485" lift)-(0.060" safety)=1.055" that you'd need as a minimum. The 289 springs would then be 0.095" too tall when they're at full coil bind in your setup. You'd need an installed height around 1.695" for those springs to work.

I'll let someone else verify that though...

 

[Luke76]

Good catch on the cam page, I hadn't seen those specs. However I'm still trying to figure out what the 0.480" valve lift shown on the Clay Smith cam card should mean, if you take that info along with the link you sent it implies that Clay Smith's specs assume a rocker ratio of 1.63 which is awful weird... You'd think they'd just give you lobe lift and let you do the math yourself.

I had also thought to "infer" solid height from the two specifications that CI gives for the springs, which you're right would be 1.15", and again, would certainly give me a problem. Like you though I just wasn't completely sure that was correct or not.

CI actually recommends the 302 springs for my cam due to their greater pressure, but at least with the math we're doing they don't make any improvement on my coil bind issue.

All this stuff is too important to go on a guess and a hunch, so I still feel like I need better info.

I already had the valve guides machined down once for my old springs, so I can have it done some more... not sure what the limit to that is or if another tenth of an inch is going to be excessive or not.

Electro, what did you end up doing with your springs?

Luke


[EDIT: I just ordered this valve spring compressor from Summit so I will at least be able to take one off and measure "Solid Height" directly in a vise.]

 

[bubba22349]

Why they bother giving an installed height I don't know, this will vary for each build and is something you have to measure. Mine measure at ~1.60" presently.

Installed is set so that closed spring pressure (seat pressure) is correct. With a 1.60 install height you are .080 too low this also means that you have more closed seat and hi lift pressure pressure. How much more you would need a spring testing machine to check the pressure at the 1.60 height and at full lift height. More spring pressure can also wear out the cam and lifters faster though without being able to check your springs in my tester can't say for certain if you have too much pressure or not. More important though is that you may not have enough clearance between the spring retainer and your valve guides and or valve seals in which case the the seals could get damaged. To fix the spring height to the correct spec you can remove spring shims if you have them or have the spring seats on the head machined deeper to give the minimum or change the spring retainers for some that would have a higher installed height if they make them.

Also it is confusing because when I think of coil bind I think of the height at which the coils are touching each other (spring completely compressed), but CI defines Coil Bind Height as "Difference between installed height and Solid Height". They don't list a "Solid Height" anywhere for the 289 springs.

Yes the solid height measurement would be when spring is completely collapsed (all coils are touching). The minimum safe measurement needs to be 0.050 less than that IE with springs at the full cam lift the compressed spring can than be measured so that you would have at least .050 between two coils in the stack.

What I would really like to know about my cam is lobe lift, not valve lift, since valve lift is dependent on the rocker ratio. I don't know if the cam card really means "lobe" lift or if it is assuming a standard 1.5 ratio, or what.

If my "lobe" lift is indeed 0.480" and I have 1.65 ratio rockers, my valve lift is a pretty incredible 0.792". With my current installed height of 1.60" and assuming a 0.060" safety margin, I'm pretty sure I'm way beyond coil bind with my present setup. But whether I have the correct numbers, I don't know.

Edited this to correct the math
Yes it’s based on the 1.65 ratio rockers so .480 total lift is a .291 cam lobe lift. With your new Hi Ratio Rockers than .291 X 1.65 = .480 total lift.

Edited this to correct the math
So if it was setup with the correct 1.680 spring height with a .480 lift plus a bare minimum of the .060 for coil bind = .530. The fully compressed spring height (coils stacked) needs to be known. Figured like this add them all together to get valve spring install height.

1. Coil Bind Stacked Height ? " min .530

2. Valve Lift .480"

3. Coil Bind Min. Clearance between coils .060"

4. Installed Spring Height 1.600" Recommended Height 1.680

ISSUE #2: Torque Converter Selection
So far all I have been told about torque converters is that I can't trust the published stall specs. If I am going to "bow to superior knowledge" I'd like to hear what that knowledge would be, but I still haven't seen a specific recommendation. I listed two TCs earlier as possible suggestions, a B&M 2400 and a B&M 3000 but didn't hear anything else from FSD on the matter.

This is from my experiences, yes the stall speeds are only guesstimates and it depends on how much power an engine makes so that the same torque convertor in 3 different size engines will have 3 different stalls I ran a 8 inch with a 5500 RPM rated stall in my big block V8 race car. If I bolted that same converter onto a small block race motor it probably would loose a 600 to 1000 RPM stall. If you can find out what the specs are for the test motor they used to rate the converter it would help than you would need to know close to your engines torque and be in the ball park. My guess though is that the 2400 would stall at about 1800 in yours and the 3000 at 2400.

 

[electrorc]

Good catch on the cam page, I hadn't seen those specs. However I'm still trying to figure out what the 0.480" valve lift shown on the Clay Smith cam card should mean, if you take that info along with the link you sent it implies that Clay Smith's specs assume a rocker ratio of 1.63 which is awful weird... You'd think they'd just give you lobe lift and let you do the math yourself.

Yeah, to be honest I never figured that out. Since I have stock rockers, I think I just ended up using the 0.441" valve lift in my calculations.

CI actually recommends the 302 springs for my cam due to their greater pressure, but at least with the math we're doing they don't make any improvement on my coil bind issue.

Correct.

Electro, what did you end up doing with your springs?

I had originally bought the 302HP springs, and I ended up with an installed height of 1.63". When checked with a solid lifter, I had too little clearance in my opinion. I'm running Comp Cams 903-12 springs now, and they seem to be working okay so far. They're for a 240/300 six, and are a little bigger in diameter, though.

Bubba, I may just be missing something here... but if that was the case with the 0.320 lobe lift, why do the numbers differ from what's listed on the Classic Inlines page for that cam? They have the 1.5 ratio as being 0.441" lift, and 1.65 as 0.485"...

 

[Luke76]

Yes it’s based on the stock 1.5 ratio rockers so .480 total lift is a .320 cam lobe lift. With your new Hi Ratio Rockers than .320 X 1.65 = .528 total lift. The cam’s duration also changes some too.

Bubba this is all good info - my only question is that your math above is in direct conflict with what CI says the valve lift is at 1.65", see the link Electro posted here. CI claims that with my cam and 1.65 rockers the valve lift is only 0.485".

I have learned there are several inaccuracies from the CI webpage, and other websites too, so I usually don't trust a source until I can find more than one place that says the same thing, but here every place is saying something different.


Luke


[Ok, Electro and I just posted the same thing at the same time...]

 

[bubba22349]

I did not look at their page just did the math from the cam card so it for sure could be wrong sorry about that. If they have it listed with 1.5 ratio as being 0.441" lift they should know. Than .441 / by 1.5 = .294 for cam lobe lift with the 1.65 ratio rockers would = .4851 as they have listed it. Than the cam card is showing it for a 1.65 ratio so did you order the cam giving them the 1.65 rocker ratio? When you install it you can check it all with a dial indicator and degree wheel. So disregard my previous answer will be a lot of bad math as well as bad assumptions on my part. I would go with what CI says as being very accurate info, even so the parts can also vary somewhat in manufacturing though probably would be very minor tolerance difference, as your cam card shows that there is a small difference and it's going to be the most accurate of all. This would make your cam lobe lift .480 / 1.65 = .2909 (.291 lift at the cam). This also means that the duration statement I made before was wrong too and the cam card is right on that too. I edited the above math to change it to the correct figures. Sorry for the mix up

 

[Luke76]

Ok Bubba, I see what you're saying about your new math.

I'm still not sure how we know exactly that the CI Cam Card assumes a 1.65 rocker ratio but I do agree that's about the only number that makes sense.

To be absolutely sure I will do as you say and just measure lobe lift with a dial indicator when I get the block back. But for now, based on our best assumptions:

289 Springs "Solid Height" (coils stacked) - assumed from CI info - 1.15"
Add .060 for clearance, compressed spring at full lift should not be less than this: 1.15 + 0.060 = 1.21"

Installed height currently: 1.60"
Valve lift assumed: 0.480"
Compressed at full lift: 1.60 - 0.480 = 1.12" - TOO COMPRESSED, can't be less than 1.21"

Looks to me I need to machine about 0.10" of an inch from the valve guides [EDIT: I should have said spring seats, not valve guides], this puts me at the correct install height and solves my coil bind issue. I don't have any shims on the springs now to take off.

If I go to the 302 springs I'd have to machine off approx 0.14" from the valve guides which is even more. I'm inclined to stay with the 289 springs.

At the end of the day I need to make some empirical measurements of the cam and the springs, then make the final determination. But you and Electro have certainly helped me figure out how to work this problem, so thanks very much.


Luke

 

[bubba22349]

I'm still not sure how we know exactly that the CI Cam Card assumes a 1.65 rocker ratio but I do agree that's about the only number that makes sense.

To be absolutely sure I will do as you say and just measure lobe lift with a dial indicator when I get the block back. But for now, based on our best assumptions:

My guess is that these are the advertized spec's on CI site. The cam card is the actual measurements that are taken off your cam these are done on a cam machine or fixture. They are very accurate so far I have never found one that was not right on.

