MORE POWER

M

MPGmustang

1K+
VIP
like the topic implies... I want more

recap of current setup
78block 200ci
ARP rod bolts
double roller timing chain
264/274 110 .450 cam
1.5 stock rocker arms
9.3 CR
78 hex log heavily ported and valve guides
1bbl 1100v
DUI
15000 miles since rebuild

goal
MORE POWER (200+ rwHP)
keep the six!

I have thought of going bent, but I do want the six...
I have thought of getting the alum head 4bbl intake, but what if that doesn't reach my goal?

according to classic inlines dyno 2
http://classicinlines.com/Dyno2.asp
I have the same bottom end, and would need the head, intake, 4bbl, roller rockers....
I have even thought of adding juice :nox:

I have thought of going 2bbl direct mount, but that will problably put me in the 130hp range, so that won't work out too well
the 3x1bbl route could work but one already dyno'd it out to 166hp.... and probably the worst MPG

I would still like to maintain minimum 20mpg city, I'll go anything over that....

I'm asking you guy's is there anything that I have not thought of, that I can do my self, of course I would like to keep it naturally aspriated 200hp as here in AZ it gets hot, and turbo/super would be that much harder to cool...

I know I can reach 200hp, I know of one route so far, but it's costly, and worth it, but is there something I have overlooked?
 
200whp is going to be in the neighborhood of 230-250 crank horsepower. That is a lot. As they say, the power is in the head so if you wanna keep that inline six you're going to need to invest in a pretty fancy head if you wanna make that kind of power all-motor. Consider that modern engines of similar displacement aren't making much more power, and they have been extensively engineered to do it with high compression, cam tricks, etc.

I wouldn't rule out a light pressure turbo. Something around 8psi won't need to be intercooled and shouldn't suffer much in summer heat. Nice thing about small turbos and no intercoolers is you avoid lag, which makes for nice driving. 8psi should be okay on a 9.3:1 CR - you just need to ensure you can provide fuel for it. I'm not a carb expert (heh, see my thread!) but I highly doubt you'll be able to do with a 1bbl. I don't think you'll reach your power goal in this method, but you might find the giant, flat torque you get from it will make you happy enough. Torque is what these motors are all about anyway. Plus, turbos can "make up" for all sorts breathing inadequacies of the head, which is obviously a plus on these cars.

With the market the way it is turbos are cheap to free. Assuming you can produce an exhaust manifold to mount it up, the tiny little bugger on a 2000-2004ish Saab 9-5 V6 might be a good match. Or, the T25 series turbos come in pretty small sizes, and they'd make plenty of power.

Again, I'm no expert but I'd wager an 8psi turbo set up is $500-$800. You can't even buy a used aluminum head for that.

Final thought: Turbos require oil - I have no idea if the stock oil pump moves enough volume to keep a turbo happy or how you tap into it. It's something to keep in mind.
 
modern engines of similar displacement aren't making much more power, and they have been extensively engineered
not tq lill I6/slant 6 etc tho, no? They're Vs?

Rich - how duz the Bemers do it?

I know some bronks on pane...
 
i hope mine will make more than 200 thats kinda low, little 4 banger hondas make that lol, i agree, the best way to make power is in the head, high compression and alot of porting, the way you tune the thing also go's a long way, throwing a bunch of parts at it will not do anything much if the parts are not working together, i think you can make more than 200, im sure there are some people here who have made more, however you will have to spend a ton of money :roll:
 
chad":s2izargm said:
modern engines of similar displacement aren't making much more power, and they have been extensively engineered
not tq lill I6/slant 6 etc tho, no? They're Vs?

Rich - how duz the Bemers do it?

I know some bronks on pane...
Click to expand...

Displacement is displacement - V, inline, flat - they're all subject to the same rules. Engine configuration is mostly a packaging decision, partly a marketing decision, and possibly an NVH decision. I think the only current gasoline inline sixes are from BMW, the N52, N53 and the N55. The N53 is direct injected and the N55 turbocharged. The N52 is "conventional," but features variable valve technology on both intake and exhaust and still only manages 272hp from 3.0l. Mercedes last made an inline in '99 - the M104 which made 220hp from 3.2l. AMG versions (that is, *hand built*) went up to 3.6l, and *still* only made 276hp. GM had the Atlas through '09 and it made 270 from 4.2l - granted, it was a truck motor and built for torque as much as power, but it's a good analogy to the venerable Ford six.

I can't think of any other modern inlines - most everyone went to Vs for packaging and/or cost. Those are all in the 3.5l displacement range these days, and all making around 250hp. Point being, they have extra displacement, fifty years worth of extra development, and extra technology. I think getting ~250hp out of naturally aspirated 3.3l and still having something streetable is a significant challenge. Not impossible, but certainly the result of a lot of work and a lot of money.

My opinion of course!
 
64 200 ranchero":3bni8uvw said:
i hope mine will make more than 200 thats kinda low, little 4 banger hondas make that lol, i agree, the best way to make power is in the head, high compression and alot of porting, the way you tune the thing also go's a long way, throwing a bunch of parts at it will not do anything much if the parts are not working together, i think you can make more than 200, im sure there are some people here who have made more, however you will have to spend a ton of money :roll:
Click to expand...

The only Honda four cylinders that make 200hp are the 2.0l in the S2000 which is *extremely* high tech, and the 2.4l K-series motor which is fairly high tech. :) Getting that target 250hp (~200 at the wheels) from a K-series requires thousands of dollars of head & bottom end work or boost. Or both. And that will still only happen at 7000+ rpm. I'm still learning about the Ford inline, but in general long inline motors are not good at revving due to crank deflection - you need a strong crank and big bearings to keep a 2' long crank from walking is certainly an obstacle. ;)
 
Richard...I don't think it's feasible to get 200 rwhp with a log head naturally aspirated. Other than a turbo or supercharger the aluminum head is probably the only way to get there...IMHO.
 
Gene Fiore":2yt1xvgd said:
Richard...I don't think it's feasible to get 200 rwhp with a log head naturally aspirated. Other than a turbo or supercharger the aluminum head is probably the only way to get there...IMHO.
Click to expand...
thesameguy":2yt1xvgd said:
Assuming you can produce an exhaust manifold to mount it up
Click to expand...
thesameguy":2yt1xvgd said:
extra displacement, fifty years worth of extra development, and extra technology
Click to expand...

reason no for turbo, it's a hell of alot custom work, custom fabrication, time, parts would be from everywhere... in the end, too complicated for my simple wants...
Granted I know the log head is old tech, that's why I'm focusing towards the alum head as a swap, it's way more new than my current log... I wasn't thinking about 200rwhp with the log but just in general, my goal is to reach 200+ rwhp...

in the end do you guy's think that IF I got the Alum Head I would reach my 200rwhp goal? I just don't want to invest in the alum head and not reach my goal.

ATM I'm pulling 101rwhp @ 4300rpm, with a 1bbl, a small 1bbl too... and 164tq @ 2000rpm...
 
built for torque as much as power, but it's a good analogy
No automotive theory in my head but I understand these motors (I6, 'Slant') are hi tq - when comparing any other design - variopus 4s (ie pancake etc), aV or 8 of equal displacement due to the rotation on the crank and placement of rods.

If U want more power Y not the OZ X-flow intake? No head change...First place I saw a 500HP 250/4.1 was on a referral from here 10 yrs ago. Guys on this site from Down Under tell me they're sending them to the crusher daily down there as old technology.
 
MPGmustang":3au18zkm said:
in the end do you guy's think that IF I got the Alum Head I would reach my 200rwhp goal? I just don't want to invest in the alum head and not reach my goal.
Click to expand...
If you check the dyno room on classicinlines.com you will see the mraly was able to get 212 rwhp with his 200cid Mustang with a 264 cam, the alum head and autolite 4bbl carb.
 
8) as has been said, the cylinder head is where the power is. the more air you can get into and out of the engine, the more power you are going to make. you can help the fuel economy also by getting the maximum efficiency from your engine. this can be done in a few ways, the best is converting to efi. you can approach the fuel efficiency of efi with a weber carb, and still maintain the power you are getting now.

if you havent got one already, the addition of a header and a good exhaust will also improve power and economy.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqh0DUPRs-0
I'm sure it'll probably take the aluminum head and certain cams and induction setups to get to that point.I gotta give MPG props for his enthusiasm and willingness to try and think outside the box.It seems that he is trying to be analytical and make changes put it on the dyno, then repaet the process.Sure some combos have been done on the dyno and have reached the 1hp-1 cu. in. mark, I believe there is more and we have only scratched the surface so far.
 
I am running basic setup as you but with tri-power and I figured about 165 HP. I too want a little more while keeping the six. I have been thinking of going with the CI aluminum head with a 50hp N2O shot.
 
:beer: Love this thread.A lot of good info for all of our 6`s.It brings to mind an old saying from way back when."The only substitute for cubic inches,is cubic dollars".
Good luck.Have fun.
Leo
 
MPGmustang":32tldeps said:
according to classic inlines dyno 2 http://classicinlines.com/Dyno2.aspI have the same bottom end, and would need the head, intake, 4bbl, roller rockers....
Click to expand...
Gene Fiore":32tldeps said:
If you check the dyno room on classicinlines.com you will see the mraly was able to get 212 rwhp with his 200cid Mustang with a 264 cam, the alum head and autolite 4bbl carb
Click to expand...
Gene Fiore":32tldeps said:
the aluminum head is probably the only way to get there...IMHO
Click to expand...

I agree with this, the only way to get NA 200rwhp, will be with the alum head...
yes I do have dual header 2inch all the way
I have the exact same bottom end as mraly, reading his entire dyno testing I think his cam is timed straigh up, mine is 4* advanced although it says nothing about it... but several places he has 264 cam and others he has a 274 cam, all with a 110* lobe, so I think it's safe to say he has the 264/274 110* cam.

The only think I would need is the RR, granted mike has found out...
[url:32tldeps said:
http://classicinlines.com/RockerOptions.asp[/url]":32tldeps]In a recent dyno session we added a high ratio rocker assembly to an otherwise stock 250ci engine (accept for improved induction) to verify any improvements. At first we were disappointed, as maximum power was only inceased by 2HP. However, after looking at the numbers we noticed the average HP was increased by 10HP. Therefore if peak only went up 2, and the average was 10, then the lower and mid range numbers had to be better than 10HP. Thus making the swap a viable means of increasing power and performance.
Click to expand...

meaning with my stock 1.5 Rockers, I should reach 200rwhp, but I would get overall performance with the RR, I think I'll do that after the head.

I know from experience that going at it without a plan is like
64 200 ranchero":32tldeps said:
throwing a bunch of parts at it will not do anything much if the parts are not working together
Click to expand...

hence I wanna make sure that the parts I have will work together, before I invest.

the plan I'm thinking about is the alum head, edelbrock 600cfm 4bbl carb, keep my stock rockers and IF i don't make the power, go roller and hope for the best, then maybe add a shot of 50hp n2o... keeping the option to run 91 pump gas.

this idea would probably be the final stage of the engine for my daily, a sleeper NA i6... possibly with some juice...
 
chad":2ecp6cyl said:
If U want more power Y not the OZ X-flow intake? No head change...First place I saw a 500HP 250/4.1 was on a referral from here 10 yrs ago. Guys on this site from Down Under tell me they're sending them to the crusher daily down there as old technology.
Click to expand...

the main draw back is it won't fit over my DUI, the second downer is I'll have to 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. Now the cool factor would go WAY up through the roof, but I'm not going cool factor, I'd like to stick with more power by bolt on and go.

I think I'll be able to reach 200rwhp, and it will be "fancy" but the end goal is to get 200+, I'm still open to ideas on keeping it a six (preferibly keep the 200ci)

I have invested in this engine, and would like it to go where I want it, but does this option show the true potential of 200+ hp?
 
what about water/meth injection, i know it works for aircraft, im thinking about getting the non turbo kit from snow performance, i think it would work well with the 6 by lowering the intake temp, they claim an increase in hp
 
64 200 ranchero":o0ujhndy said:
what about water/meth injection, i know it works for aircraft, im thinking about getting the non turbo kit from snow performance, i think it would work well with the 6 by lowering the intake temp, they claim an increase in hp
Click to expand...

doesn't that refer to insaine CR's? like 13+:1 you water cool it, that requires you to fill the water too while you fill the gas, although it would be intresting to see the HP increase, but it's too complicated for a daily driver...
 
Water injection is useful to combat high intake temps (post forced induction), allow an unusually lean mixture (going for a fuel economy record?), or possibly make up an octane deficit if running a crazy static compression ratio. In an of itself, you won't see any sort of real power gains on a naturally aspirated, daily driven car - especially one that's carbed. The carb is tuned and set to operate with a specific set of parameters, and when you change its environment (e.g. cool the air down) it doesn't have any way of responding to that. So either you are tuning the carb to run under normal conditions, or tuning the carb to run under injected conditions. The latter isn't really feasible unless you like filling up the reservoir all the time and/or spend a lot of time cruising with a cracked throttle. ;) In any case, the difference a few degrees of intake temperature makes to a non-turbo car in the power department is negligible. It's the difference between driving in summer and winter... some power, sure, but not enough to justify the $300+ the system costs and the ongoing maintenance requirement.

Now, if you've got 20psi going into that motor or like running a 15:1 CR, that's another story! In the aforementioned turbo scenario, if you wanted to run 15psi without an intercooler, water injection could be the difference between great power and head destruction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top