Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Moderator: Mod Squad

datac
Registered User
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:31 am

Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Post #1 by datac » Thu Apr 25, 2013 6:51 pm

I grenaded the camshaft on this engine about ten years ago, rebuilt it shortly thereafter, and finally got the rest of the car reassembled late last summer. The new build has a bit over 1000 miles on it now, runs and feels good, no driveability problems other than a fairly lopey idle.

200ci .030 over, Comp 260H cam, small-chamber 170ci head, Winona bronze valve guides and stellite seats with standard 3-angle, oversize valves (80's vintage spec, need to look up the dimensions, it's been a long time ago), light port+polish, Clifford dual-coil valve springs and tubular pushrods, Mallory Unilite distributor and Promaster coil, 13deg initial + 38deg total advance, Clifford long equal-length headers w/port divider, 1.75" true dual exhaust, Offy 3x1 intake w/Pony Carbs modified Autolite 1100 (spec'd by John Enyeart specifically for this application). Standard trans.

Feels a bit softer than the last time I built it, which was with a 272H Clifford cam and Rhoads lifters, but drives out nicely.
I was absolutely shocked to see the dyno numbers (it's a reliable dyno, reports reproducible numbers on other cars). I thought I'd be anywhere in the 110-130 range, but instead...

Pink is first run, blue is after some tweaks. Dyno operator reported that jetting looked good, engine seemed to run strong, but to my eye something's clearly off. To save your eyes, that's 79.87 hp, 137.5 tq

Image

The dyno operator delayed the opening of the secondaries a bit to smooth out the A/F ratios, again blue is second run...

Image

It's a daily driver, so I'm certainly not after maximum performance, but I sure as heck expected better than this.
Guess it's back to fundamentals, check compression, etc., etc., but hard to imagine how something could be that far out of whack on a fresh engine without introducing driveability issues.

Image
Image

User avatar
bubba22349
Global Moderator
Posts: 8362
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Flagstaff, Az. 86005 near the old Route 66

Re: Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Post #2 by bubba22349 » Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:27 pm

Very nice looking engine :thumbup: What compression did you end up with? Also what timing chain set did you use, was cam set straight up or advanced?
A bad day Drag Racing is still better than a good day at work!

I am still hunting for a project car to build but with my current low budget it's not looking so good. My Ex- Fleet of Sixes these are all long gone! :bang: 1954 Customline 223 3 speed with O/D, 1963 Fairlane project drag car with BB6, 1977 Maverick 250 with C4, 1994 F-150 a 300 with 5 speed.

datac
Registered User
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:31 am

Re: Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Post #3 by datac » Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:59 pm

IIRC Comp cams ship w/4deg advance, I installed it straight up.

Block hasn't been decked, standard Fel-Pro head gasket, head very lightly surfaced. As long as it's been I don't recall my compression, should be slightly less than stock due to the gasket. I'll need to run a compression check, no doubt.
Image

User avatar
64falconsix
Registered User
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:24 am
Location: Daphne ,Al

Re: Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Post #4 by 64falconsix » Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:11 pm

very similar to my set up , I am running the comp 260 on my large log Tri-power backed by a c/4 auto. numbers look low and the torque curve seems to fall off after 2,300 rpm.I have'nt dynoed mine yet but with the cam set at 106 ICL my setup is still pulling strong at 5,300 rpm and feels like the torque curve is broad and flat. running my numbers through the Wallace racing 1/8th mile to HP converter I come up with 135hp. The dyno sheet is hard to read on my screen but if the second sheet are the AFR numbers they look way off. I normally run an AFR of 13 throughout a WOT run according to the narrow band tapped into the header collectors.
64 falcon 2dr 200 C.I. .040 decked ,comp. 260 .440, C.I. adjustable timing chain w/ 79 log head 52.cc , offy w/ triple webers , Clifford header , D.U.I. , C/4 2,200 stall , Transgo Stage 2 reprogramming kit , 7 1/4" with 3.20 gears. NX, N2O 75HP shot.