Looks to me I need to machine about 0.10" of an inch from the valve guides, this puts me at the correct install height and solves my coil bind issue. I don't have any shims on the springs now to take off.

If I go to the 302 springs I'd have to machine off approx 0.14" from the valve guides which is even more. I'm inclined to stay with the 289 springs.

OK plugging in those missing numbers

1. Coil Bind Stacked Height 1.15"

2. Valve Lift .480"

3. Coil Bind Min. Clearance between coils .060"

4. Installed Spring Height 1.600" Recommended Height 1.680

1.15, .480, .060, = 1.69 needed min. spring install height

Yes at it's bare min is .090 short with the parts you have now so you are very close with your est. of .100". But you will need to machine the spring seat of the head to get that height. To know if you will need to machine the guide height is a separate measurement from bottom of the retainer to the top of the installed seal and guide this needs to be about .530. From I what CI info says I don't think the machining amount would be much different for the 302 spring shows a Coil Bind measurement of 1.100 so that should be .050 less of machining.

With the 302 springs
1.100, .480, .060, = 1.64 needed min. spring install height

 

[FalconSedanDelivery]

Go with the 3000 it will be a 2500 unit behind your motor.

 

[Luke76]

FSD:
Thanks for your recommendation on the TC. If it really does end up being about 2500 stall then that would be about perfect for what I need. Just ordered it.


Bubba:
Ok, I see now that when you say "cam card" you mean a paper card that comes with the cam. I thought we were talking about the posted cam cards on the CI website. My cam didn't come with any documentation or papers at all, which is par for the course with all my orders from CI. Been ordering parts for over two years and never gotten so much as an invoice.

Well at least our math is matching now!

Thanks for also explaining the difference between machining the spring seat and machining the valve guide, I was thinking the guide was cut flush with the seat level but I understand now they can be two different heights. This difference would be obscured from view by the valve seals which is why I didn't at first notice when I glanced at it. I'm learning a lot here!

Nothing will replace real-life measurements so that's what I'll be doing...


Luke

 

[bubba22349]

I thought we were talking about the posted cam cards on the CI website.

We could be since CI has that line of cams they have developed and are made to those spec's those were then made into cam pattern masters. The master are than used to grind the cams from so your cam should still measure out to those numbers listed on their online cam cards. Anyway it's going to be close enough to figure it all out. Good luck

 

[Luke76]

I got my spring tool and pulled a couple to test in my vise.

I'm learning that anything to do with springs is hardly an exact science... Stacked height, does that mean at any point that any two coils are touching each other? Does that mean that you crank it down in the vise with all your might? Makes a difference. Same with 0.060" between the coils - you might get 0.060" between two coils but not between two others... if you relax the spring until you get at least 0.060" between any and all coils then you have some coils that are way more, and your overall spring height measurement is going to be very different.

And anyway - is the safety margin supposed to be 0.060" between any coils, or is it supposed to be 0.060" added to the measured height of stacked coils? There is also a very big difference there as well.

Here are my measurements of these 289 springs, showing the range of multiple measurements taken with multiple springs:

Stacked/Solid height (coils touching): 1.045" - 1.06", average ~1.05" (CI lists this as 1.15" - not even close)
Height with 0.060" between at least some coils: 1.225" - 1.265", average ~1.25"

You can see that even at the low end of the coil-spacing scale (1.225"), plus add the low end of our estimates for valve lift (0.480") we arrive at a targeted install height of 1.70" which is higher than CI's figure of 1.68".

If when I measure valve lift I get closer to 0.485" (still haven't measured this yet, cam is at the shop), and if I take the average of the measurements for adequate coil spacing instead of the absolute minimum (1.25") we get a target install height of 1.735".

Either way, CI's recommended install height of 1.68" looks to be a tad low. And of course my actual install height presently of 1.60" is way too low.

Once we get the cam in and take an empirical measurement of the valve lift I will know a bit more. Then I am going to bring the head in to my machinist and see what he says. Maybe there is a more "official" way to figure out this spring business than me chucking them in my vise...

Anyway - maybe this rambling will be useful to someone in the future. I'll keep you posted.


Luke

 

[Luke76]

In the meantime, I was looking over the head the other day and when Rick's Cylinder Head fixed up my port divider that was crudely installed by Portland Engine Rebuilders, they had to take the carb adapter plate off. I'd never seen below the adapter plate because this was also something PER had installed.

Lo and behold this is what I find - a very loose screw fragment under the plate. When I went to wiggle it, it fell right out. There was obviously no effort by PER to glue this thing in, but even if they had I'm not sure I would have trusted glue to something that is going to see a lot of heat cycles. I thank my lucky stars this chunk of metal didn't come off with the engine running.

