MORE POWER

HOwdy MPG and All:

This is certainly a thought provoking quest. I guess I'm wondering why a 200 HP goal? And why for a street, daily driver, who also wants economy?

THe achieve this goal you will need to think about a higher rpm peak than any one barrel carb is capable of. While the head will be a critical key to this puzzle it will be part of a very exacting combo of intake, cam and train, higher CR, exhaust and ignition. And all in an incredibly built bottom end, with lightening, balancing coating and luck.

It's clear that your next step/need in the quest for more is carburetion. Stepping up to a direct mounted two barrel; either a Holley 350 or an Autolite 2100 in a 1.14 or 1.23 size would really wake up your current combo- with no other changes. I don't think you've overlooked anything. You know you currently need more CFM. Why not take that step, for now? And living with an learning to tune a larger capacity two barrel will be a good education for a higher rpm combo later on.

Adios, David
 
CZLN6":3dj45oj7 said:
HOwdy MPG and All:

This is certainly a thought provoking quest. I guess I'm wondering why a 200 HP goal? And why for a street, daily driver, who also wants economy?

THe achieve this goal you will need to think about a higher rpm peak than any one barrel carb is capable of. While the head will be a critical key to this puzzle it will be part of a very exacting combo of intake, cam and train, higher CR, exhaust and ignition. And all in an incredibly built bottom end, with lightening, balancing coating and luck.

It's clear that your next step/need in the quest for more is carburetion. Stepping up to a direct mounted two barrel; either a Holley 350 or an Autolite 2100 in a 1.14 or 1.23 size would really wake up your current combo- with no other changes. I don't think you've overlooked anything. You know you currently need more CFM. Why not take that step, for now? And living with an learning to tune a larger capacity two barrel will be a good education for a higher rpm combo later on.

Adios, David

As David said, to get 200 HP out of a log head you will need larger valves available from Mike at Classic Inlines.

The bowls and ports need to be ported to the max & you will need a direct mount 4412-500 Holley or an equal autolite 2BBL properly jetted & checked with a wideband A/F tester.

Max power is 12.8 to 13.1 & max torque is normally 12.5-12.8 A/F ratio.

You will need flat top pistons to get the static compression to at least 10.5.

Cranking compression should be at least 190-200 #.

You will also need a set of dual out headers going through non restrictive mufflers to 2"-21/4" tail pipes.

Will need roller rocker arms 1.6 or better yet the full roller 1.65 yella terra's.

Last & not least is a camshaft with extremely fast opening rate. You will need to choose a camshaft which will require valve spring seat tension 120-135# & open # at least 300#.

Valve lift will need to be over .500". duration with an auto trans 260's intake & at least 280 on the exhaust.

A stick shift will let you be more aggressive providing you have the proper rear end gear ratio.

A C-4 will need a loose converter.

With my first engine with a C-4 trans i was able to get 145 RWH, which is close to 175-180 engine HP using a clay smith 274 camshaft. See Mike's website and my dyno run is wsa111.

The extra 20 HP would make the engine not very friendly as a daily driver.

All the above work would needs to be professionally done.

Another area would be the ignition & proper advance calibration. Such as 18 degrees initial + 18-20 degrees centrifugal all in by 2500-2800 rpm's. Good luck on your goal, Bill
 
modify the oil/water ports, and it's honestly more time/effort that I would want to put into it. not to mention I'll have to get new rockers.

Thanks Richard, wasn't aware of these 2 needs...
 
CZLN6":34krf8e4 said:
This is certainly a thought provoking quest. I guess I'm wondering why a 200 HP goal? And why for a street, daily driver, who also wants economy?
well it it the most anyone has gotten NA using the same cam I got!! (probably the same botom end too)
daily driver because it's still my first and only car!!!
who doesn't want economy??

CZLN6":34krf8e4 said:
Stepping up to a direct mounted two barrel
If i did that, then I'll MIGHT get 150, probably 140hp, why not got to the full potential of the cam? more air! more power!
yeah I have thought of that, but then I'll still be in the stock small block bent territory, I wanna go past the stock small block but I don't wanna go extremely complicated. the direct mount would be great, no doubt but not to the max this block can put out.

okay lets re-cap again... this time I'll compare with dyno2 on classicinlines.com

mine................................dyno2
200 block..........................SAME
CI header..........................SAME
DUI..................................SAME
264/274 110* cam................264-110 (I thought I read a 274 somewhere for exhaust but can't find it... oh well)
double roller timing chain......unknown (I advanced my cam 4*, IDK about mraley's?) (EDIT: found out the engine shop had it @ 11.5* advance)
stock 1.5 rockers.................1.65 fill roller rockers (I will after I dyno with the alum head)

wsa111":34krf8e4 said:
As David said, to get 200 HP out of a log head you will need larger valves available from Mike at Classic Inlines
I do have larger valves, 1.75int/1.5exh... these are the biggest I can go on the log head
wsa111":34krf8e4 said:
The bowls and ports need to be ported to the max
got it!
wsa111":34krf8e4 said:
You will need flat top pistons to get the static compression to at least 10.5.
dyno2a ancheived 211hp with 9.5:1 CR, so I don't think I "need" to go higher or near 10.5:1
wsa111":34krf8e4 said:
You will also need a set of dual out headers going through non restrictive mufflers to 2"-21/4" tail pipes.
done, dual 2inch all the way back, no x-pipe or h-pipe
wsa111":34krf8e4 said:
Will need roller rocker arms 1.6 or better yet the full roller 1.65 yella terra's.
as I understand it, it gave 2hp peak and 10hp average, I think I want to try the 1.5 stock first, I bet they can handle 200hp, but I'm in absolute agreement that If i go this far, I might as well get some nice rockers too.
wsa111":34krf8e4 said:
Valve lift will need to be over .500". duration with an auto trans 260's intake & at least 280 on the exhaust.
dyno2a shows that he had a valve lift of .495 with his 1.65 roller rockers, I think it's safe to try without the higher lift first, then go for it, peice by piece, trial and error
wsa111":34krf8e4 said:
Another area would be the ignition & proper advance calibration.
I've been thinking about this too, I have the same DUI ignition, but don't know the calibration of dyno2, currently I have 12* static and 24* more @ 3000rpm, I too think it can open more sooner, maybe the full 24* @ 2500rpm, I'm willing to try.
CZLN6":34krf8e4 said:
And all in an incredibly built bottom end, with lightening, balancing coating and luck.
is ARP rod bolts good enough for strength?
when I had the block built (6 months ago) I ordered it balanced, I think they did a great job.
with the double roller timing chain to ice the topping, I think my bottom end is up for the task.
wsa111":34krf8e4 said:
The extra 20 HP would make the engine not very friendly as a daily driver.
I guess you are implying the total 200hp, well I have gone trhough it, and it all seems "friendly" too me.... maybe not so much on the 4bbl option but a daily with 9.5CR t5 manual, same cam that i have (which I think is perfect for a good daily driver) nothing sounds "TOO" extreme.. infact kinda sounds 'mild' except for the price tag...
chad":34krf8e4 said:
modify the oil/water ports
i have not thought of that, that 200hp should be well protected with good oil flow, and proper water cooling. maybe a highflow oil pump can work but I've heard they don't make any for the 200... maybe I can modify one or have an extrernal electric oil pump... but then agian the oil pump is in direct relation to the rpm's of the engine, so maybe more oil resevior? that way it has more oil... think mike has a solution for that...
CZLN6":34krf8e4 said:
you will need to think about a higher rpm peak than any one barrel carb is capable of
abosutly agree, a 1bbl can only flow so much cfm, and even then the efficeny of the head directly relates to the max that the carb can support. a 4bbl of 480cfm, or maybe the edlebrock 600cfm (cause it's easier to find parts for) could give adaquit cfm for the higher rpm ranges.
granted I'm looking for "peak 200+ rwhp" not average 200hp, if I wanted average then I might as well go find a bent somewhere...

Am I not thinking correctly or missing something? I do have the "same" bottom end as a previously tested 200ci with 211rwhp, just need to swap the top.

all for more power!

WSA111, do you have your cam straight up? or is it advanced any?

Thanks guys, sorry for the longwinded response...
 
WSA111, do you have your cam straight up? or is it advanced any?

After degreeing in the camshaft to check for factory tolerance, i advanced the 274-112 camshaft 2 degrees.

Checking the degree wheel it came close to 3 degrees advanced.

Advancing the camshaft probably gets the camshaft @ 0 when the engine is running due to timing chain stretch & camshaft tortional deflection.

If using the tempo flat top pistons the wrist pin offset is .090" compared to .060" on the dished pistons.

The offset will help low end torque. If the car was used only for racing or it was a 250 i would reverse the pistons so the knoch faced to the rear of the engine. Bill
 
missing something
Confusis say:
race never won by one thing, many small things added.
Lotta good suggestions there.
 
well i've had a while to think about it now, and more power (200+ rwhp) would be so feaking awesome, But I have to consider cost.

I spent 3,000 (even number for this senario) to acheive 30hp increase with the same mpg...
that's $100 per HP (increase over original 70hp)

IF the alum head can increase the hp to say 220hp that's an increase of 120hp for another $3,500* (see break down)
for a total increase of 150hp for $6,500
thats $45 per HP (increase over original 70hp)

now, for the 2bbl conversion (with roller rockers)
I guestamate $1000 for an increase of say 50hp (for a total of 150hp)
for a total increase of 70hp for $4,000
that's $57 per HP (increase over original 70hp)

I think I can make 200+rw of TQ with my current head, and I know that will be just as fun.


now the bent route, I only mention this as this is a valid arguement for HP/$
I found a blueprinted 289 making 350hp for $700, a good tranny will be $800 (w/shift kit) new radiator for $300, and odds and ends for $800
total $2200 for 350hp
that's $9 per HP (increase over original 70hp)
(this is not mentioning everything that I would have to eventually change due to improper wear and tear, as I know my 7inch rear end will die first)

*Alum head break down:
assembled street strip alum head with 1.8 intake and 1.54 exh : $2,050
edelbrock 600cfm 4bbl carb, $350 (with a jet kit)
roller rockers ($600)
port and pollish for ~$300
misilaneous $200

then on top of it, If I went for the 2bbl conversion first I would have to sink even more into the engine just to reach...
so it comes down to what my end goal is and just go for it, otherwise I'll be throwing money that won't help me.

so if you guys were in my shoes (money not too much of a concern except for wasting it or not taking advantage of it all) what route would you go..

re-cap- wanna keep the 200, want more power, but maintain economy for long distance driving. this is a daily driver, and road trip car, I do maintain a consistant speed on the highway's, I like to climb hills without slowing down, the current setup slows down enough to make it struggle to keep at 65 or 75, and ususally i just take them hills around 60 @ 3800rpm, (before with only 70hp it was 50 in 2nd gear and 4200rpm (auto tranny)

will the 2bbl be enough for pass and climb hills properly, or will the ~220hp really make that much bigger kick in the pants affect behind the wheel?
 
Although I don't really know your current compression ratio, I'll vote for more compression and 2bbl direct mount an autolite 1.08.

BTW, I like the cam you have I wish I would have gotten that instead of the 264/110LC that I have.
 
I found a blueprinted 289 making 350hp for $700,

What are the spec's? 350HP out of a 289 depends on the parts used could be more of a race only than a street engine. You won't get that good of economy unless you go to a later 5.0 EFI swap.
 
Well the bent8 is going to win the hp/$ argument every day of the week and twice on sunday, but another thing to consider is whatever your bent8 costs come to you still have to add the 3 G's you spent on your inline...of course you can recover some of that by selling your inline six stuff but don't think I'd count on recovering more than 50cents on the dollar if you're lucky.

I'm sure you're aware of this, but if 'power' becomes your ultimate goal then the inline just can't match the bent8 in the $/hp equation...there are several discussions here in old threads about this, but point is you have to have some other reasons for staying inline when you start to really want to build 'power', and most those reasons won't fall into the practical application of cost/benefit...some of it's as simple as you've got to want to be different :eek: Good luck!

EDIT: Just to qualify the above comment...not intended to rain on your parade, just a pragmatic assessment.
More to your WWID IIWIYS...mill your current head for a direct two barrel mount, and for 'outside the box'...I like your idea of being able to go back to 1bbl for economy...how about an inverted 2to1 adapter :mrgreen:
 
bubba22349":2vg0d8p2 said:
You won't get that good of economy unless you go to a later 5.0 EFI swap
That's a main reason to stick with the i6, I can manage 20mpg, with a simple carb, not a complicated comp

Frankenstang":2vg0d8p2 said:
More to your WWID IIWIYS...mill your current head for a direct two barrel mount, and for 'outside the box'...I like your idea of being able to go back to 1bbl for economy...how about an inverted 2to1 adapter
I have thought of this, but I think when I have it running, I won't want to mess with it, if I was really to go for a mpg with a 2bbl, i'd go for a TBI setup with MSII, which can give very decent numbers, but I'm not going for that either as I'd rather have a bolt on. but I'm just going for more power...

your right I would have to calculate the bent with my current setup as i've already invested that, it comes to $15/hp. still cheaper, but I don't want to change the suspension or brakes or rear end, I'm sure the 7.25inch rear end can handle 200hp, it's an open end so only 1 tire spinning at a time is fine by me... and I really want to keep my current bottom end. and I really want to make alot of natural power.

one thing that belongs in the hard core thread is the fact that i made 164lbs of tq, with a 1bbl, I bet because it's a small carb that can flow 100% at that rpm, making the perfect low end mixture. I wonder if I'm going to lose that low end torque with a bigger carb. i want it to go up... :)
 
You may be pushing the limit of the 7.25 rear end at 200HP.

To be safe, you should upgrade to an 8-inch out of the early 6cyl Maverick. They used the same 4-lug bolt pattern as your Mustang.
 
I think you right about the carb being the choke point for your combo, bigger carb will surely raise your HP and torque, question is at what rpm range would it happen. My 250 is mostly stock except for ported and milled head. It will stay with many stock 289/302 auto combo until 60-62 than they pull me, I have been thinking about two progressive type two barrels for it other idea is to swap it into an lighter body.
 
I'd say wsa111 is on to it, but there just needs to be a few more carbs.

You need to consult the independent runner flow chart made by Weber in the 1940's.

It shows how much carb area makes how much rpm. From that, you can estimate power level based on a conservative aspirations index.

For a log head or 2v or Classic Inlines head, most power is made by direct mounting three 2-bbl carbs, routing the venturi bores out to an idealised size to make the hp you require. As long as you can make the head you use a true independent runner with one venturi per cylinder, you can make the power you need even if you can't get up to the bigger 1.77 to 1.8" valves.

My money is one three 350 or 500 cfm Holley 2-bbl carbs direct mounted to a well prepared log head
 
The 1V carb is definitely the choke point......

Richard and I met at the dyno shop Saturday morning to test our new 1.65 roller tipped rockers. To my surprise, the high ratio rockers didn't make any difference. The runs looked identical. Then when we were just about to wrap things up, Richard commented that his vacuum gauge was reading 5" of manifold vacuum with the high ratio rockers, while the stock rockers only pulled 3" of vacuum.

We're going back next Saturday..... only this time I'm going to take a couple 2V carbs, along with a 2-1 adaptor. It will be interesting to see what happens. I'm really curious if we can get the manifold vacuum down, using a 2V carb and an adaptor, or if the 1V carb bore will be the choke point?

mpgmustangdyno.jpg


mpgmustangdyno2.jpg
 
Very interesting Mike... At the very least your rockers were bolted to a running engine, just think of how long it took to get to that point! That's an accomplishment in itself.

I'll be quite curious to see your results next week!


Luke
 
Mike, is 150% right that the carb is the restriction.

You really need a direct mounted 2 BBl.

If you send the base plate of a holley 7448-350 to the carb shop in california they will thin the throttle shaft & install button head screws to fasten the throttle plate & you will gain 20 CFM for under $50.00

The 1.65 roller rockers are a nice addition cause you still retain rocker shaft oiling & pick up an extra .020" lift.

The major advantage of the yella-terra 1.65 rockers is that the fulcrum is fully rollerized. The disadvantage is having to run pushrod oiling via oil through lifters.

That means when you install a new camshaft you also need the V-8 oil through lifter right from the beginning. You can't just install different lifters on a camshaft which was broken in with the six cylinder lifters. Have seen it done, but is not adviseable.

Get some more air into that engine & the 1.65 rockers should help. Bill
 
Luke76":1kx4y8jt said:
Very interesting Mike... At the very least your rockers were bolted to a running engine, just think of how long it took to get to that point! That's an accomplishment in itself. Luke
I think your the only one that knows what I've gone through to get these new rockers developed. It took several months just to find a manufacturer, then a little more than a year to get the prototypes made and the bugs worked out. However, I'm really pleased with the end results. They worked great.

I don't want to hyjack this topic, so I'll start a new topic when we're done with the dyno testing.

wsa111":1kx4y8jt said:
You really need a direct mounted 2 BBl. Bill
I agree....... a 2V conversion would have made a huge difference. However it will be fun testing the various carbs using a 2-1 adaptor, on a well prepared log head. Fortunately I have several different carbs we can try. Our goal is to get the manifold vacuum close to zero (@WOT), without oversizing the carb. However, I wonder if that's possible using a 2-1 adaptor?
 
Back
Top