Playing around with Engine Analyzer 3.0

MustangSix

2K+
VIP
Started with the specs for a stock 200, 1.75/1.38 valves, 1bbl, single exhaust, stock exhaust manifold, 9:1 CR, stock cam. It gives 105hp @4000 and 172 lb ft @ 2000. Pretty close to actual stock spec.

Then I start adding mods like some of you guys might.

2bbl Holley/Weber, no other changes, 116 hp @ 4000, 174 lb ft @ 2000. Not earth shattering, but better. A YF would give similar results.

Go back to the stock 1bbl back on, install headers, dual exhaust. 113 hp @ 4000, 177 lb ft @ 2000. Well, looks like headers alone are not the answer.

Add the 2bbl and headers. 124 hp @ 4000, 182 lb ft @ 2500 Now we're getting somewhere. That's a big enough difference to feel, but it comes in so low it will not be very lively.

We'll add a 260 degree cam to the above combo. 130 hp @ 4500, 183 lb ft @ 3000. Well that was disappointing. The head will not support the cam.

We need to do some porting. Same combo, but we'll open the exhaust and intake ports, improve flow by 10%. 153 hp @ 5500, 183 @ 3000. The head needs a lot of work!

Let's add a little more carb; 350 Holley. 159 hp @ 5500, 185 @ 3000
Hmm, need more carb.

Let's use a 500 holley 2bbl. 167 @ 5500, 186 @ 3000. same torque peak, but a much steeper slope off idle. The 350 is probably a better driver.

How about just bolting an unported 2V head, headers, duals and a Holley 350 to a stock engine? 160@ 4500, 193@3500 This really looks like a winner, even with just a stock cam.

Add a 260 cam to the above. 175hp@5500, 191 lb ft @ 4500

So, what did we learn?
1. No single bolt on does much.
2. Porting is essential on the log
3. headers alone do not make much difference
4. The 2bbl carb is only worth a few hp
5. The cam is not worth much by itself.
6. The 2V head is a good upgrade, even by itself.

Pretty much what we've known all along. The log is a dog. Pocket porting and opening the intake and exhaust ports pay big dividends. And all the bolt on go-fast stuff in Mike's catalog won't do much without a little more work to make the head breath better.

The 2V is a good option, if you can get one.

EA 3.0 is pretty good, but these are just simulations. They seem to run true with real world observations, but any two of you could assemble identical engines and get differetn results just because of skill and tuning ability.

Anyway, just a light diversion to think about the possibilities.
 
That last combo describes my engine to a Tee. Does MSD, hotter coil, Duraspark dizzy and a home made air ram system add any to the 175HP?

I don't know the exact output of my motor, but I can tell you that connected to a T5 (even with a lowly 2.79 rear) it makes for some serious acceleration at all speeds.

Rick
 
Rick, the power will increase only when the weakest link in the airflow chain is improved. Jack talked about the cam, the carb and the airflow of the head, exhast, and then the cam. Remeber c.h.e.c..

On your engine, its cam and carb limited. Nothing else stands in the way much. The exhast may be restrictive, but its okay, and a good cam can do the rest. We get 200 hp out of 12 port 3.3 liter Holdens in NZ and Australia, and all of that is via carb, head, exhast and cam. You can get to 245hp net with triple SU HIF7 carbs and still have a vaugely street engine. You'd hate it, but if it's geared right, it could live as a weekend car. I've seen a 296 hp 3.3 liter engine with triple Webers, and it could rev to 7500 rpm, and was sweeter than many cars with one half the power.


As for the rest of this, I applogise perfusely if this is too 'techie'! Jack, this ones for you.

Power~Torque Magnitude Rule :
The power curve and torque curves are poly nomial functions. If the engine has mild 50 thou figure lifts, the low end torque to power ratio in the raw flywheel units are found to be at a 1.6 lb-ft per each hp. On 300 I6's or 221 Flattie Fords, it can be even lower, like perhaps 1.8 lb-ft per hp. As the engine is carbed, extracted and gasflowed, the ratio between torque and power levels drop. On speedway or super hot engines, there may be only 0.7 lb-ft per each hp

Power~Torque Rev-range Rule :
As you cam the engine, the power rises with either no torque gain, or even a loss. The ratio of the rpms at which this occurs is about 2 power rpms per 1 torque rpms at a low state of tune, a ratio of 2.0. Eg 2000 rpm for max torque, and 4000 rpm for maximum power on the stock engine.
As the engine gets carbed, extracted and gasflowed, the ratio drops to about 1.5 to 1.4, if the exhast is correctly sized. As you go crazy with the cam, the rev range between maximum torque and power is only about 1.2.


These rules are emperical, and work in every case, except in turbo engines where boost control is modulated. It's nothing for a 4.0 DOHC to have maximum power at 1.5 or even two times the figure where maximum torque arrives at. When you cam up a non-turbo engine significantly over the 215 degree per 50 thou level, keeping all else equal, you loose lots of low-speed torque, even though the peak torque figure may go up to 1.4 lb-ft per cube...280 lb-ft.

The late Aussie spanner man Brad Girdwood said this. "Do you want a street cam or a loose torque cam. You can't have both".