Anyway, having a divot there probably isn't too great for smooth airflow but I can't really have a ticking time bomb there either, so I'm just going to leave the threads exposed. Add this to the list of reasons why I can't recommend PER to anyone.

 

[MPGmustang]

actually they did it just like classic inlines did mine, they put screw's in to help hold the putty up while it was setting, mine is putty built not 'brazed' on, I can't tell what they used to make yours. but they had to build up the sides and they used a bolt to help hold it on while it cured, my studs and bolts are still in the mold. but yes that is a ticking time bomb glad you found it, but I wouldn't blame PER as they 'tried' to do it right, your direct mount job looks great BTW and very professional IMO. all except that loose stud/bolt/screw...

but I agree on the port divider, the new work to make it more flush looks worlds better than before, I'm sure PER could have but didn't know that's the quality you would have liked. IMO, my most unsatisfied experiences is because I didn't know what I wanted or didn't know how to communicate what I was looking for.

EDIT:
spring height check... I really don't know how that works...

 

[Luke76]

Actually I can't see any putty or brazing and if you look at the first photo the intake wall gets mighty thin in places... However there may have been some point in using the bolt, though it looks mostly to have been kept in to improve the airflow.

All the same your point about communication is very well taken, and I agree part of my problem with PER was me not knowing exactly what I wanted down to the small details - and being unable to tell them exactly what I had in mind. I had a general sense but I was relying heavily on them to fill in the gaps, which I see is not a wise approach when you are dealing with an unusual engine like the Ford Six. They made a lot of assumptions without asking me, and I wished they had consulted me first on some things, but ultimately it was my responsibility to communicate clearly and that was definitely a failure on my part.

The best thing about this entire project is what I have learned, which is a lot! (But also enough to know there's still a lot I don't know!) If I were starting this project today, with what I know now, it would go much smoother. I am hoping to apply all this experience and hopefully some small measure of wisdom I've acquired to my next build (the 460 in my F250). I know, I know, I can already hear the gods laughing!


Luke

 

[kevinl1058]

I would take these pics to Ted at PER. I'm sure he would rather work to fix the problem as poor workmanship by one of his employees. He did a great job on my motor. I once had a car that had some custom paint work done. When I got the car home a few days later notice the crappy prep work done on some aftermarket body parts. Took the car right back for a repaint and it happened to be the last mistake that body guy did as he was fired. Owner's shop had done a number of jobs for the car club I was in so in short Good publicity is always better than bad.
Kev

 

[MPGmustang]

Actually I can't see any putty or brazing and if you look at the first photo the intake wall gets mighty thin in places...

I was thinking quite opposite, compared to my head those walls look healthy even where it is thinest!!!

you and I both have learned hundreds fold from our journey's, I'm sure MANY others learn this way too. I guess it's the process everyone goes through, unless you were rasied that way... like my dad didn't know a v8 would bolt in where an i6 sits (mustang) with VERY LITTLE mods, otherwise I wouldn't be here if he knew, but now he does

 

[bubba22349]

Stacked height, does that mean at any point that any two coils are touching each other?

Stacked height is when all the coils are compressed and touching each other

Does that mean that you crank it down in the vise with all your might?

No need for that for the most precision in your measurement you would only tighten down enough so the coils just lightly touch. Because the coils are round if you keep tightening them with all your might they will actually slip over each other it might destroy the spring too. If 1.06" is the highest one than use that for the measurement.

If your measurement is right, than with the Springs listed as stacked at 1.15" that is .090 less so

Stacked Highest measured 1.06

Minimum spring clearance between coil .060 more is also better

Valve lift at rocker .480

Spring Installed Height needed 1.60

1.06 + .060 + .480 = 1.60 it looks like you would be right on the money. Did you check your valve guide seal to spring retainer clearance yet?

 

[Luke76]

Bubba,

Everything about that math would be good except the assumption that adding 0.060" to stacked height would result in 0.060" between the coils. Since there are about 5 coils that would mean the 0.060" is spread evenly between the four spaces between the five coils, so distance between any given two coils would only be about 0.015".

That's why I found that I needed to add about 0.20" to stacked height before I would measure 0.060" even between a single coil (of course the coils expand slightly different amounts so that is the earliest that I could measure 0.060" between any coil, and some of the other coils might have still been a bit closer to each other).

I haven't measured valve guide to retainer clearance yet, my spring compressor tool needs about three hands and my beer gut to operate it and I wasn't skilled enough to take measurements at the same time... But I guess that's why I bought those "checking springs", I forgot about those until just now. Will do that next.


Luke