2V Dyno Results - Part 1 & 2

Part I & II - Part III coming soon
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part I
Engine: 250ci - Bone Stock - Headers - DUI ignition.
Upgrades: 2V Adpator (various carbs)
Carb - CFM - Max HP (Gain/Avg) - Max TQ (Gain/Avg) - C/O
Stock YF 1V- 180 - 75 @ 3950 (0/62) - 110 @ 2500 (0/100) 7.5% (rich)
Autolite 2V - 240 - 79 @ 3750 (4/67hp) - 118 @ 2550 (8/107lbs) 6.5%
Weber 2V- 300 - 80 @ 4100 (5/65hp) - 116 @ 2650 (6/105lbs) 6%
Holley 2V- 350 - 80 @ 3950 (5/68hp) - 120 @ 2600 (10/109lbs) 6.5%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Engine: 200ci - 264-110 Cam - Headers - Log Head
Upgrades: DUI dizzy - 2V Adaptor (various carbs)
Carb - CFM - Dizzy - Max HP (Gain/Avg) - Max TQ (Gain/Avg) - C/O
Autolite 1V - 180 - LOM - 62 @ 3900 (0/49) - 93 @ 2900 (0/81)
Weber 2V - 300 - LOM - 70 @ 4300 (8/51 hp) - 94 @ 3350 (1/83 lbs) 4% (lean)
Weber 2V - 300 - DUI - 85 @ 3900 (23/66 hp) - 105 @ 3300 (12/97 lbs) 4% (lean)
Autolite 2V - 240 - DUI - 83 @ 3950 (21/67 hp) - 105 @ 3400 (12/98 lbs) ?
Autolite 2V - 245 - DUI - 84 @ 3900 (22/68 hp) - 105 @ 3300 (12/99 lbs) ?
Holley 2V - 350 - DUI - 87 @ 3800 (25/69 hp)- 106 @ 3200 (13/100 lbs) 6%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Engine: 250ci - Bone Stock - Headers - DUI ignition
Upgrades: Modified Log Head w/ 2V & Larger Exh Valves (various carbs)
Coming soon - approx 9-30-08
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Details Follow:

PART I
We meet at Chucks Speed and RV Shop around 9am this morning, and finished up testing around noon, before having lunch courtesy of 82F100. Thanks Rich.

For part one of our testing, we started with Gene's Maverick, which has a bone stock 250ci block and head. The rings are pretty worn, as it was burning quite a bit of oil at first, however it did settle down after a couple of runs on the dyno. The only modifications are dual out headers and a DUI ignition system. Compression ratio is probably around 8.1 considering the condition of the rings, but this seemed like a great place to start.

We did a couple baseline runs using the Carter YF-1V, and then moved on to a Progressive Weber via a 2V-1V adaptor. Next we pulled the Weber and installed a Holley 350 and did a couple more runs. The final run was done with an old 1.01 Autolite carb that I purchased this past summer at Carlisle. We didn't even know if it would run in its current condition, but thought we might as well try it since we were there. To my surprise it started right up, and ran pretty good, all things considered. My guess is that it came off an old junker after sitting several years in some bone yard back east. While the outside was pretty clean, obviously from a bath in carb cleaner, who knows what it looked like inside?

The results of our dyno runs were just about what I thought they would be. I'll post the dyno graphs, pics, and some comments on the CI website, and will post a link to the page later tonight. However, here are some basic results.

UPDATE: Here's the link. The page isn't done yet, but at least you can check out the graphs. http://classicinlines.com/DynoDay1.asp

NOTE: All 2V carbs were tested on the log intake using a 2V to 1V adaptor. The results were surprisingly, quite similar.

Stock YF: 76HP - 111lbs
Weber: 80HP - 116lbs
Holley 350: 80HP - 120lbs
Autolite 1.01: 79HP - 118lbs

Total gains were about the same, regardless of which carb was used. Net gains over the YF-1V were approximately 4HP and 9lbs of torque at the rears wheels, or 5% HP, and 7-8% torque.

Next week we'll be testing a freshly rebuilt 200ci with a 264-110 cam and headers. Right now it’s running the stock 1100-1V carb, the old points style dizzy, and non-adjustable rockers. We'll be testing the Weber, Holley, and Autolite carbs, all via an adaptor. Plus the DSII and DUI ignition systems, and a set of high ratio adjustable rockers, which are all bolt on modifications.

Then a few weeks later, we'll be testing Gene’s car again. Only this time with the modified (direct mount) log head. We plan to test the same Holley and Autolite carbs, along with a couple of rebuilt Autolite carbs of various sizes. In the end we should have some good real world comparisons with dyno numbers. I’m really curious to see how the modified head does? I’m guessing we will see quite an improvement over the adaptors, but how much remains to be seen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART II
Well, we did PART 2 today. The cost of the dyno time adds up fast, so I hope the info is helpful, and appreciated.

We weren't able to test the DSII today as planned, as we couldn't find one. We checked with three different chains, and all three told us they no longer stock them, as they are now a special order item. That was disappointing, as I was really hoping to test the DSII vs. the DUI. Guess we'll just have to do it another day. As a result, I'm going to see if I can get the DSII and keep them in stock.

We wanted to test the high ratio rockers too, but that also had to be put off for another day, as I am currently out of ball and cup pushrods for the 200ci. I've had them on order for several weeks, but getting parts from this supplier is difficult, to say the least. I keep making phone calls, and had my fingers crossed, but no luck. Hopefully I'll get them next week.

We did test the DUI however. Again, this was on a 200ci with a fresh rebuild, a 264-112 cam, and headers. Keep in mind; the baseline Weber had no provisions for vacuum advance. Using the Weber baseline with the stock dizzy, we gained 15HP & 13 lbs of torque after installing the DUI. The Weber/DUI combo, over the 1100 and stock dizzy, gained 23HP and 10 lbs of torque, while the Holley/DUI combo netted 25HP and 12 lbs of torque. That's a 29% increase in HP.

One problem I noticed, is that the motor doesn't make much power down low, but takes off once it gets past 2500rpm. My guess is that the cam is retarded, maybe as much as 6-8 degrees, as it wasn't degreed when it was installed. Even if the cam is ground spot on, Clay Smith recommends installing them 4 degrees advanced (their cams are ground straight up), therefore it's at least 4 degrees retarded. I'm guessing even more based on how the motor was performing, as it should make a lot more bottom end power.

However he is going to replace the damper soon, as it has slipped considerably. At that time, he plans to degree the cam. Once that's done, I'd like to take it back for another go around. If I'm right, it will make a huge difference.

EDIT: I had to take a break for dinner. LOL

As for the carb test, we did the baseline last week with the stock 1100 carb. This morning, the Weber was already installed when we got there, so we were able to get right to it. We did our first run with the Weber, then pulled the stock dizzy and installed the DUI. After a run with the Weber and the DUI, we installed the Autolite 240cfm and did two more pulls. Next we installed the Holley 350cfm and did another run. Our finally pass was with an Autolite 245cfm, which I decided to bring along.

Remember, both Autolites were used carbs purchased at a swap meet earlier this summer, so we had no idea of their condition, or if they would even run. To our surprise both worked fine, however it was obvious that the 245cfm needed a rebuild. It also needed to be re-jetted as it was quite lean, however we didn't take time to re-jet as it was lunchtime and the guys were ready. Therefore we decided to call it a day. We got the info we were after using the first three carbs, so the last run didn't really matter.

SUMMARY: The progressive Weber made the least power, while the Holley 350 made the most. The Autolite 240 [1.01] & 245 [1.02] were in between, with the 245 making more, even in its poor condition. However, all the runs were within 2 HP and 3 lbs of torque. If I can afford it, I'd like to try an Autolite 287 [1.08] and a 300 [1.14], to see how they'd compare to the Holley 350. Maybe even a 351 [1.21] or 356 [1.23], but I'm guessing they might be to big? NOTE: the venturi size is in [parenthesis].

Carb - CFM - Dizzy - Max HP - Max TQ - HP/CFM - Gain
Autolite 1V - 180 - LOM - 62 @ 3900 - 93 @ 2900 - 0.34 - Baseline
Weber 2V - 300 - LOM - 70 @ 4300 - 94 @ 3350 - 0.23 - Baseline
Weber 2V - 300 - DUI - 85 @ 4900 - 105 @ 3300- 0.28 - 27 %
Autolite 2V - 240 - DUI - 83 @ 4950 - 105 @ 3400 - 0.35 - 25 %
Autolite 2V - 245 - DUI - 84 @ 4900 - 105 @ 3300 - 0.34 - 26 %
Holley 2V - 350 - DUI - 87 @ 4800 - 106 @ 3200 - 0.25 - 29 %

As for the drivability with the DUI, here are his comments after the drive home.
Quote:
The DUI makes a very noticeable difference in the drivability of the car.

First, you can really notice the difference coming off idle. As you are leaving a stoplight, or whatever, it is much more responsive down low.

Next, is during highway cruise. Before when accelerating around a car, going up a hill, or over a long overpass, the car seemed to labor as you added a little gas. Now when you add a little throttle it just picks up and goes.

Lastly is when in passing gear. Before when you hit passing gear at 55, or so, it made a lot more noise and a little more speed. Now it makes the same amount of noise, but has a nice acceleration.


NEXT UP: Testing the modified log head, hopefully next week.
The log head had 180/150 oversized valves installed, plus a little port work in the intake runners and a basic cleanup in the bowls. While the test won't be apples to apples, it will still give us a good comparison. I figure most guys who pull a head and modify it, are probably going to install bigger valves. Why go to the trouble of modifying the intake, if your not going to make to most of it?

Again, the idea is to test what most are doing to their motors, rather than strictly apples to apples. Why go thru all the extra labor and expense to pull the head twice, plus the extra dyno time to retest. I'm betting more guys will install oversized valves, rather than just modifying the intake and leaving it at that. Sure it would be nice to know; unfortunately I have a budget and need to make the most of it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Coming soon

Its nice to see some 'real' numbers that look 'real'.

I assume there is nothing special about the stock carb?

I also assume the webber and holley were tweaked? Or were those 'out of the box'?

Oh ya and forgot to ask, between runs all you did was mount the carbs and minor external tweaks to them? Did not mess with timing?

All we did was swap the carbs, nothing else. The Weber was ran out of the box, as the jetting was right on. We re-jeteted the Holley, which help a little on the peak numbers. The old Autolite was ran as is, which was also OK.

The stock 1V was not modified at all. Timing remained the same during the entire testing. 32 degrees total advance, around 12 deg initial. We did re-jet the Holley a few times since it was purchased second hand and was too rich. We ended up with 56 jets in the Holley. All other carbs we did not mess with as they were pretty dialed in.

Gene, when i tested the 7448-350 on my direct mount intake on my 200 i found the 59 jets were close.

Great test results, just shows what an adapter does to jetting.

I am anxious to see the results on the direct mount head.

Mike & Gene thanks for the great information. Bill

These tests ought to be interesting.
I am a bit confused by Gene's dyno runs and Mike Raley's posted on the site. A bone stock 200 posted 77 hp and 124 ft-lbs. With headers and a DUI distributor upgrade, Mikes made 94.6 hp with a 1 bbl carb. Gene's car with the same modifiactions and a larger engine displacement posted 76 hp, only what Mike's bone stock 200 made.

As you noted, Gene's engine may be a bit tired. I wonder if the tired engine condition might limit the potential gains of some of the planned upgrades.
But it is kind of a rel world test since many of us do not have a new blueprinted engine rebuild.
Doug

Mike and everyone involved, thanks once again for dyno #'s and reference points and the work you do for us inliners, my present project is highly inspired by the parts and info supplied from here, I will be posting some major progress soon, should recieve my highly modified 9 and 1/4 inch clutch here soon.

66 Fastback":23m6ce7l said:

These tests ought to be interesting.
I am a bit confused by Gene's dyno runs and Mike Raley's posted on the site. A bone stock 200 posted 77 hp and 124 ft-lbs. With headers and a DUI distributor upgrade, Mikes made 94.6 hp with a 1 bbl carb. Gene's car with the same modifiactions and a larger engine displacement posted 76 hp, only what Mike's bone stock 200 made.

As you noted, Gene's engine may be a bit tired. I wonder if the tired engine condition might limit the potential gains of some of the planned upgrades.
But it is kind of a rel world test since many of us do not have a new blueprinted engine rebuild.
Doug

Click to expand...

I believe that part of this may be due to the fact that gene is running a c4. MRaley in the past did a dyno showing before c4 swap and after and there was about a 20HP difference if i remember correctly. Those automatics steal quite a bit of HP from our little motors.

66 Fastback":xthy3llw said:

These tests ought to be interesting.
I am a bit confused by Gene's dyno runs and Mike Raley's posted on the site. A bone stock 200 posted 77 hp and 124 ft-lbs. With headers and a DUI distributor upgrade, Mikes made 94.6 hp with a 1 bbl carb. Gene's car with the same modifiactions and a larger engine displacement posted 76 hp, only what Mike's bone stock 200 made.

As you noted, Gene's engine may be a bit tired. I wonder if the tired engine condition might limit the potential gains of some of the planned upgrades.
But it is kind of a rel world test since many of us do not have a new blueprinted engine rebuild.
Doug

Click to expand...

Mike's motor was fresh, while Gene's has quite a few miles on it and is in desperate need of a rebuild. Hence, I would assume the gains would be better on a fresh motor, just how much I don't know.

However, you can't compare one motor to the other when measuring RWHP (RearWheel). There are just to many other varibles. Auto or manual tranny, tranny gearing, rearend ratio, tire size, and so on. Even the condition of the brakes and wheel bearings could have an effect if they are binding/worn.

The idea is not to compare RWHP from one vehicle to the other, rather the HP and Torque gains from one carb to the other, on the same motor.

Will next week's car with the cam and a 200 be equipped with a manual or automatic tranny?

According to the dyno runs posted on your website, Mike's car made 119.7 hp and 143.3 ft lbs with the cam upgrade, and a progressive Holley/Weber on an adapter. It will be interesting to see how next week's compare with Mike's old setup.

Thank you for the dyno work,
Doug

I knew that manual gear boxes were more efficient, but I did not realize that it was nearly 20 hp worth of HP. That could be about 15 to 20% of the HP that our stock cars are making. Is this typical of all automatics, or is it more of a problem in the old Ford automatics. I realize that new automatics lock up the clutches to increase efficiency.

But one of the chaepest HP gains on the chassis dyno may be to convert an old auto to a manual.
Doug

Anyone that I've talked to that's done a T5 swap, said it's the best mod they've made. Hands down. Makes sense....

Not sure if the 200ci has an auto or a manual?

The shop that did the dynos for us gave us a 25% discount. If we can get enough guys in the Phoenix area to come, we may set up a dyno day so they can get their motors dialed in. Plus it would give us a lot more numbers to compare. Not to mention how much fun it would be.

Anyone in the Phx area that's interested, shoot me a PM.

The 200 has a C4 behind it.

We should probably keep manual vs auto comments out of the thread, other than noting the trans on cars under test. It's a whole different topic area that needs to be run to ground scientifically, another time.

Mike - does the dyno have extra datalogging capacity?

Adam, good point as far as the dyno tests go. Seems like the manual trans has a 20 HP advantage on the dyno.
However in the real world the guy with the C-4 will be consistant on acceration. A good example is Gene's many wins at the track.
For a driver with a manual trans can you make every shift at full throttle??
If you can't you just gave away you're 20 HP advantage.
A sloppy manual trans shifter will give away a tenth or 2 on acceration.
Then again the manual trans especially the 5 speeds will give superior fuel mileage.
In the real world each trans has its good points & bad points. Bill

It's more variable than that. Gene's 250 is tired, as stated before, but very well tuned. There wasn't anything amiss on the baseline run, other than some smoke.

My 200 is a new 9:1 engine w/cam and headers, barely broken in. It is not in a good state of tune. The baseline run, which will be published next week, will show it to be significantly lower on horsepower. The a/f ratio throughout the RPM range was extremely lean. The HP/torque curves were almost sawtooth, not smooth at all, pointing to a carb and/or ignition issue.

On the other hand, as best I can remember, it was still making HP at the self imposed 4k rpm cutoff. The expectation is that we will see great improvement with the H/W carb and ignition setup changes.

All this being said, I would like to not compare the two cars/dyno runs to each other, but compare the individual baseline runs to the later runs.

Echo'ing what Mike said the guys at Chucks Speed & RV Center are great to work with. The dyno guys were very helpful, attentive, flexible, and had some great suggestions, not to mention emergency fuel hose, clamps, bolts, and jets.

Which adapter was used?

The adapter is the one sold by Langdons. The bottom of venturi to top of adapter fit wasn't too bad but could use some cleaning up. The bolt hole match between bottom of carb to top of adapter was poor. We ended up using 1/4" bolts on the front holes so we could get it mounted. We were on the clock or we would probably have put a rat tail file to the adapter.

I would like to see a Redline adapter to see how it matches up.

How tall is it?