10.29@ 61.91 M.P.H. in the 1/8th mile. 4/12/13

datac
Registered User
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:31 am

Re: Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Post #5 by datac » Fri Apr 26, 2013 1:57 am

Yeah, that's the AFR in the second, along with the hp. The forum limits to 600px high images- I'll link to bigger stuff if it's helpful.
How lopey is your idle? I'm wondering if I've got valvetrain problems. Not certain what else could account for such a big drop- poor fuel pressure maybe? I'm grasping at straws.
Image

User avatar
64falconsix
Registered User
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:24 am
Location: Daphne ,Al

Re: Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Post #6 by 64falconsix » Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:58 am

The comp 260 gets a bad review on this site but in my opinion is a performance cam for the 200 and smaller engines. with 30 more degrees of duration @.050, 12 more degrees of overlap and.068 of lift over the best stock 200 cam it is a decent street performer and does have a nice little lope. mine is fairley lopey when first started up but smooths out just a little when warm. could start be readjusting the valves to rule that out as a contributor. but the AFR shows the mixture going from dangerously lean then way too fat towards the end of the run, the one run looks like it follows the same path until close to the end then spikes toward the lean side. I would look at the jetting first. you said you originally lost a cam in the first build, did you wipe a lobe? to help protect the flat tappet cam and distributor gear run a bottle of Comp cams breakin lube at every oil change. this advice comes from a friend who is a speed shop owner and nostalgia racer who recommended it and says all the flat tappet cam racers do this to help protect from lobe failure due to the lack of ZDDP in modern oils, plus it's cheaper than one of the specialty flat tappet cam oils. here is a vid of mine at Idle with the comp 260. http://youtu.be/lVlo4vn0-kY
64 falcon 2dr 200 C.I. .040 decked ,comp. 260 .440, C.I. adjustable timing chain w/ 79 log head 52.cc , offy w/ triple webers , Clifford header , D.U.I. , C/4 2,200 stall , Transgo Stage 2 reprogramming kit , 7 1/4" with 3.20 gears. NX, N2O 75HP shot.

10.29@ 61.91 M.P.H. in the 1/8th mile. 4/12/13

datac
Registered User
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:31 am

Re: Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Post #7 by datac » Fri Apr 26, 2013 10:20 am

Yeah, differences in exhaust aside your idle sounds much like mine.

I did take out a lobe, but it was ten years ago before the demise of zinc. With about 10k miles on it, I had an umbrella seal come apart and a piece wedge in the valve spring on the #1 exhaust- broke the rocker arm shaft between the intake and exhaust. I didn't realize the culprit at the time, replaced the rocker arm assembly, checked the pushrods, and bolted it back together. The impact must have damaged the bottom of the lifter, 5k miles later I'd lost a lobe. All new since then.

It felt considerably stronger (although I hadn't dynoed it, and it was ten years ago) before with the same jetting- I wonder if I've got a float level issue or something similar. Might explain the big swings in AFR.
Image

User avatar
CobraSix
VIP Member
Posts: 4216
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 7:31 am
Location: Houston, TX (ugg)
Contact:

Re: Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Post #8 by CobraSix » Fri Apr 26, 2013 1:28 pm

I loved my Comp Cam 260H.

While I never dyno'd my tripower, by the seat of the pants it had similar power as the OZ250 I ran with a 390 Holley and it dyno'd at 147 at the wheels. The Offy had more top end though and pulled like a mofo after 4000.

So, you numbers do seem really low and the AFR drop is the likely culprit. Figure +-20HP based on the dyno itself. Sure, it may be repeatable, but is there is an offset, it'll just show up each time.

Have you verified the outer carbs are actually coming and providing fuel (I know, obvious, but still)

Odd part is that on the first run, your AFR jumps up to 16 above 4k. I wonder the condition of the fuel pump, filter, and floats in the carb.
Slade
My Website
My How to's
Image

Engine: 200 CI, Oz 250 modified for 4V Holley 390CFM, DS II Ignition, 40kV Flamethrower, MSD Digital 6+
Drivetrain: Cable Clutch, V-8 T5, 8" 5 Lug Rear End, 5-Lug SSBC Front Brakes, 3.40:1 Posi

User avatar
wsa111
FSP Moderator
Posts: 2980
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 5:28 pm
Location: South Carolina
Contact:

Re: Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Post #9 by wsa111 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 4:53 pm

Very clean engine compartment. Craftsmanship excellent.
However, zero deck the block, get rid of the 170 head its strangling the engine.
Need a head with a large log & modfy from there. Get the head cc's between 50-52 & run a victor headgasket, its .006" thinner than the felpro.
If you stick with the tripower disable the power enrichment system & just richen the main jets on the end carbs only.
Eliminate the idle circuits on the end carbs.
As a matter of safety you should use invertered flare fuel line fittings instead of compression fittings or go the AN route.
The 260 comp cam is weak, very slow rate of lift. Any camshaft that requires only 50# of valve spring seat pressure is not giving you the best performance. Yes its a lot better than stock, but there is room for improvement.
Get a set of at least 1.6 or better 1.65 rocker arms to get more lift, rate of lift & more duration @.050" lift. The advertised duration however remains the same.
The best power is an A/F ratio 12.8-13.1 WOT. Cruise should be 14.2-14.7 for best ecomomy.
The 36-38 degree total advance is fine, but you need to shorten the centrifigul advance so you can at least run 18 degrees initial. Won't help your dyno numbers at the top end, but will definately enhance your low end performance.
Doing the above recommendations will get you close to 140-150 HP at the rear wheels.
Cobra Six has a great idea in making sure your fuel pump & lines are up to the job.
At least for the present get your A/f ratio's in line & do a little distributor work.
As i said your workmanship is above the norm, just do what you can afford. Good luck.
67 mustang,C-4, with mod. 80 hd, custom 500 cfm carb with annular boosters, hooker headers, dual exh.-X pipe, flowmaster mufflers, HEI dist. Engine 205" .030" over with offset ground crank & 1.65 roller rockers. 9.5 comp., Isky 262 cam.
2003 Ford Lightning daily driver. Recurving Distributors. billythedistributorman@live.com
Image

User avatar
FalconSedanDelivery
Registered User
Posts: 914
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:20 pm
Location: Freeburg Pa
Contact:

Re: Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Post #10 by FalconSedanDelivery » Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:44 pm

What is the casting number for your 170 head wsa is right for most of the 170 heads , BUT there is one that is good ( its the one on my 250 ) and the one AK Miller recommended back in 1971
Falcon 6's, FE's I Like them both , Sold all My 6 cyl stuff ( for now at least ) glad to pass along some tips though

Econoline64
Registered User
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:49 pm

Re: Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Post #11 by Econoline64 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:51 pm

Did you degree the cam? You could have a timing set that is seriously retarded and even with the built in 4* advance from Comp, it may still be retarded.

I think this is the only conversation we can have with the "R" word and still be politically correct. :lol:
Image

datac
Registered User
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:31 am

Re: Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Post #12 by datac » Fri Apr 26, 2013 9:59 pm

Miller recommended the late Maverick 170 head for its combination of small combustion chamber and 200-sized valves. My head came from a '63, and I modified it to accept oversized valves (IIRC, 1.75 intake, 1.45 exh, but it's been a long time). I know it's silly, but outside of my soon-to-be-replaced coil I've tried to keep everything on the car visually period correct, so no big log head for me. I didn't degree it, that's probably coming if I don't make any progress.

It's a 20+ year old, 150k mile fuel pump that's spent the last ten years sitting under my workbench, so that's probably as good a place as any to start. Before reassembling the car I inspected the fuel lines for possible replacement, flushed with solvent and blew out with compressed air. Tank, sending unit, etc., are all new. I'll check my float levels while I'm at it.

Here's the rest of the car, still a lot of work to do:

Image

Image
Image

Econoline64
Registered User
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:49 pm

Re: Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Post #13 by Econoline64 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 10:04 pm

GREAT looking car!
Image

User avatar
64falconsix
Registered User
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:24 am
Location: Daphne ,Al

Re: Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Post #14 by 64falconsix » Sat Apr 27, 2013 7:09 am

Very nice... :thumbup:
64 falcon 2dr 200 C.I. .040 decked ,comp. 260 .440, C.I. adjustable timing chain w/ 79 log head 52.cc , offy w/ triple webers , Clifford header , D.U.I. , C/4 2,200 stall , Transgo Stage 2 reprogramming kit , 7 1/4" with 3.20 gears. NX, N2O 75HP shot.

10.29@ 61.91 M.P.H. in the 1/8th mile. 4/12/13

User avatar
JackFish
VIP Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 7:31 pm
Location: Winnipeg Manitoba Canada

Re: Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Post #15 by JackFish » Sat Apr 27, 2013 12:10 pm

datac wrote:IIRC Comp cams ship w/4deg advance, I installed it straight up.

Block hasn't been decked, standard Fel-Pro head gasket, head very lightly surfaced. As long as it's been I don't recall my compression, should be slightly less than stock due to the gasket. I'll need to run a compression check, no doubt.

