Dyno Results

[mustangman33]

Dear Fordsix Performance Community,

I finally finished my hugely expensive (both in time and money) 200 build and had it dyno'd at my machinists and I thought I should share the numbers. Top Pulls - Max Horsepower: 236 @ 5800rpm Max Torque: 228.7 @ 4300rpm. I have pretty much every part that mike sells on the car (D.U.I., Dual out headers, 274/274 hydro 108 cam, adjustable 1.65 Full Roller Rocker Set, Holley 390 cfm 4 barrel carb, with the Ported, CC'd and equalized aluminum head package; all with many other parts). Feel free to ask me any questions on the build, outcome, etc. and I'll try to answer them as accurately as possible. It was great to see so much enthusiasm from my machinist and all of his customers that were intrigued by me building up a 6 instead of just dropping an 8 in it (Had 4 other people come just to see my engine pull: one guy from Carcraft magaizne, one guy from a mustang magazine, a guy from a local mustang shop, and diesel truck racer - who was nice enough to donate $100 towards my build he liked it so much). I'd like to thank Jim Grubbs Motorsports and Mike from Classic Inlines for making this build possible and so successful. Information on this forum was also extremely helpful.

http://youtu.be/RVhpwgWgPrU

Tory

 

[bubba22349]

Excellent

 

[xctasy]

Its a nice result, very good use of the cam and head to get power and torque like that. What's the CR ratio and , more importantly, whats the little gem going into? :mrgreen:

Oh, a 65 Stang. You were the amazing guy who asked in 2008

which t5 should i get with my engine having about 230 hp and 230 torque and 3.55 axle gears? a world class or a 4 cyl. im trying to build an off the line car btw. thanks

You certainly got what you asked for, right on man!!!!

In the old days, to get those figures from a six it required a 312 degree cam, triple CD 175 carbs, dual out header, and 10:1 compression and some nice long rods. An example was the HX cammed version of the 1972 XU1 GTR Torana, an obsure GM performance car from the Antipods. In race form, it got 216 hp, but after a bit of work, you could just get 236 hp with a lot of extra work on the dyno. 245 hp was the key amount on a really well sorted engine, the difference between 216 and 245 was the cam tuning and exhast.

Your doing that magic figure with just a simple 390 cfm 4-bbl and a nice, mild 274 cam profile, and that world class CI head make it so neat to get that power without a radical carb and cam combo.

The key for these engines is exhast length. The long branch exhasts create low backpressure, great top end power, but often a short fall on low end torque. 90% of the time, you get a good result for power but a little loss on torque in a real world situation. When its all hooked up, you'll find it will make a delicious power curve, which is especially fun with a shift kitted automatic with high stall converter and some 3.36 to 3.55 gears.

The way I look at power and torque is based on the world best street sedan racers feedback from the late70's and early 80's, the Australians. Specifically Peter Brock and Dick Johnston. They raced 200 cube engines in controlled race situations, a little like the Argentinians have with the TC racers.

POWER :rpm times cubic inches, divided by net HP should give as lower number as possible. This is the Australian Larry Perkins Tin Top method of asessment...the most power for the least revs. To get 238 hp at 5800 rpm from 203 cubes (200 +30 thou over), you've got an aspirations ratio of 4947, about as good as any injected V8 you care to name! 5 OUTA 5!

TORQUE: The narrow angle four valve per cylinder engines can make 1.39 lb-ft per cubic inch. You've made 1.09. Brilliant!!!!! 4 outa 5 again.

The torque is at 4300 rpm, a little high, so it needs a better matched exhast length to bring down the torque speed down to 50% of the power speed. If it is less than 25%, then its a problem, 35% is passable. Not a criticism, just an observation. A 200 has a shallow rod to stroke ratio of 1.5:1, so you can spend time playing with the cam advancing or retarting to work the torque out put at expense of top end power if you sense any lethergy when its installed. The trick is to do what Dick Johnston and the Brisbane Engine Centre used to do on I6 and V8 Fords..reduce the exhast diameter and play with the lengths to ensure good scavenging, and this will give better torque. Especially important if you start camming up an engine, where you always loose torque at the bottom end no matter if you raise the compression or have the worlds best intake system.

See viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5554
Power Tricks:How the Aussies make 3.3 liters sixes haul a$$


Its all achedemic really... you've got a great carb and tame cam, and it'll be so much fun in any Ford.

 

[mustangman33]

We were shooting for somewhere around a 9:5 compression ratio. Yes, I remember that thread - I actually ended up selling the 4 cyl t5 and getting at V8 WC because the ratios worked better. Just got my car back from paint after 3 years (used a Lexus color called Black Sapphire Pearl with plain white pearl racing stripes). Unfortunately, I just went away for school and don't have time to put it back together until the next break. The exhaust is definitely something that I want to make sure is right because I know that it can make or break my entire build - my machinists said to go with single exhaust for best results because before I was planning on running duals out of the holes in the rear valence. (Be ready to see a thread about that in the next couple of months). And yes, you have no idea how badly I want to have it running so that I can really test the entire drive train in real-world driving (Global west suspension, Wilwood 4 wheal disk brakes, positrack 8 inch with 3.55 - I might have 3.80 put in though since I'm going with the V8 t5).

http://i743.photobucket.com/albums/xx76 ... _295-1.jpg

Tory

 

[65-coupe]

I am getting ready to do the same. Waiting on my 1968 GTO to sell so I can have some play money. How musch did you spend. I was thinking of getting the 1.65 rockers too instead of the 1.6. I already have the headers, 2" exhaust, DUI. Glad to see your numbers. I also plan on useing a autolite 2100 300 CFM that I have or find a 4100. Thanks for posting

 

[MPGmustang]

for my 150hp engine, I like my WC v8 t5 and 3.8 rear with 235/70r14 tires, I'm cruising down the road at 1800rpm in 5th @ 45-50mph, 65mph is @ 2600rpm.

you might like the 3.55's with your 230hp engine combo.

 

[mustangman33]

65-coupe: With machine work and parts (including the t5) I'm prob at around $10,000.

MPG-Mustang: Ya, I guess I won't know until I drive the car.

 

[xctasy]

Mondo!

That very good for price. Due to the intense post history of FSP from October 2002 to Feb 2011, user Jimbo65 isn't active anymore, but his car provided a relative benchmark. It was 8500 for a Mustang T code GT knock off with Aussie 2V 250 head back in 2006. The ligher, stronger CI head has reduced the total cost of getting great HP, as your up about 80 to 90 hp on what former user Jimbo65 probably had done with his 65 Fastback. We think 140 hp flywheel for his 350 Holley 2-bbl 2V 200 and T5. Like, 1.5 k for 90 hp extra, is what I'm thinking.

236hp is just the start of the most irresistable energy being applied by Americans to the worlds most humble six cylinder engine ever! Thats 71 hp per liter. Does any 5.0 do 350 without taking the drivetrain out, and what about those 347 strokers doing 400 hp. 71 hp per liter is a nice number for a streetable 5 speed I6. You won't run into problems with this!


Please excuse me while I find my xanax, I'm getting over excited again....

The T5 is a 6.5 to 8% power adder over any C4/AOD combo, and five speed six is a great deal of fun.

In an Aussie context, back in the early 80's late 80's, our 5 speed 3.3 liter XE and XF Falcons with little 121 hp/3.23:1 diff, 3.22/1.93/1.26, 1:1, 0.79:1 gears gave 17.9 sec quarter miles in the stock 2910 pound 1982-1987 Falcon. The bigger 4.1 131 hp auto with Power steering, a/c and 2.77:1 diff would do 18 sec's in a 3270 pound Fairmont with 2.45/1.45/1:1 gears. That's the key, the little engine was more fun than the 25% bigger auto version, and you'd get 8 mile to the gallon better milage.

Back in those days, our Aussie intermediates had factory Cleveland 302 and 351 4v engines with 188 to 200 hp claimed. About 33% of all 65000 Falcons sold per year has little 3.3 engines.

With that little 3.3, when you camed, carbed, exhasted and kept the stock 5-speed gearing, and then got that free flowing alloy head they had modified like you Americans are doing now, you could ecplise the 164 hp 4.1 efi T5 5-speed Fairmont (16.4 sec 1/4 mile), the 4.9/302 Falcon S pack 4-speed 2.92: gears(17.0 sec), and get past the 3400 pound 5.8/351 Falcon S and Fairmont ESP (15.9 TO 16.1 sec with 200 hp 4 speed and 2.92:1 gears). Even 3500 pound auto 5.8's did about 17.3 secs with an FMX, heaps slower than the 4-speed. So a little 3.3/200 six with a manual gearbox is worth an 8% power boost with heaps less drivetrain cost than a Windsor 289/302/5.0, and certainly much less than a 331/347 stroker combo. The cost of breaking a six cylinder gearbox and axle was behind a 351 was high, but a six cylinder drive train, even with 230 hp six cylinder engine to content with, would last for all time. So as a consequence, the 302/351 guys were always bankrupting themselves, while those of us with modified 3.3 and 4.1's would always have the cars running and enjoying them. Same today with the Mustang T-codes...theny seam to zoom along without the comparitive hassles of V8 upgrades.

The gearing thing was interesting. The CAFE fuel economy regulations the EPA promoted in the US created the disasterous wide ratio 2.8/3.3/5.0 SROD over drive, a gearbox which killed the engine in third gear. Then the CAFE/EPA era millage maker and missmatched T5 four cylinder and T5 V8 gearing. Each was optimized for the California Basin 7 mile emission test, not the 49 state real world the rest of America had to content with. In truth, the 5.0 gearing spaces are all wrong with resepct to the over drive and first and third gear ratios, while the 2.3 Ranger/Mustang T5 was always too wide for 1st, 2nd and 3rd, with a perfect 1:1 and over drive. On a six cylinder, they are not perfect either, but either of them makes the car a lot of fun.

I still maintain the Aussie BW Single Rail gear ratios with 3,23:1 diff, 25" tall tires, and 1/2/3/4/5 ratios of 3.22/1.93, 1.36 1:1 and 0.79:1 are prefect for any thing from a stock 85 hp low compression T code plodder from a 1972 Maverick to a verile 230 hp weapon like yours. Our Aussie Falcon GL's with this combo had the 121 hp you Americans would see from a reworked 3.3, stock from the factory with a 256 degree cam, Duraspark, and Weber 2-bbl, and got over 30 US Miles per gallon at 62 mph. In the urban jungle, a 3.3 Falcon 5 -speed would never see below 22 US miles per gallon thrashed with a lead foot. You won't easily assassinate any US 3.20/3.25 ratio 7.25 or 8" diff, and even a later Fox 7.5 or 8.8 with 3.45, 3.27 or 3.08 will work with excellence on the cammiest 200 with a 4-cyl, S10 Chevy or Ranger T5. Our 5 speeds had great gearing, but the gearbox was no where near as strong as any non world class 4-cylinder T5, and our little 1985-1987 Camaro spec 7.625" differentials were a little less long lasting than any of your US diffs, but gearing was delectable. Only other item worth noting was that the first gear ratio and second and third was lowered in later cars to 3.47 and 2.00:1 1.40 in later cars has the vehciles got heavier in the XF line. The first T5 six wasn't untill 1986, and on the 4.1 EFI, it had 2.77 diff, 3.47, 2.00, 1.40, 1;1 and a .0.79:1 fifth.

Here were the ugly old Square Rigger humps, I think they were the whole reason why Mike tooled up for the Alloy CI head, because the stock 2-bbl 3,3 and 4.1's were turnkey, reliable, and had 30 extra horsepower than any 3.3 or 4.1, or 4.2 US Fox or Granada/Monarch/Varsalies/Maverick.
Even Edsel Ford II, then Assistant Director of Ford Australia till 1981, he wanted the alloy head to feature in US I6's, but while Ford Australia was then the most profitable wing in the FOMOCO universe from 1980 to 1983, Dearborn was on the ropes looking at bankrupcy, so it never got incorporated. Until Mike W gave us the Alloy CI head!!!

Click http://www.booksandrepairmanuals.com/~mtn/new/EP-F3.jpg for large


After the Aussie Geelong plant that made Aussie Cleveland V8 engines from 1972 got technically dimanteld in 1982, the line was throttled back except for a few DeTomaso and NASCAR SVO blocks in 1985. The focus for private car modifiers in Aussie was on turbo sixes as a Cleveland 302/351 replacement in 1982. Then a huge spark of work from the Aussies like Mike Vine, Dick Johnson (Jim Faneco from CDT the Country Racing Team, Hall Turbo/Normalair Garret TO360's, then after a failure to meet Ford durability targets, Dick Johsntons prototype SKF/Rymec Turbo Technics with an IHI turbo which was again axed when Ford Australia wouldn't honour the drivetrain warrantys), David Inall (Normalair Garret, then AIT) started making carb and EFI turbos. Early 260 hp ones, like the ill fated Gran Prix turbo, were complianced cars for approved dealers, but because the market in Australia was so small and the technolgy new with out Dearborn input, they were poorly sorted, and needed lots of development, but the idea of what Linc 200 did with his 13.879 sec 1984 Mustang with his turboed 1983 X code 92 hp based Fairmont engine started here in my opinion.... :mrgreen:

https://www.shannons.com.au/auctions/lo ... LEVJ47C9T/
http://ymiruv.blogspot.co.nz/2008/07/di ... alcon.html
http://ymiruv.blogspot.co.nz/2008/07/di ... on_17.html
http://ymiruv.blogspot.co.nz/2008/07/di ... on_20.html
http://ymiruv.blogspot.co.nz/2008/07/di ... on_23.html
http://ymiruv.blogspot.co.nz/2008/07/di ... on_26.html

(There is always a debate about total cost, as our Mustangs are the worlds most popular and reachable/affordable hot car bar none. They often start as intangiable items booking zero to perhaps 5000 dollars value until the whole project reaches fruition. After doing a huge amount of work, even based on depreciation, a stove hot 4-bbl CI headed monster is a better than K code prospect, because you can use it with impunity, its based on the worlds most findable engine, and its not too precious to nail on a regular basis. It's less of an insurance nightmare to protect, and a T-code with options is always a simple performance prospect that gets fun results, often more reliable than a V8 on a day to day basis. No major header hassles, simple carburation, an unstressed drive train, great balance with a engine weighing 340 pounds, easier to get brake and steering parts, easier and cheaper to get gearing and easier to service, no need for a 9 inch diff, five stud axles and hubs. Just pure performance without a hammered drive line).

Very well done.