Mustang Monthly article on Alum hean in stall.

[chad]

Thanks, Mustang Monthly will keep letting me use there dyno as I change things( check the cam degree and adding a 4bbl. I really wish we would have hit the 150 mark. All the tech guys from the other Magazines( Super Chevy, Mopar Muscle, MMF and 5.0 mustang) all liked the engine. I know with some playing with things I will get it where I want to be at. The lower C/R is killing it also some at 8.5-9. The car is a blast to drive so I it was well worth it. Plus it looks really cool.

Yeah, like to have something to show Mike how we do it on this coast.
SW's desert's got nothin on us...

 

[MustangSix]

I saw the article and was very impressed with the build. Good work! I wonder if going to an EDIS ignition would make much of a difference.

I'd love to drive down sometime and take a look. Or you drive up here. I'm just off 417 a couple of miles north of 528.

I work in Orlando Kirkman and Vineland. I could drive to work one day and you could come by the station.

PM me and I'll give you my number. I work in Winter Park and could pop over to meet with you.

 

[tody]

ipad issue finally arrived as well. great article, good read!

 

[Varilux]

My Mustang Monthly arrived a few days ago, and the 200 build (which didn't seem to be featured on the cover) was the first article I read. Excellent write-up!

I was a bit surprised at the final numbers (Classic Inlines talks about 200hp all the time in their tech articles), but I bet the feel of the car is totally transformed with what you did achieve! Once you install that T-5... you will definitely be a happy camper.

Now I wish they would do more articles on six builds. I'd much rather read about a six build than another stupid story about how to install a traction bar on a 2012 Mustang (I own a '14 GT, but there are OTHER publications for that kind of info- MM needs to stick to classics IMO).

Great write-up... looking forward to your final numbers!

 

[65-coupe]

My Mustang Monthly arrived a few days ago, and the 200 build (which didn't seem to be featured on the cover) was the first article I read. Excellent write-up!

I was a bit surprised at the final numbers (Classic Inlines talks about 200hp all the time in their tech articles), but I bet the feel of the car is totally transformed with what you did achieve! Once you install that T-5... you will definitely be a happy camper.

Now I wish they would do more articles on six builds. I'd much rather read about a six build than another stupid story about how to install a traction bar on a 2012 Mustang (I own a '14 GT, but there are OTHER publications for that kind of info- MM needs to stick to classics IMO).

Great write-up... looking forward to your final numbers!

Thanks alot they are doing another small article on the T5 numbers and a little about the install. Yeah I was hopping for more but us alot of fun to drive. I degreed my cam yesterday and it was advanced 5 degrees instead if 4. Not losing alot there so I left it. I mostly drive around town. Mike was thinking it might be advanced about 10 degrees or more. My C/R is most likely about 8.5 not 9. If it was 10 it would I would defiantly gain some more HP.

 

[65-coupe]

Well the T5 install is in the Dec issue of Mustang Monthly. I am playing with a 390CFM Holley right now. Hopefully that will improve it even more. I had to order bigger jets 54 and 56. I have a 58 and it is too rich at 11.5. The 51 jets that came in it was way too lean. Will keep you posted.

 

[Varilux]

The latest Mustang Monthly arrived a couple days ago- great to see they devoted more column space to the continuation of the build!

How bout supercharging things for a third article!

 

[65-coupe]

The latest Mustang Monthly arrived a couple days ago- great to see they devoted more column space to the continuation of the build!

How bout supercharging things for a third article!

That could happen after I do my paint and body work. Most like a small turbo. I still wish the numbers where better but with the bottom end stock and 20+ years on it.

 

[chad]

after I do my paint and body work. Most likely (I'd like to add) a small turbo. I still wish the numbers where better but with the bottom end (which is) stock and (has) 20+ years on it.

1st is to address:
1) “…my cam… " ,
AND
2) "...lower C/R is killing it also some at 8.5-9…”
no?
(just a guess from a non-mechanic)...

 

[65-coupe]

after I do my paint and body work. Most likely (I'd like to add) a small turbo. I still wish the numbers where better but with the bottom end (which is) stock and (has) 20+ years on it.

1st is to address:
1) “…my cam… " ,
AND
2) "...lower C/R is killing it also some at 8.5-9…”
no?
(just a guess from a non-mechanic)...

Cam is fine unless I go turbo then I think I will need the 274/274 112. I have some rust in the door I need to cut out and replace with new metal. I would rather get the body work done since the engines runs great. The money I would spend to rebuild the bottom end and get the body the way I want myself.

 

[xctasy]

Three reason's why its easy to be wise after the event...

See viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13331&p=93631#p93631

Ok well i will first start with what i have done. I have an Oz 250 head with modified 4v intake. Larger valves, 3 angle valve job. Holley 8007(390cfm), Pacemaker headers from http://www.fordsixparts.com Y'ed into a single 2.25 exhaust flowing throuhg a cheap turbo muffler. The block has been bored .030 over. with stock cam. I have the 3 row raidator. 4 cylinder t5 transmission. I have an 8.1:1 compresssion ratio, Stock ingition and am running very rich.

Ok now that i have told you what i have here were my numbers:

105 RWHP
178 Ft-lbs of torque

I think these numbers will go up with a DSII system, MSD 6al(sitting in my garage) and a better tune of the carburator.

I will scan the graphs in probably monday!

kevin

Racin' wif the big boys. Yeeeeeehhhooooooooo!

That is just a brillant result. I use the 1.264 rule for determining flywheel net hp.

There is 133 hp net @ 3200 rpm , 225 ft-lbs @ 2200 rpm. If that torque reading is not a flash reading, I predict there is 175 hp hiding there. The carb will give up to 155 hp as its jetted.


Hang in there. The the compression is what the compression is. The richness is all in a gas anaylser test and a check on the jet sizes, perhaps the way vlad did with his 390 on 300 combo. If its richer than 12.5:1 air/fuel at wide open throttle, its loosing hp. The high level of torque at low end indicates that the basics are all correct, and the rest is in the tuning!

Love it. Love 2V 200's, they look like a lot of fun. It sounds so gooooood!

Dyno-Testing Carbs
Classic Inlines took a trip down to Pony Carburetors in Las Cruces, New Mexico, to test its all-aluminum induction and cylinder head package with Autolite 2100 two-barrel and 4100 four-barrel carburetion. The baseline was 177 hp with a 500-cfm Holley two-barrel carburetor, which is pretty darned good. When Pony Carburetors bolted on a 480-cfm Autolite 4100 carburetor, the result was 211 hp, a 34hp gain. Another run netted 222 hp. We're talking excess of 200 hp at the rear wheels.Pony Carburetors also tested a variety of Autolite 2100 two-barrel carburetors, but it got less power regardless of size. The best result was achieved with a 1.02-inch carburetor. This tells us that the 4100, or a comparable Holley 4150 or 4160 four-barrel, makes more power than a two-barrel regardless of size. In normal driving, expect more torque and improved fuel economy as well.


Read more: http://www.mustangmonthly.com/techartic ... z2mmJcBheP

There you go, don't kick yourself. Despite theIr many detractors, Pony Carbs did know the secrete, a carb with 4-bbls is better than a 2-bbl


Back in 2004, a 2v head with 8:1 compression gave kstang (not Kastang or Cobra6) 130 rear wheel hp in there formerly rusted and black 65. See crazycracker421's photobucket on search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&author_id=611


When a stock 200 has 67 hp, it gets 130. Ak Miller tried with the stock head and Honda and Jag carbs, and got 125 rwhp

The Classic Inlines head just drinks up cfm and compression and cam duration is very particular as it its on all high performance Fords. Just a little too much or too little cold cranking compression, and power can vaporize.

 

[WerbyFord]

I am in the process with Mustang Monthly doing a tech article on the install of my new head. This started a few months ago when we dyno tested my car the way it is. Only 80HP to the rear wheels. We are going to dyno after the install with the C4 and then the T5. Last Weds we pulled the engine and stripped the engine compartment for paint. Still waiting on my head from CI it is having port work done. I will be installing a 264/264 110 cam, 1.6 roller tipped rockers and alot of other new parts from Summit, Spectre and Lokar. Summit had a alum water pump that I got from them. I will be using a 1.14 2100 carb that I have. I plan to upgrade to a 4100 in the future. When we pulled the oil pan the bottom end was very clean. It has also been balanced when the last person rebuilt it in the early 90's. The article is planned for the October issue as long as all goes well. You can go to Mustang Monthly's facebook page and see the pic of us pulling the engine.

Brian

Brian,
Good thing these threads jump to the top, I had missed this one.
I missed the MM articles too, maybe too late or too early as its not on the web yet.
I am trying to get my WerbyFord Gonkulator up to date on your build, guessing the initial 80 rwhp was maybe stock 200 with headers & duals? I guessed a curb of 2750lb and a 3.50 gear?
Would you have the peak Torq and RPM and peak HP=80 and RPM for that first RWHP "Before" test?

Gonkulator says that (1.14?) Autolite, 300cfm at 3.0" Hg or ~220cfm at 1.5" Hg (the 4bbl rating method) is costing you about 20hp gross up high. Looks like the T5 should "ET" about a full second and 5mph faster than the c4 trans.

 

[WerbyFord]

Brian,
Ok I found the MM link: According to MM we have
http://www.mustangmonthly.com/howto/131 ... ewall.html

“Before” test: (RWHP w c4)

Torq 64 at 2400
Torq 125 at 3300
Powr 79 at 3500

“After” test: (RWHP w c4)
Torq 113 at 2400
Torq 144 at 3600
Powr 108 at 4500

And inferring from this thread,

“After” test: (RWHP w T5)
Torq 164 at 3600 (+20 vs c4)
Powr 123 at 4500 (+15 vs c4)

A few observations right away:
1. The Dynojet in my experience gives numbers that can be artificially low due to its inertial operation.
2. In the “Before” test, something is really sick in that motor. The torq at 2400 is WAY down, and the peak HP RPM is also way down. Rare to see a dyno test where peak power is only 200rpm up from peak torq.
3. That little 1.02 Autolite 2100, at ~176cfm at 1.5” Hg, is actually SMALLER than the Pinto carb with its 203cfm at 1.5” Hg. But since I suspect the Pinto carb had some major problems, this is only the beginning of the story.
4. One Gonkulator conclusion is that a 1.12 Autolite 4100, at ~500cfm, would add over 30hp gross and about 17 RWHP to the current configuration.
5. The Gonkulator also likes cam advance of maybe 2A instead of the current 5A. But that is only worth 1 or 2 ticks.

I would like to provide some Gonkulator insight, but first really need a couple missing numbers:
* Rear gear ratio in the car, e.g. 2.83 or 3.20 etc, assuming it’s a stock 7-1/4” six rear.
* What trans gear was the c4 dyno test done in, eg 2nd?
* Same for the T5 dyno test
* Also need to confirm the T5 gear ratios eg 2.75, 1.94, 1.34, 1.00, 0.74 or other?
* What was the dynojet ramp, eg 1000rpm/second or 500rpm/second, etc, this matters for the inertial corrections

I think the car will run a lot better than the Dynojet numbers indicate, especially with a good carb on top. And in any case I think that would be the next step, maybe even get some timeslips with that tiny 2bbl carb, then add a serious carb and watch it get a whole lot faster.

Edit, ok found it, 3.40 gears :mrgreen:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=69537&p=533069#p533069

So now I am assuming the Dynojet was done in 2nd gear for the c4 and 3rd gear for the T5 at about 250rpm/second rise.
The car Gonkulates to be about 2.5 seconds and 12mph faster in its final 4bbl T5 configuration. A fun ride.

 

[65-coupe]

Brian,
Ok I found the MM link: According to MM we have
http://www.mustangmonthly.com/howto/131 ... ewall.html

“Before” test: (RWHP w c4)

Torq 64 at 2400
Torq 125 at 3300
Powr 79 at 3500

“After” test: (RWHP w c4)
Torq 113 at 2400
Torq 144 at 3600
Powr 108 at 4500

And inferring from this thread,

“After” test: (RWHP w T5)
Torq 164 at 3600 (+20 vs c4)
Powr 123 at 4500 (+15 vs c4)

A few observations right away:
1. The Dynojet in my experience gives numbers that can be artificially low due to its inertial operation.
2. In the “Before” test, something is really sick in that motor. The torq at 2400 is WAY down, and the peak HP RPM is also way down. Rare to see a dyno test where peak power is only 200rpm up from peak torq.
3. That little 1.02 Autolite 2100, at ~176cfm at 1.5” Hg, is actually SMALLER than the Pinto carb with its 203cfm at 1.5” Hg. But since I suspect the Pinto carb had some major problems, this is only the beginning of the story.
4. One Gonkulator conclusion is that a 1.12 Autolite 4100, at ~500cfm, would add over 30hp gross and about 17 RWHP to the current configuration.
5. The Gonkulator also likes cam advance of maybe 2A instead of the current 5A. But that is only worth 1 or 2 ticks.

I would like to provide some Gonkulator insight, but first really need a couple missing numbers:
* Rear gear ratio in the car, e.g. 2.83 or 3.20 etc, assuming it’s a stock 7-1/4” six rear.
* What trans gear was the c4 dyno test done in, eg 2nd?
* Same for the T5 dyno test
* Also need to confirm the T5 gear ratios eg 2.75, 1.94, 1.34, 1.00, 0.74 or other?
* What was the dynojet ramp, eg 1000rpm/second or 500rpm/second, etc, this matters for the inertial corrections

I think the car will run a lot better than the Dynojet numbers indicate, especially with a good carb on top. And in any case I think that would be the next step, maybe even get some timeslips with that tiny 2bbl carb, then add a serious carb and watch it get a whole lot faster.

Edit, ok found it, 3.40 gears :mrgreen:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=69537&p=533069#p533069

So now I am assuming the Dynojet was done in 2nd gear for the c4 and 3rd gear for the T5 at about 250rpm/second rise.
The car Gonkulates to be about 2.5 seconds and 12mph faster in its final 4bbl T5 configuration. A fun ride.

I believe the C4 was 3rd but not sure and the T5 was 4th. But I will double check with Mark. The T5 is the 4 cyl one so I think it is this gears 3.50 2.14 1.39 1.00 0.78 3.39. The Holley 390 4 bbl seems to have helped alot. Still dialing it in almost there. I will dyno it again after I am happy with the carb. Thanks for all your info and thoughts.