You probably have a compression ratio that's hurting performance.
Did you CC the head?
1978 Ford Fairmont station wagon
1978 Ford Fairmont station wagon
Yup, I bought another one.
1996 Chevy Caprice 9C1 (3)
1999 Dodge Ram 2500

User avatar
woodbutcher
VIP Member
Posts: 2017
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:14 pm
Location: LaFollette Tn.

Re: Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Post #16 by woodbutcher » Sat Apr 27, 2013 4:02 pm

:beer: Nice looking Mustang,and engine compartment.
Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
Leo
"People never lie so much as after a hunt,during a war,or before an election".
Otto von Bismarck

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6564
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Post #17 by xctasy » Sat Apr 27, 2013 10:45 pm

Our gruped together knowledge will help you find out why your combo seams not to be making the power you expect.


wsa111 wrote:Very clean engine compartment. Craftsmanship excellent.
However, zero deck the block, get rid of the 170 head its strangling the engine.
Need a head with a large log & modfy from there. Get the head cc's between 50-52 & run a victor headgasket, its .006" thinner than the felpro.
If you stick with the tripower disable the power enrichment system & just richen the main jets on the end carbs only.
Eliminate the idle circuits on the end carbs.
As a matter of safety you should use invertered flare fuel line fittings instead of compression fittings or go the AN route.
The 260 comp cam is weak, very slow rate of lift. Any camshaft that requires only 50# of valve spring seat pressure is not giving you the best performance. Yes its a lot better than stock, but there is room for improvement.
Get a set of at least 1.6 or better 1.65 rocker arms to get more lift, rate of lift & more duration @.050" lift. The advertised duration however remains the same.
The best power is an A/F ratio 12.8-13.1 WOT. Cruise should be 14.2-14.7 for best ecomomy.
The 36-38 degree total advance is fine, but you need to shorten the centrifigul advance so you can at least run 18 degrees initial. Won't help your dyno numbers at the top end, but will definately enhance your low end performance.
Doing the above recommendations will get you close to 140-150 HP at the rear wheels.
Cobra Six has a great idea in making sure your fuel pump & lines are up to the job.
At least for the present get your A/f ratio's in line & do a little distributor work.
As i said your workmanship is above the norm, just do what you can afford. Good luck.


I'd add to FSD and wsa111.


In one Hot Rod article, Ak Miller and Jay Storer said any closed chamber 52 cc 170 head with the small chamber is up 30% on the stock (105 cfm intake) flow rate,

http://www.invectivus.com/hrm_mustang3/ ... 20copy.jpg

bringing the CFM flow 15 cfm above the ~120 cfm intake flow a big log post 1975 big valve engine makes. When you then add the big 1.75" valves to it, the small chamber 170 head then flows well over the 42 mm port 2V 250 heads intake flow rate, and more than any stock 75- 83 ~120 cfm flow rate head by a country mile. It's all about the quench and squeeze of air flow around the valve, and the ability to then get a better combustion chamber shape. Just getting the air flow right means you can then get more hp with the other standard head plane and porting modifications...the extra size of the later log head doesn't help fix up the triple carb flow rates, but opening up the carb holes and running fixed, simultaneous opening carbs helps control the rampant air fuel ratio swings. And swing it does, like a drunk mans wife pouring the hooch down the sink.. first lean, then rich, then lean again. Kevin showed us that a well set up combo on a calibrated dyno should get 140 rear wheel hp, even if the air fuel ratios are not ideal. The Offy and Edelbrock trip power intake isn't consistant fie air fuel because the porting is so varied, and you have to do dyno time to find out the sweet spots for ignition and air fuel. wsa111, Kevinl1058 and Falcon SedanDelivery know what advance curves work on a modified Ford six, and its heaps of inital advance and then a flattened delivery past 2600 rpm. Very important to dial in just the right amount or you'll be loosing power on the dyno andplug hole

It was the same with Kevins 206 with triple ICTs Weber Aftermarket 29mm ( a humble 138CFM @ 1.5" 34-ICH Replacement for old Land Rovers). The wild swings in air fuel are factor of the poor porting, a feature of the large diameter log, see his posts. Kevinl1058, viewtopic.php?t=64712

FSD decked his block and head over 100 thou each, and that makes a 250/170 head an ace in the hole. Invectivus can read the finer detail, and provided this as evidence.


