Click Here -> Please Consider Making a PayPal Contribution to the FordSix Forum!
2019 Contributors:
NJwpod, 1strodeo, mightynorseman, maxtrux, 6d7coupe, broncr, Phase3, 68Flareside240, bmbm40,
mustang6, WorldChampGramp, justintendo, BigBlue94, ags290, motorsickle1130, Rooster, ousooner919, ethanperry
rzcrisis, DoctorC, jamyers, Motorboy, fastpat, Silverback280, chad


<<< New Site Update >>>

Progress on the '56. Help decide on this motor!

Moderator: Mod Squad

sandboxer
Registered User
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 4:34 am

Re: Progress on the '56. Help decide on this motor!

Post #51 by sandboxer » Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:24 pm

pmuller9 wrote:
clintonvillian wrote:I plan to run some type of efi. But I have NO experience with it. I would LOVE to run FAST, FiTech, or Sniper setup. It keeps it looking old school and simple. None of those will work with TFI nor do they have a magnetic plug and play distributor for a 300 six. So I have to figure that out as I would like it to control the timing.
The new SNIPER units handle power adders so if I can figure out the ignition and timing system, this feels like the way I want to go...

Run the Holley Super Sniper with the supercharger along with an MSD ignition system and forget the TFI.
You can use the Duraspark distributor to supply the magnetic ignition trigger signal to the Sniper.
The vacuum advance plate can be moved and locked down to get the rotor phasing correct.

clintonvillian wrote:Some additional food for thought.....
I was looking over some of my old notes from talking to Arnie at CTech, and he gave me these Dyno numbers from a recent build of his:

220 Crower Cam
9:1 compression
2.02 int, 1.6 exhaust
390 Holley

It was making 360 ft-lbs at 3000, and 300HP at 5000 rpms.
When they went to a 225 Crower the HP dropped to 260.
Does that sound reasonable?

Yes
The drop in power is because the 390 Holley is too small.
I used a Quick Fuel HR 650 cfm carb for the last 300 six with Arnie's CNC ported head 2.02"/1.60" valves and a 232/232, 534" lift cam.

clintonvillian wrote:If life will allow it, I plan to travel the country in this truck. So reliability is a MUST. I also plan to drive it regularly.
I want to keep it on pump gas.

If you want to keep it simple and very reliable I would tell you to just do a carburetor (No supercharger) on the Clifford intake however Arnie set the head up with the larger exhaust valves and valve springs with heavy seat pressure to work with a supercharger.
That would be wasted on a N/A setup and you would be missing out on at least 100 ft lbs of torque.

Have you done anything to the head since you got it back from Arnie?


Pmuller
What cc were your chambers for the deshrouded 2.02 heads?

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3318
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Progress on the '56. Help decide on this motor!

Post #52 by pmuller9 » Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:48 pm

sandboxer wrote:Pmuller
What cc were your chambers for the deshrouded 2.02 heads?

It was 77cc but .025" had been milled off the head so the actual volume would have been 80cc.
The head milling was done without my knowing.

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3318
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Progress on the '56. Help decide on this motor!

Post #53 by pmuller9 » Mon Sep 09, 2019 12:06 am

pmuller9 wrote:I looked over your build sheet from Arnie and there are a few things you need to check if the sheet is correct.
The intake valves are 5.010" long while the exhaust valves are 5.060" long.
If you put a straight edge across the top of the valve stems can you see a difference in height?

The springs are shown as installed at a 1.900" height with a 110" seat pressure which doesn't equate for a Engine Pro 02-1003 valve spring.
Please measure the installed spring height and see what they actually are?
If you take a valve out be careful not to mix the keepers with the stock keepers.
The new keepers and retainer are 10 degree, the stock keepers and retainers are 7 degree

While you are checking things can you also CC the combustion chambers so you know for sure what the volume is?

Have you had a chance to check the following from post #43 ?

Straight edge across the valve stem tops to see if the intake and exhaust valve have a difference in height?

Installed spring height?

Chamber volume?
When I went to check my chamber volume the fluid leaked past the valves into the ports because the valve job was bad and the valves were not concentric with the seats.

clintonvillian
Registered User
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:33 pm

Re: Progress on the '56. Help decide on this motor!

Post #54 by clintonvillian » Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:14 pm

Pmuller,

With a straight edge front to back I had no more than 0.008" variance across the top of the stems.

Spring Height from top of shim to bottom of keeper. (I only measure the valves at the front and rear of head).

1.903 Intake
1.920 Exhaust

I have not measured the volume of the head. I don't have the vial and plate to do it with yet.

clintonvillian
Registered User
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:33 pm

Re: Progress on the '56. Help decide on this motor!

Post #55 by clintonvillian » Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:31 pm

Image
Image

Here is how and roughly where I want to mount the supercharger.

IF I run megasquirt or Holley HP, I can run individual coils mounted to the valve cover with short plugwires. With just a cam sensor this would allow me to lower the supercharger and even run the about through the stock power steering pump mount hole. THIS WOULD KEEP THE THROTTLE BODY ON THE INTAKE SIDE OF THE SUPERCHARGER.

IF I run a distributor and Sniper unit it will have to be higher. This still keeps it retro, and looking old school. THIS WOULD PLACE THE THROTTLE BODY IN BLOW THROUGH POSITION WITH PRESSURE ACTING ON IT.

Now I have to run the pipe down and under the AC, and then across the front of the engine bay, and back up to the intake. I may not need an intercooler, but with the pipe running this way, why not put one in....

I can handle getting the motor together (Cam and crank sensors, coils, supercharger, plumbing, wired, etc) and have a motor ready to run. I am just afraid of getting altogether and not being able to tune it.

HOW SURE ARE YOU ALL THAT IF I GO WITH THE SNIPER UNIT I CAN MAKE A BLOW-OFF VALVE WORK?

KNOWING AND SEEING ALL OF THIS WOULD YOU CHOOSE THE SNIPER OR GO MULTIPORT WITH INDIVIDUAL COILS?

User avatar
THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER
VIP Member
Posts: 6045
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 9:25 pm
Location: FRENCHTOWN

Re: Progress on the '56. Help decide on this motor!

Post #56 by THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER » Mon Sep 09, 2019 8:52 pm

GO MULTIPORT WITH INDIVIDUAL COILS
FORD 300 INLINE SIX - THE BEST KEPT SECRET IN DRAG RACING

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3318
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Progress on the '56. Help decide on this motor!

Post #57 by pmuller9 » Mon Sep 09, 2019 8:55 pm

clintonvillian wrote:With a straight edge front to back I had no more than 0.008" variance across the top of the stems.
Spring Height from top of shim to bottom of keeper. (I only measure the valves at the front and rear of head).
1.903 Intake
1.920 Exhaust
I have not measured the volume of the head. I don't have the vial and plate to do it with yet.

The exhaust valves listed are longer than the intake so I'm curious but also glad that the valve stem tops are relatively even.
Not sure what he did there but it is OK.

The Engine Pro 02-1003 valve springs listed will only have 90 lbs of seat pressure at 1.900".
If you get the chance and have access to a spring checker please check spring to see what the pressure is at 1.900" and also at 1.400"

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3318
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Progress on the '56. Help decide on this motor!

Post #58 by pmuller9 » Mon Sep 09, 2019 9:01 pm

THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER wrote:GO MULTIPORT WITH INDIVIDUAL COILS

X2

The only way to get a linear throttle response is to have a throttle plate in front of the supercharger and you eliminate the BOV in the process.
Also If the pressure is regulated after the supercharger so it is always pumping against high pressure, the supercharger runs very hot and the extra drag is hard on the blower drive system as well as gas mileage.

Getting rid of the distributor cap and rotor eliminates problems with rotor phasing.

clintonvillian
Registered User
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:33 pm

Re: Progress on the '56. Help decide on this motor!

Post #59 by clintonvillian » Mon Sep 09, 2019 9:43 pm

If you had to guess.....

How far could you comfortably push this build in HP and torque?

What is going to be the limiting factor? The 240 rods? The head gasket? Or does the Eaton Run out of umph before the other two are encountered?

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3318
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Progress on the '56. Help decide on this motor!

Post #60 by pmuller9 » Mon Sep 09, 2019 11:54 pm

No guessing needed.
The Eaton M112 becomes very inefficient past 11K rpm which would be 5500 engine rpm using a 2:1 drive ratio.
That is about 600 cfm or 42 lbs/min = about 400 hp depending on the amount of intercooling.
At 10 lbs of boost it takes 50 hp to run an M112 to 11K rpm so the net power is 350 hp.

The M112 is the limiting factor.
It is good at making low to midrange torque, not so good at making upper rpm horsepower.

clintonvillian
Registered User
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:33 pm

Re: Progress on the '56. Help decide on this motor!

Post #61 by clintonvillian » Tue Sep 10, 2019 7:41 am

Where is that going to put the torque at?

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3318
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Progress on the '56. Help decide on this motor!

Post #62 by pmuller9 » Tue Sep 10, 2019 9:54 am

Somewhere between 420 to 450 ft lbs depending on the amount of intercooling.
That would be around 3000 rpm with a cam in the 230 degree .050" duration range.

The ideal unit would be a TVS 2300 supercharger if you can find a used one cheap.

clintonvillian
Registered User
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:33 pm

Re: Progress on the '56. Help decide on this motor!

Post #63 by clintonvillian » Wed Sep 11, 2019 9:19 am

So:

NA: 300 HP 350 FT-lbs
S/C: 350HP 450 FT-lbs


That's a gain of 50 HP an 100 FT-lbs (Would there be parasitic loss on the torque as well, or is that number as quoted considering it?)


Cost wise, I am looking at an additional $1100 to gain that power. More if I use Holley HP....

Image

Question is, is it worth it?

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3318
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Progress on the '56. Help decide on this motor!

Post #64 by pmuller9 » Wed Sep 11, 2019 10:06 am

The torque estimates include the losses.

The two problems with the M112 is that it is small for the 300 six and it is not an efficient supercharger which is why it limits the power gains for your project.
However it does meet your original criteria of providing over 400 ft lbs of torque and over 300 hp.

A TVS 2300 is larger and far more efficient and will easily produce 500 ft lbs. with the same drive ratio but it cost more.

The Holley HP 550-604 universal kit comes with the wire harness and all sensors including the O2.

Why the new valve cover and side cover?

User avatar
MechRick
Registered User
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:43 pm
Location: Las Vegas, NV

Re: Progress on the '56. Help decide on this motor!

Post #65 by MechRick » Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:04 pm

clintonvillian wrote:HOW SURE ARE YOU ALL THAT IF I GO WITH THE SNIPER UNIT I CAN MAKE A BLOW-OFF VALVE WORK?


The problem is the valve will vent whenever there is sizeable pressure in the inlet duct and sizeable vacuum in the intake. Turbos only get there on throttle lift, blowers more often. Imagine a high speed coast with your foot off the throttle. A turbo will shut down due to the absence of exhaust flow, a blower will still be driven by the crankshaft.

A better option will be a bypass valve that sends boost pressure back to the inlet of the blower, like the stock TBird and Pontiac setups.

clintonvillian wrote:KNOWING AND SEEING ALL OF THIS WOULD YOU CHOOSE THE SNIPER OR GO MULTIPORT WITH INDIVIDUAL COILS?


Multiport with individual coils can be done with Megasquirt 1 with extra code (I prefer V3.0 boards in vibration ridden trucks, no surface mount components). Simple and cheap.

It's possible to control TBI injectors with Megasquirt. They don't like low impedance injectors, but you can get 100 lb-hr high impedance injectors now so it's not an issue.

Tuning and fuel economy will be easier if the injectors are close to the intake valves. Less chance of backfires too.
1994 F150, 4.9L/ZF 5 speed, C-Vic police driveshaft
EFI head w/mild port work, 3 angle valve job
1996 long block, stock pistons, ARP rod bolts
Stock cam, aluminum cam gear
Hedman header, full mandrel bent duals, crossover, super turbos
http://fordsix.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=73244
Bronco II with a 2.3L swap http://fordsix.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=72863
1988 F250 2x4, 460 ZF 5 speed.

clintonvillian
Registered User
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:33 pm

Re: Progress on the '56. Help decide on this motor!

Post #66 by clintonvillian » Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:32 pm

Pmuller,

The new covers were just to dress it up. My valve cover doesn't sit quite flat. It warped when I welded it. It's not bad, when I put it on the head it torques down and straightens out. Not sure how that will affect the seal.....

What size exhaust should I run?

My collectors are 2.5". I don't want duals. I'm doing a side exit, so I'd like to run the collectors into a Y( 2.5"x2.5"x 3"), and then use a single in, single out muffler. Is 3" in and 3" out sufficient?

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3318
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Progress on the '56. Help decide on this motor!

Post #67 by pmuller9 » Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:11 pm

3" in and 3" out is sufficient.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests