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, drag-200stang, THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER, Jimmys61falcon, rjonah, Sooshi, Robert92867, Invectivus


PLEASE TEST ON http://dev.fordsix.com

<<<***PLEASE READ*** New Site Update >>>

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

Moderator: Mod Squad

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3561
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

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

Post #51 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: 3561
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 » 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: 510
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:33 pm

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

Post #53 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: 510
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 6:31 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: 6199
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 9:25 pm
Location: FRENCHTOWN

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

Post #55 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: 3561
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

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

Post #56 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: 3561
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 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: 510
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:33 pm

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

Post #58 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: 3561
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

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

Post #59 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: 510
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:33 pm

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

Post #60 by clintonvillian » Tue Sep 10, 2019 7:41 am

Where is that going to put the torque at?

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3561
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

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

Post #61 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: 510
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:33 pm

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

Post #62 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: 3561
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

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

Post #63 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: 932
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:43 pm
Location: Las Vegas, NV

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

Post #64 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: 510
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:33 pm

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

Post #65 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: 3561
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

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

Post #66 by pmuller9 » Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:11 pm

3" in and 3" out is sufficient.

guhfluh
Registered User
Posts: 451
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 9:40 am

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

Post #67 by guhfluh » Mon Sep 16, 2019 4:37 pm

MechRick wrote:

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.
V3.0 boards are surface mount. V3.57 boards are not. *edit* sorry, I had this assbackwards.

Any MS with a peak and hold driver does low impedance injectors fine. My low z 95lb injectors actually have a .35ms dead time using a jbperf 4 channel board.

I'd opt for MS2 at minimum.
Last edited by guhfluh on Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
1967 F-250 Crew Cab 2wd, 300 6cyl, T-170/RTS/TOD 4-speed overdrive
240 head, Offy C, EFI exhaust manifolds, Comp 268H, mandrel 2.5-3" exhaust, Edelbrock 500, Pertronix ignitor and coil, recurved dizzy. 200whp/300wtq

User avatar
MechRick
Registered User
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:43 pm
Location: Las Vegas, NV

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

Post #68 by MechRick » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:28 pm

https://www.diyautotune.com/support/tec ... -57-board/

I've installed 3.57 boards in cars, and am ok with it. Prefer leads that go through holes and soldered for off road stuff.
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.

guhfluh
Registered User
Posts: 451
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 9:40 am

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

Post #69 by guhfluh » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:43 pm

MechRick wrote:https://www.diyautotune.com/support/tech/inside-the-v3-57-board/

I've installed 3.57 boards in cars, and am ok with it. Prefer leads that go through holes and soldered for off road stuff.
Bruh, I'm so sorry. I had a major brain fart on smt vs through board. I thought you were recommending the smt board.
1967 F-250 Crew Cab 2wd, 300 6cyl, T-170/RTS/TOD 4-speed overdrive
240 head, Offy C, EFI exhaust manifolds, Comp 268H, mandrel 2.5-3" exhaust, Edelbrock 500, Pertronix ignitor and coil, recurved dizzy. 200whp/300wtq

User avatar
MechRick
Registered User
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:43 pm
Location: Las Vegas, NV

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

Post #70 by MechRick » Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:04 am

No worries, I wasn't going to post, but I don't want our readers to get confused.
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: 510
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:33 pm

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

Post #71 by clintonvillian » Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:43 am

Image

I had posted this in another thread, out of curiosity how to synchronize the signal coming from this, there is not any cap adjustment?

Those above are for six cylinder cars, does it matter whether they are for a 4 -6-8? The signal only triggers once per revolution so it shouldn't matter, correct?

How do you tell the ecu where the signal is hitting in relation to the crankshaft?

User avatar
THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER
VIP Member
Posts: 6199
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 9:25 pm
Location: FRENCHTOWN

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

Post #72 by THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER » Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:50 am

Not sure what the application is for the above pics, but I would think only a trigger mechanism for an even fire six will work.
FORD 300 INLINE SIX - THE BEST KEPT SECRET IN DRAG RACING

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3561
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

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

Post #73 by pmuller9 » Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:30 am

The cam sync pulse signal happens only once in TWO crankshaft revolutions.
It doesn't matter how many cylinders the engine has.
You time the pulse signal by loosing up the clamp and turning the unit the same as if you were timing an ignition signal with a distributor.
The Cam Sync signal tells the ECU which revolution has the compression stroke for cylinder #1 so it can occur anywhere during the correct revolution.

You can use the stock Ford 4.9 distributor shown on the left by removing 5 of the 6 vanes.
The single remaining vane will give you one pulse for every two crankshaft revolutions.
You can cut the top of the rotor shaft off and make a low profile cover.

Hall effect signals work better than VR signals.

All the above is assuming you are using a crankshaft tooth wheel for the ignition trigger signal.

The second option is:
If the EFI system can decode the Ford PIP signal you can simply use the stock distributor without a crank wheel.
Just cut the rotor shaft off and make a low profile cover

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6951
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

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

Post #74 by xctasy » Thu Sep 19, 2019 4:04 pm

Ford aced this, but it is very difficult to get a clear view of exactly how smartly they did it, because Ford had Push Start modules, IDM control, and a very strange roll out of speed density MAP systems, with constant, bank fire and sequential and MAF systems, as well as the VAM unit on the 2.3 Turbo EFi's. Ford chopped and changed the ignition systems to suit the power-train requirements. 5 speeds, trucks, and 4 stage autos, turbos, superchargers, 4, 6 or 8 cylinders, they all had different requirements





Dual synch distributors where what Ford was planning back in 1980, and pmuller9 described it back in one of his many concise and well chosen word posts on Ford Thick Film ignition systems for use with EEC IV.



For the High Output Central Fuel Injection and Port EFi 5.0's, they had single synchron. The Port EFi...only those, they had "Dual Sychro" Hall Effect reluctors with the eighth reluctor PIP cut to allow the electronic signal both ignition spark, and to sequence Sequential Injection for 1986. The 1984.5-1985 Auto 5.0 HO with the CFi Fuel Injection system had a downgraded TFi, and so did the bank fire trucks with 5.0 or 5.8 Port EFi.





Ford devised a special kind of system before the 1983 era dual sych TFi ignition found in the 2.3 EFi Turbo, and then everything else new with the EECIV from 1984 to 1995.





No electronic spark control was used with a Hall effect sensor except on the V8's. The in line sixes and V6's all missed out on the very advanced Duraspark III system. The feedback carb sixes and V6'S used stock Duraspark II or later TFi.....they skiped very good intermediate system, the 1980-1985 Brown Box Duraspark III.



Fords DSIII used a v8 only, external Hall effect sensor system, found on

Windsor 4.2(early)/5.0/5.8

351M (81-82)

and some 400's (1979-80 or maybee).





The brown box control unit works in a similar way to the grey cap TFi.



Ford had to contend with car like emissions for CA, and a harder Fed test on the 49 state and CA F truck and E vans,



They were forced to run either

EECII Central Fuel injection (L-M passanger cars, CA, 1980-1984, EECIII),

2-bbl carbs of 7200 Variable Venturi (various)

2150 Motorcrafts with feedback idle control on some 1980 to 1985 cars/trucks.

The later EFi 460's ran the secondary Crank Position sensor as well



Rather than use the later TFi, you can use the stock Duraspark, and control the spark with an early 1980 to 1985 Crank Position sensor with 3 prongs instead of four. The truck and passenger stuff was indexed around a 6-1/2" Crank Position Sensor with four prongs and a C1963 control system found under Duralast SU213.





Image



All the Holley guys who have been trying to invoke brain dead 4-bbl throttle body EFi have been scratching there heads to understand how the early Hall effect works.



Image



Image







Ford made 2-bbl CFi systems work, but the TFI ignition systems were piloted with the four to five years of Duraspark III/ EECIII engines, and Fords literature was very poorly concocted... so much wrong stuff.





Like this....this is an EECIII system with EECIV lables, so whatchout for Miss Information...





Image



if you want EFi, and want to use semi or fully sequential EFi, Duraspark I, or II can do it it you lock the advance system.



See svocapri's 15 Step method, and http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthread. ... istributor



or the wire it shut method of the Care of the less advanced rangerstation.com





https://therangerstation.com/tech_libra ... swap.shtml
Last edited by xctasy on Wed Sep 25, 2019 3:22 pm, edited 2 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

clintonvillian
Registered User
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:33 pm

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

Post #75 by clintonvillian » Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:03 pm

pmuller9 wrote:The cam sync pulse signal happens only once in TWO crankshaft revolutions.
It doesn't matter how many cylinders the engine has.
You time the pulse signal by loosing up the clamp and turning the unit the same as if you were timing an ignition signal with a distributor.
The Cam Sync signal tells the ECU which revolution has the compression stroke for cylinder #1 so it can occur anywhere during the correct revolution.

You can use the stock Ford 4.9 distributor shown on the left by removing 5 of the 6 vanes.
The single remaining vane will give you one pulse for every two crankshaft revolutions.
You can cut the top of the rotor shaft off and make a low profile cover.

Hall effect signals work better than VR signals.

All the above is assuming you are using a crankshaft tooth wheel for the ignition trigger signal.

The second option is:
If the EFI system can decode the Ford PIP signal you can simply use the stock distributor without a crank wheel.
Just cut the rotor shaft off and make a low profile cover



What type of sensor does the unit on the right have???

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3561
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

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

Post #76 by pmuller9 » Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:13 pm

clintonvillian wrote:What type of sensor does the unit on the right have???

I can't tell the part number from the picture.
Sensors came in both VR and Hall Effect.
Two terminal units are VR and Three terminal are Hall Effect.

User avatar
MechRick
Registered User
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:43 pm
Location: Las Vegas, NV

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

Post #77 by MechRick » Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:08 pm

xctasy wrote:so whatchout for Miss Infomation...


...and as we all know, if you fool around with Miss Information you might get introduced to Miss Fire, and she can be a real beeyatch.

http://www.msextra.com/doc/pdf/html/MS3 ... e-1.5.html

viewtopic.php?t=75607

Everything you need is in the signals coming from the distributor, as long as you run EFI that can decode signature PIP (such as MS3). A 36-1 wheel on the crankshaft would be more accurate, but not really necessary.

Variable Reluctor sensors create their own voltage, just like a generator/alternator does. Amplitude changes with RPM, but you only need two wires.

Hall effect sensors work by having a semicircle vane that interrupts the generated magnetic field. Produces a nice square wave that is easier to use, but needs to be powered up. Thus the extra power wire.
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.

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6951
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

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

Post #78 by xctasy » Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:15 pm

The histonics of this are in my opinion important, because a lot of people are trying to reinvent the wheel by throwing away the distributor.

I've done prox sensors for many years, and been messed over by them since my first experience with Toyotas Hiace van system in 1994.

Variable reluctor 2 wires loose signal at low rpm's, just like the VR signal for the 1969-1972 distrovac, or Ford Cruise control and the speed idle kicker for the early 5.0 Mark VI LSC.

Two wires can be spiked and ranged to split or prescale, but its always an RB.

RB= real beeyatch

My intense dislike of any thing Nissan or Toyota or early VR Ford is because the self generated induction voltage drops off at 6 mph on a Ford VR, and cuts back in at 30 mph. Same with Nissan and Toyota ABS circuit sensors, they trip out, and again, replacement wiring is different when you need a new part. Same with Fords two VR replacment parts...the wiring is wrong, and there are two types, an IDM DuraSpark I, and another for Duraspark II.


Ford realised this, and gave birth the the 100% reliable external mounted 3 wire Hall Effect sensor with DuraSpark 3/EEC3, and the idle control DC steper motor used on VV7200's.



For me, and Ford, a clean Square wave form the crank balancer is much better than trying to make a 4.0 Colgne or 2.3/2.5 Lima OHC Distributor sensor work. Those two systems will work, but to do that, you are saying No to Duraspark, and Yes to EDIS6, and you then have to create an Electronic Control Assembly (ECA). Which is what MegaJolt, MicroSquirt, or Megasquirt, or EECIV are a copy of, because the guy who programmed the Motorolla chip copied over the ECA code protocols.

Back in 1980-1985, Ford did all that TFi stuff with ECA Crank Position Sensor C1963, 3 years ahead of its advent on the 2.3 Turbo EFi and YFA equiped Ford 2.3's.

In the early Ford literature, It explains how it allows the Duraspark and its variable reluctor system to operate as a TFi.

The Hall Effect sensor is external, early ones, forthe first 3 months, IIRC, by the crank by the starter, but later ones by the CPS at the front passenger side.

For the big V8's in F trucks, plenty of guys ripped out the Feedback carb or the EFi units in Panthers, and they ran fine with the ECA still hooked up, and killer 4-bbl carb. It was the Carb, Thermactor, EGR, and Igntion control all in one.

Untill it lost signal via a triped fault code. But it was hands off, simple, and Ford got it working right since Job One.


Image

Image

Image
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

clintonvillian
Registered User
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:33 pm

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

Post #79 by clintonvillian » Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:40 pm

I plan on running a 36-1 or 60-2 crank wheel.

With this you still need a signal for camshaft position, correct?

Also keep in mind that If I am running the supercharger, I will be running individual coil packs, probably from a Chevy....not an edis type system.

With the supercharger mounted on that side, I think even a low profile cover on the duraspark 2 is going to be in the way....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34GkHdkN0mk

Check that link...its a magnetic pickup...

User avatar
MechRick
Registered User
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:43 pm
Location: Las Vegas, NV

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

Post #80 by MechRick » Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:17 pm

clintonvillian wrote:With this you still need a signal for camshaft position, correct?


For SEFI, yes. But you can run a waste spark system firing two coils at once and bank injection with just a crank wheel.

If I ever run COP ignition, I would select coils that have the ignition driver transistor built in. Newer Toyotas come to mind...
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.

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3561
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

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

Post #81 by pmuller9 » Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:01 pm

Start at post 40.
Post 49 has more info on the cam sync sensor.
Later in the thread he switched from a VR to a Hall Effect sensor.
viewtopic.php?p=585872#p585872

clintonvillian
Registered User
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:33 pm

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

Post #82 by clintonvillian » Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:14 pm

MechRick wrote:
clintonvillian wrote:With this you still need a signal for camshaft position, correct?


For SEFI, yes. But you can run a waste spark system firing two coils at once and bank injection with just a crank wheel.

If I ever run COP ignition, I would select coils that have the ignition driver transistor built in. Newer Toyotas come to mind...


https://www.diyautotune.com/product/ign-1a-race-coil/

I've seen some guys run these on their 2.3 turbos with success. I was leaning towards these...

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3561
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

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

Post #83 by pmuller9 » Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:18 pm

clintonvillian wrote:https://www.diyautotune.com/product/ign-1a-race-coil/

I've seen some guys run these on their 2.3 turbos with success. I was leaning towards these...

They should get the job done.
With those coils you can afford to run a little less than the max 3 ms dwell time to decrease temps.

arse_sidewards
Registered User
Posts: 871
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:18 am

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

Post #84 by arse_sidewards » Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:34 am

Running blow through instead of draw through is a massive waste of energy whenever you're not wide open since the blower is building boost proportional to RPM but the engine is only using a fraction of that (because the throttle isn't wide open). The portion of the intake system in behind the blower but in front of the throttle will be at full pressure at all times and the blower will be trying to pump more into that high pressure area (which will then go out the blow off valves). If you run draw through then the blower is free to spin with minimal resistance at part throttle (like a shop vac with something blocking the hose) and belts will last tons longer too. Turbos get around this by using exhaust flow (which is proportional to throttle position/engine load) to vary intake flow.

I would personally do a draw through setup with the throttle body in front of the blower directly into the manifold and then save the intercooler for later if performance does not turn out satisfactory.

That said, for something that only sees track use having a reservoir of pressurized air between the blower and the throttle blades would certainly make the engine respond better when you come out of a corner and step on it.
1994 F150 4x4 8ft, engine is basically stock.

66" leafs, extended radius arms, lockers in both ends, nothing special.

clintonvillian
Registered User
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:33 pm

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

Post #85 by clintonvillian » Thu Oct 24, 2019 10:42 am

pmuller9 wrote:Since you are going to run less than 8 lbs of boost would you consider running without an intercooler like "Old School"



Still kicking the can around with this thing. If one was to eliminate the I/C, what would be the maximum PSI one could run prior to detonation?


At that given pressure what would the power numbers look like?

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3561
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

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

Post #86 by pmuller9 » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:49 pm

Looking at this from a different angle.
You have a head that will produce 350 ft lbs of torque and over 300 hp without boost.
It won't take much boost to push those numbers past your goal.
The M112 was originally used without intercooling.

If you use a 232/236 cam as I previously recommended the volumetric efficiency at 5000 rpm will be high lowering the boost and make additional power.
If you limit the compression ratio to 9:1 or lower the DCR will be low enough to control detonation with ignition timing.

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3561
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

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

Post #87 by pmuller9 » Fri Oct 25, 2019 10:18 am

If we know the blower drive ratio I can give you more info.
What is the size of the blower and crankshaft pulleys?

clintonvillian
Registered User
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:33 pm

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

Post #88 by clintonvillian » Fri Oct 25, 2019 1:19 pm

Ratio is 2.6:1

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3561
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

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

Post #89 by pmuller9 » Fri Oct 25, 2019 1:26 pm

That is high for your use.
I was looking at closer to 2:1
Any idea what engine it came from?

clintonvillian
Registered User
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:33 pm

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

Post #90 by clintonvillian » Fri Oct 25, 2019 8:21 pm

It came from a stock 99 lightening. The pulley is 3". My crank pulley is 8".

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3561
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

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

Post #91 by pmuller9 » Sat Oct 26, 2019 1:26 pm

clintonvillian wrote:It came from a stock 99 lightening. The pulley is 3". My crank pulley is 8".

OK
The stock Ford Lightning 5.4 V8 came with 2.93" and 7.4" diameter pulleys.
The boost was advertised as 8 psi even though the calculated boost is 10 psi at sea level.
Engine had a 8.4 compression ratio.
I was wrong in that the supercharger did come with a water to air intercooler.

A 300 six has 30 cu. inches less than the 5.4 V8 so the boost calculates to almost 14 psi with a 2.6 drive ratio.
It would require lots of intercooling and an 8:1 compression ratio.
At 5000 engine rpm the M112 would be at 13,000 rpm near it's 14,000 recommended limit.

I would gear down to 8 to 10 lbs of boost with an intercooler and port EFI for max power or 6 to 8 without an intercooler and a little lower compression engine

clintonvillian
Registered User
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:33 pm

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

Post #92 by clintonvillian » Sun Oct 27, 2019 3:59 pm

It looks like the general consensus I that a 9.3:1 static compression ratio is the max one one could be on 91 octane from various posts.

If I am using 9.3:1 and my max numbers are around 350tq/300hp, what would the power drop be if I ran naturally aspirated at the 8.0:1 for the supercharger?

I'm thinking maybe I set the motor up for the supercharger get it running and then upgrade it later.....

The high compression lopey 300's sound so good though.....

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3561
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

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

Post #93 by pmuller9 » Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:53 pm

The last cam I used with one of Arnie's heads (232/232, 288/288) which is close to the one I'm recommending you use
allowed a 9.75:1 compression ratio on 91 octane pump gas and could be run on 89 octane if need be.

Anyway if you decrease from a 9.3:1 compression ratio to an 8.0:1 it is a 4% drop in power.

The engine idled smoothly at 900 rpm and loped some below that.
Still got 17 mpg at 70 mph on the highway using a QF HR650 4 bbl carb and Hedman headers.

clintonvillian
Registered User
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:33 pm

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

Post #94 by clintonvillian » Sun Oct 27, 2019 5:33 pm

How do you calculate the 4 percent?

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3561
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

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

Post #95 by pmuller9 » Sun Oct 27, 2019 5:53 pm

Use one of the online calculators.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], sandboxer and 14 guests