See the invectivus supplied details in http://www.invectivus.com/hrm_mustang3/Cover.jpg



any 170 head is with the trip power is the bomb, but they show the large log 170 head.
Last edited by xctasy on Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:34 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

User avatar
Gene Fiore
RC Moderator
Posts: 941
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Goodyear, AZ

Re: Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Post #18 by Gene Fiore » Sat Apr 27, 2013 11:27 pm

datac wrote:I didn't degree it, that's probably coming if I don't make any progress.

I think I would start with degeeing the cam...this is a must IMHO. :wink: Great looking setup!
1971 Maverick, 250I6, crank knife-edged, Clay Smith 278 solid cam, .040 over 255 V8 pistons, 10.5 to 1, Custom 500 Holley 2V on Classic Inlines Aluminum cylinder head, 1.6 rockers, Hooker header, DUI dizzy, C-4 w/2800 stall, 8" 3.55 det locker

Best ET 1/4 mile: 14.92 at 89.61 mph on 1/12/2013

My Classic Inlines Photo Page

Image

User avatar
wsa111
FSP Moderator
Posts: 2980
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 5:28 pm
Location: South Carolina
Contact:

Re: Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Post #19 by wsa111 » Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:53 pm

Very interesting on the 170 head. Never knew it existed.
Is the log as large a an 80 log???
With the small chamber & a lot of quench you probably need only 34 to 36 total advance.
67 mustang,C-4, with mod. 80 hd, custom 500 cfm carb with annular boosters, hooker headers, dual exh.-X pipe, flowmaster mufflers, HEI dist. Engine 205" .030" over with offset ground crank & 1.65 roller rockers. 9.5 comp., Isky 262 cam.
2003 Ford Lightning daily driver. Recurving Distributors. billythedistributorman@live.com
Image

datac
Registered User
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:31 am

Re: Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Post #20 by datac » Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:54 am

Thanks for the advice- I'll start with the fuel pump, float level, maybe try a valve adjust before I pull the front cover for a cam degree. I'm surprised that it seems to sound, run and drive so well, considering how far amiss something clearly is.

I first built this engine pre-innerwebs back in the late '80s, when info was much harder to come by. Old Ak Miller articles were pretty much all I had to go on.
Here's the same engine in the same car last time around, some time in the late '80s-early '90s (heck, same fuel pump too):

Image

Image
Image

User avatar
Gene Fiore
RC Moderator
Posts: 941
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Goodyear, AZ

Re: Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Post #21 by Gene Fiore » Mon Apr 29, 2013 1:32 am

datac wrote:I'm surprised that it seems to sound, run and drive so well, considering how far amiss something clearly is.

Yep...been there done that. Many years ago I built a 250 in a different Maverick...it sounded awesome and drove nicely...but it ran the same et's as the bone stock motor. I didn't degree the cam :nono: and I found out later it was way retarded. Once that was straightend out it ran REALLY good. Not saying this is your problem for sure, but this kind of stuff can happen. Good luck with your build and keep us informed! :)
1971 Maverick, 250I6, crank knife-edged, Clay Smith 278 solid cam, .040 over 255 V8 pistons, 10.5 to 1, Custom 500 Holley 2V on Classic Inlines Aluminum cylinder head, 1.6 rockers, Hooker header, DUI dizzy, C-4 w/2800 stall, 8" 3.55 det locker

Best ET 1/4 mile: 14.92 at 89.61 mph on 1/12/2013

My Classic Inlines Photo Page

Image

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6564
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Post #22 by xctasy » Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:02 am

:hmmm: Need some feedback.


I've discussed this before, but its very pertinent to anyone with an Automatic car

Is your T code a C4 auto, or 3 or 4 speed manual.



If its automatic, its certainly not unreasonable to loose 63% to the back wheels, so 78 hp at 4300 rpm could be up to 127 flywheel hp at 4300 rpm. Its common to loose that much with a converter, and its quite difficult to get good baseline figures with automatics, especially I6 autos, where the interplay between the dyno counterweight and the torque converter flash and stall readings can seriously skew the rear wheel hp figures.


See viewtopic.php?f=1&t=69807

I've seen a lot of dyno reports in my 43 years, and I haven't been able to see if your car is C4 equiped of not. If it is, a 1.63 rear wheel hp to flywheel hp figure is typical. On cars with Top Loaders, T5's, SROD's and Dagenhams et al, 1.264 is typical from the historical accounts. Apples must match apples, fluid drive auto's mess up the dyno results more often than you'd expect. It's also nothing for a chassis dyno to be out 15% even if calibrated. That's 40 rear wheel hp on a car making 400 hp. On a 145 hp flywheel hp engine in a front wheel 1435 cc Mini, going 50 miles across town to another chassis dyno, Dave Vizard lost 20 wheel hp, and got only 92 hp at the front wheels.

