Figures 250

[Anonymous]

ok here are the figs for stock 250

posted numbers per falcon performance manaul
hp 155@4000 and tq 240@1600

my figs

hp 136@3500 and tq 224@2500

i can add or subtract just about anything you guy want
move timing around and so on.

taking all requests

and remember these numbers are theoretical and assume things ignition timing, air temp, engine temp and spark power are perfect.

things to ask for

cam profiles
comp ratio(depending on piston rod length and dish size etc.)
various intake and exhaust
airflow profiles for heads
power adders

the more info you give me the more acurate the results

 

[xctasy]

For head flow at 28"Hg, see the lower blue lines on each graph, for the later D8 style head, assumed.

Flow test results - CI Aluminum vrs OZ250-2V Cast
Intake
100=52 vs 63
200=99 vs 101
300=143 vs 133
400=180 vs 155
500=201 vs 156
600=210 vs 156
Exhaust
100=40 vs 36
200=79 vs 68
300=111 vs 91
400=144 vs 98
500=160 vs 103
600=164 vs 105

INTAKE FLOW CHART

EXHAUST FLOW CHART

Info required:-

Deck height .0xx"
Gasket thickness .xxx"
Head volume xx.x
Piston dish xx.x

intake valve
exhaust valve
stock headflow data #'s for xxx head (presume 28")
Intake 130cfm at xxx valve lift
Exhaust 45 cfm at xxx valve lift

the cam specs taken at .050
.xxx lift intake and exhaust
xxx duration, intake
xxx duration, exhaust
lobe center xxx
valve overlap -x.x
with no advance/retard


Found http://www.nhra.com/tech_specs/engine/b ... ORD-78.rtf


There are always errors in it, use them to your advantage, racers!

Max Compression 9.73:1 for 200, 9.66:1 on 250
1.51 rocker ratio (hydraulic) (1.52 250), later 1.61:1 in 1981
57.25cc
85HP 200, 94 hp 3.3 in 1981 or 97 hp 250
200 or 250 CUBES
deck .0015 for 200, 0.106 for 250
Flat top
1.757" inlet (1.744" in 1981
1.396" exhast (1.508" in 1981)
370 thou (400 thou by 1981)
370 thou (400 thou by 1981)
gasket .027 200, (.015 250)

Little six Cams varied HUGELY in duration and lift from 232 for 144/170, but 252 to 256 for the 200 and 250.
In 1960 to 1963, lift was 344/344
In 1964 to 1970, lift was 348/348
1960 144 engines at 232 duration, .360" lift before lash with an LSA of 111.
Pre 1971 200, lift was 348/348
Duration- 252 I/256 E, Int opens 7 btc, Int closes 65 abc, Ex opens 55 bbc, Ex closes 21 atc. Overlap 28 degrees, Lift .348".

The later models had 256 duration, .368" or .372" lift (nom 370).
In 1970 250, lift was 370/380
In 1971 250, lift was 370/370
In 1972, either 200 or 250 had 370/370 or 385/368
In 1973, either 200 or 250 had 370/370 or 379/348
The 200 and 250 stayed 370/370 from 1974 to 1980, with a 400/400 cam for 1981 only, then back to 370/370 in 1982

According to Accelerated Motion, the best estimate 50 thou figures and lash readings for the cams were about 178/178 (1963-72 .371/.371 240/240) and 184/185 (1969-83 .392/.392 254/255)

Choas, but helpfull!

 

[Anonymous]

good info execute

the first thing i did was save the stock and alum. head airflow numbers

just for my reference the 200 and 250 heads are the same yes?

 

[wallaka]

Yes.

 

[Von Writter]

Hey Bill;
I got you to run a few #s on the 300 figures thread, but I'd like to know what my current 250 is doing (see picture)
It is 250 1980 hex log head large valves 1.75 intake 1.38 exhaust SSteel
Clifford port divider
header with a straight through muffler (bottle type)
448 260 cam
Ported and pollished
Stat and dynamicly ballanced
0 deck block so what 9/1 comp?
Bored .040 over
250 cfm carb
Hope that is enough info.

 

[Anonymous]

no problem troy,
but bill very tired tonight.

but i'll get on it tomorrow and i'll ask for more info tomorrow as well

broncoman used to work for crane and strangeranger is master of all that is fast so i sucede to the wisdom of others when it comes to cam choices i'll be going with the isky mil-a-mor

and let us not forget the FTF pretty much the mcp around here.

 

[Von Writter]

no problem troy,
but bill very tired tonight.

but i'll get on it tomorrow and i'll ask for more info tomorrow as well

broncoman used to work for crane and strangeranger is master of all that is fast so i sucede to the wisdom of others when it comes to cam choices i'll be going with the isky mil-a-mor

and let us not forget the FTF pretty much the mcp around here.

Hey Bill, did you get a chance to run those #s yet? I'm very curious as to what I actually have in my 250 compaired to what the 300 would be.

 

[falcon fanatic]

hey von witter, can we see some other pics of that? interesting choice for an aviation engine. IIRC you're putting that in a replica WWI biplane, right? Was it an albatross?

What are you using for ignition. Dual mags, I presume?

I'm working on my tailwheel endorsement...can I borrow it

 

[wallaka]

Pictures linked here, about 1/4 of the way down.

http://fordsix.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=47468

 

[Von Writter]

hey von witter, can we see some other pics of that? interesting choice for an aviation engine. IIRC you're putting that in a replica WWI biplane, right? Was it an albatross?

What are you using for ignition. Dual mags, I presume?

I'm working on my tailwheel endorsement...can I borrow it

wallaka beat me too it It is for a Fokker DVII. My ignition is a Mallory Hifire and I may run a crank fired set up for backup.

 

[falcon fanatic]

I see you are looking for a bigger engine. Consider a turbo diesel truck engine and run Jet-A. Where are you located, by the way?

 

[Von Writter]

I see you are looking for a bigger engine. Consider a turbo diesel truck engine and run Jet-A. Where are you located, by the way?

I'm in Norther BC Canada fanatic, Deisel engine be too heavy!

 

[falcon fanatic]

Still, it's a cool idea. Maybe a TD car engine and some lead ballast...

 

[Anonymous]

here you go sir,

hp 168@4000 and tq 274@2000


not to shabby

and sorry it took so long.

 

[Von Writter]

No worries man, Thanks again. I wonder what the compairison is Dyno Vs real world? Probably VERY close!

 

[wallaka]

No worries man, Thanks again. I wonder what the compairison is Dyno Vs real world? Probably VERY close!

Sometimes. Sometimes not. The computer program is really only good for comparing similar variables on the same engine: e.g. cam choice or compression ratios. There are too many different variables that cannot be modeled correctly. For example, you specify raw flow at the valves, but not the whole intake or exhaust tract which can have a great effect on all aspects of performance.

Not very good for apples/oranges type stuff.

 

[Anonymous]

that is true.

lets say +/_ 10%.

but it is an awsome tool for choosing cams,carbs,and compression.

the latest version includes intake manifold design but it costs almost $400.

i saving.