I posted these rules a long time ago in the Hardcore section, citing anything from the 221 Flathead Ford to the 240 cube Lamborghini engine as an example. It's no supprise to see the same relationship here, as the rules were based on searches of all available gasoline engines from automotivie year dot to 1995.


If you run the 335 degree cam, 260 deg lift at 50 thou, 550 thou lift on intake, 525 lift on exhast, 42 mm ported iron head cross-flow with 1.96" inlets, 240 cfm at 25"Hg port flow, and 11:1 comp, triple DCOE 48's with 43 chokes. Use the 5.14" 188 ME or 221 SP rods, shallow deck ACL pistons.

If you don't get 400 bhp at nearly 7700 rpm, and peak torque of 280 lb-ft at 6500 rpm, I'd be supprised.

An engine is hemmed in by physics. Given time, I'll find the mathematical model which allows anyone to rate any engine combo. The inputs are really basic, and its only cam intensity, and rod ratio and exhast changes that get curly. An engine is just an Adiabatic Processor. It doesn't live in the biblical sense, but it does have movement, cyclic respiration, exhast, and the need for nutrition. Unlike a person or animal, it cannot biologically exceed the capability of the sum of its components. An athelete will push the boundaries of our human limitations, because we understand more about matter, less about the metaphysical or pschological facet.
 
jack, if you have time, could you try a 264 cam, 214 @.050 with 1.6 rockers for a total valve lift of .480. with a holley 350 cfm on a milled log. the head is an 80 head ported,with under cut valve stems 1.75 intake, 1.45 exhaust, 3-4 cylinder exhaust port divider, full length headers,primary pipes 1 1/2 - 38 " long into a 2 1/2 collector. compression is 10.4. on a 67 200 block
would be greatly appreciated. william ambler :D
 
Jack,that's cool how you broke it down. I still do not agree much with those types of programs but it does give you a good estimate.

Rick, I keep missing my club dyno days because of work. But, I will Dyno mine soon and we have basically the same engine specs. So, I will post the results once it is finally dyno-ed.

Xecute, I love your replies. They are always detailed and informative, but they make my brain hurt. :D
 
wsa111":8twkdzq1 said:
jack, if you have time, could you try a 264 cam, 214 @.050 with 1.6 rockers for a total valve lift of .480. with a holley 350 cfm on a milled log. the head is an 80 head ported,with under cut valve stems 1.75 intake, 1.45 exhaust, 3-4 cylinder exhaust port divider, full length headers,primary pipes 1 1/2 - 38 " long into a 2 1/2 collector. compression is 10.4. on a 67 200 block
would be greatly appreciated. william ambler :D

Bill,
The result is going to be just a few horses more than the last example with the 350 Holley. The sim says 173 @5000
 
That sounds like alot of fun to mess around with! Right now Im running a fully worked log, holley 500 carb, headers, electric ignition with MSD box elec fan, World Class T5. All I dont have is the cam because I am looking to turbo in the future. Is there any way to throw a turbo into the mix and find out how much say 7-10, maybe 12lbs of boost might do to my set up? That would be awesome! After reading this I almost want to delay the turbo again, this time for the Oz head, but Ive pushed it off too long.
Matt
 
To echo some of the comments, I can give some butt-o-meter observations as I did my upgrades. Also, Jack...how about the Offy's?

I started out with a stock engine. last year I added a Cam/Offy/T5. The cam was the Comp Cam 260H. I ended up running withough the Offy out carbs for awhile while trouble shooting some tuning and vacuum leaks. The cam really woke up the engine some, but you could tell with a 1V carb, the engine was running out of air real quick. I don't think I could rev much beyond 4000 RPM without the engine sounding sick. The T5 made the cam feel much better, in that I could reallly accelerate through the gears. I tell you though, with a 3.20 rear and 4cyl T5, I don't stay in 1st gear very long. Generally by the time I release the clutch, I'm having to shift.

When I had the OFfy running...very strong pulling all the way to as high as I was willing to take it. It definitely could breath enough for the cam.

The Aussie head converted to a 4V...pulls very strong all the way to the rev limiter i have at 5500RPM.

It seems to confirm what we have known...you really have to get the engine breathing.

Slade
 
Any permutations of Offy, webers, and other carb mods just point out the fact that the head is congested. It's not a carb problem, it's ports, valves, and obstructions. The real lesson here is, if you want to make power, you must break out the die grinder.

Turbocharged, bone stock 200, with a TO4B 50*60 trim, 500 holley, 10psi, 206hp@5000. Intercooled @ 12psi, 219@5000. Basically, in the sim world, stuff in twice the air, get twice the power. In reality, it might not work quite that way.
 
Jack,

Is this a shareware type of simulator? Or a roll-your-own that you did? Or is it the type of software you have to pay for?

Sounds like an interesting toy to play with a little bit when fantasizing about engine mods.

--mikey
 
Not to sound negative but...it looks like once you have spent 1500 bucks (or more) then you have a decent ride - as far as horsepower and torque are concerned. Now where is that 351W long block I bought a year ago for 200 bucks...hmmm...joking guys! :roll: :wink: :D


-Chris


P.S. I like that, "The log is a dog". :shock: :D
 
Back
Top