Help us fill in the transmission gaps. You might be lookin for a black cat, in a black room, that isn't even there!
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

datac
Registered User
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:31 am

Re: Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Post #23 by datac » Mon Apr 29, 2013 9:34 am

3.03 toploader 3-sp at the moment (early small-pattern block with Econoline bellhousing), T-5 in the offing.
Hopefully I'll have something to report here shortly.
Image

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6564
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Post #24 by xctasy » Wed May 01, 2013 5:13 am

Thanks for that. I'd try some 0 to 60 mph times and use the cheapest of the following methods. You have dyno figures, you can calibrate the dyno.

I'd bet money the dyno is out of calibration.

xctasy wrote: See viewtopic.php?f=5&t=69948

:nod: From 9 bucks https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/dynolic ... 74533?mt=8


to $9, 999 :hmmm: http://www.corrsys-datron.com/

hp measurement has never been easier. Find your regular 660 and 1320 feet section of safe road, maybee with a 8 to 12% gradient, and presto! you have a means of measuring Hp and torque improvement. Hp requirement with grade is just sine theta of the basic weighbridge weight at test.

Do change ups at rpms after the stall ratio tips in, at 3000, 3250, 3500, 3750, 4000, 4250,4500,4750,5000,5250,5500,5750,6000 etc, and you've got the details to define the hp curve without needing a dyno. It couldn't be easier

Or my $ 1600 favorite :banana: , the Detective John Shaft 'Richard Roundtree' dyno shaft on car dynamometer
http://www.aemelectronics.com/dyno-shaf ... ometer-73/


http://www.jimmy540i.com/gtech2.jpg

see http://www.jimmy540i.com/gtech.htm

Image
see http://www.sub5zero.com/g-techpro-ss-wo ... ate-gauge/
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

datac
Registered User
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:31 am

Re: Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Post #25 by datac » Sun May 05, 2013 1:00 pm

Fuel pressure and float level checked out fine, got to thinking back to last Summer when I first fired this engine. Had a problem chasing down a noisy lifter, ended up replacing them with no improvement, after adjusting umpteen times trying to quiet it I recall I ended up cranking them down nearly 3/4 turn instead of the usual 1/2 turn which helped somewhat. Forgot all about that, thinking I'd sort it out later.

Readjusted the valves last night to 1/4 turn, definitely a bit noisier but the butt-o-meter detects a significant improvement. I'd effectively carved a big chunk out of my valve lift, nice. Still not certain what the source of my lifter noise is, which does bother me a bit.
Image

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6564
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Post #26 by xctasy » Sun Jul 28, 2013 5:25 am

datac wrote:Thanks for the advice- I'll start with the fuel pump, float level, maybe try a valve adjust before I pull the front cover for a cam degree. I'm surprised that it seems to sound, run and drive so well, considering how far amiss something clearly is.

I first built this engine pre-innerwebs back in the late '80s, when info was much harder to come by. Old Ak Miller articles were pretty much all I had to go on.
Here's the same engine in the same car last time around, some time in the late '80s-early '90s (heck, same fuel pump too):

Image

Image



There are four sizes of Autolite 1100/1101 carb, you need to measure the venturis.

Autolite 1100/1101 Sizes and Applications and CFM at 3"Hg.
1.00 Venturi(120 CFM): 144 ThriftPower Six (84.9 cfm at 1.5"Hg)
1.10 Venturi(150 CFM): 170 ThriftPower Six (106.0 cfm at 1.5"Hg)
1.20 Venturi(185 CFM): 200, 250 Six (130.8 cfm at 1.5"Hg)
1.29 Venturi (210 cfm)"223,262,240,250, 1963-1969 (148.5 cfm at 1.5"Hg)

If you have the smaller ones, that's where your hp has gone. The right size for power is the 1.29" venturi, and the size of te carb hole has to be as big as you can make it. Running them all on at the same time is best for power, as the air fuel ratio can swing around a lot. Your peak 1.5"Hg cfm as you would meadsure a 4-bbl with good 1100's and 1101's is just over 445 cfm, which is 21 cfm less than the best triple 1.352" venturi 1940 Holley and two 34 Weber IC versions with the 29 mm 1.14 " venturis. With the smallest 1100's, you'd be lucky to get 255 cfm.

If you can report back to us the venturi sizes, and you'll have the peak cfm figures at 255, 318, 392, or 445 cfm. Your peak power will be way low if you only got some 1" venturis.

There are bigger 1940's around with 212 CFM or 149.9 cfm at 1.5"Hg, or about 450 cfm total. The smaller 1940 has a much smaller venturi, and much less power.

The good . The 212 CFM ratings with the 1.352" venturi on 250, 240, 300 and older I block 223 and 262's won't be the same as the generic 144/170/200 item.

It is a big 223/262/240/250 or 300 carb if its PN coded:
R 4454-AAS
R 4468 AAS
R 4509 AAS
R 4520 AAS, additional BPN plate suffix A
R 4522 AAS, additional BPN plate suffix C
R 4523 AAS, additional BPN plate suffix D
R 4524 AAS, additional BPN plate suffix E
R 4525 AAS, additional BPN plate suffix F
R 4526 AAS, additional BPN plate suffix G
R 4527 AAS, additional BPN plate suffix H
R 4528 AAS, additional BPN plate suffix J
R 4536 AAS, additional BPN plate suffix Y (an early 223 replacement)
R 4537 AAS, additional BPN plate suffix Z (an early 262 replacement)
R 4692 AAA
R 4696 AAA

See http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthread. ... or-options for further info
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

mustang6
VIP Member
Posts: 1410
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 11:32 pm
Location: near Tacoma, WA USA

Re: Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Post #27 by mustang6 » Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:22 am

In one Hot Rod article, Ak Miller and Jay Storer said any closed chamber 52 cc 170 head with the small chamber is up 30% on the stock (105 cfm intake) flow rate,


The article doesn't really use the word "any", so I've always interpreted it in relative terms- the small log 170 head flows about 30% better than the small log 200 head, and the large log 170 head flows about 30% better than the large log 200 head.
Scott

68 Mustang 200 ci, Aussie 250-2V head, Dual Headers, Comp Cams 252H, DSII w/MSD 6AL, T-5, V8 suspension.

65 Ranchero 200 ci, late 170 head, Autolite 1101, 3.03 3 speed, Maverick 8" 4 lug rear with 3.55 gears.

User avatar
Varilux
Registered User
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Hickory Creek, TX

Re: Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Post #28 by Varilux » Tue Aug 13, 2013 10:44 pm

I always enjoy seeing pics of that engine bay- that 3x1 setup looks just awesome.

Hope you get to the bottom of what's stealing the hp...
'65 Coupe - Silver Smoke / Red Interior : L6-200, T-5spd, 3.55 rear, Offy 3x1 head, DUI HEI ignition, CI stainless dual header, dual exhaust (Magniflows), Chockostang disc brakes, export brace, 1" front sway, A/C (Sanden compressor), GT Gauges + Rally Pac, Dynacorn fiberglass hood, MB Old School 15x7" wheels, Humphugger Console, USA-66 AM/FM, Sony amps (500w 12" sub + 200w)
http://www.just-a-six.tumblr.com

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6564
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Post #29 by xctasy » Thu Apr 09, 2015 7:07 am

Since datac is back...

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=72977
datac wrote:The original Ford linkage hooked up to the Offy linkage with little effort.
I run a short extension (maybe 3"), ends with a threaded pivot bolted to the Offy bellcrank.
Should be able to see it here...

Image



Have you gotten the part numbers of the carbs, the valve gear and igntion checked over.

how does it go NOW?
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

turbo2256b
Registered User
Posts: 307
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:02 pm

Re: Seriously disappointing dyno numbers

Post #30 by turbo2256b » Thu Apr 09, 2015 9:32 am

Anyone here ever modified the power valve in the Autolite carbs? Mine would open up at idle causing some issues. Its been years but I DID WORK OUT THE CENTER CARBs power valve closer to correct. runnig progressive linkage was debating on disabling the power valves and just go with jetting. Never realy finised it up and went with a 2305 500 cfm holley. Might go back to the 3 1bbls again.
I use the 170 head that had the larger valves next to the smallest chamber milled .062, ported even the log is a bit ported.
Think I have the 185cfm ones was thinking about the larger ones either one on each end or 185s on the ends and 210 in the center. Have a old crane solid lifter cam it hits upwards of 7K on the tach easy. .030 over 250 with forged pistons.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests