Increasing boost.

Moderator: Mod Squad

George66Falcon
Registered User
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 11:05 am

Increasing boost.

Post #1 by George66Falcon » Tue May 16, 2017 9:06 pm

Hey there folks, I've got a 200 with an m62 blowing through a holley sniper efi system, and I'd like to get a little more boost. Currently, I'm running 7~ lbs (I'm pretty sure my bypass valves never fully close, though, so it might be a bit more after some adjustments). I'd like to get up to 12 or so. The problem is that I don't really want to go much smaller on the supercharger pulley than the ~2.5" double vbelt pulley I currently have. Are there any harmonic balancers that will interchange from larger ford inline motors? My current one is stock, ~6". I see that 300's come with up to 9" balancers! Anything that I can use?

67Straightsix
Registered User
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 3:46 pm

Re: Increasing boost.

Post #2 by 67Straightsix » Tue May 16, 2017 10:47 pm

Sounds like a nice set up, have any pictures ? You need to be careful about the harmonic balancer if you go much bigger in diameter it will interfere with the water pump pulley. Are you using the same belt to run blower, alt, and water pump?

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 1360
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Increasing boost.

Post #3 by pmuller9 » Wed May 17, 2017 12:16 am

The M62 should not be run past 14,000 rpm.
I think you would be pushing it past it's limit if the drive ratio was set up for 12 lbs of boost

You may need to look for a M90.

George66Falcon
Registered User
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 11:05 am

Re: Increasing boost.

Post #4 by George66Falcon » Wed May 17, 2017 1:41 am

Here's a couple of pictures of what I've set up. Different and undoubtedly worse than what most others have done ( I was restricted to working on the side of the road with only a drill for a power tool when I built everything initially, and haven't really been willing to rework it all). I understand some things will need to change to safely run more boost, an intercooler specifically. The water pump pulley has an additional pulley bolted over the top of it from a 302 that's slightly larger. This 2v pulley drives a modified alternator pulley on the supercharger that is 2 5/8".

I'm happy to hear feedback, whatever it may be.



Image

Image

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 1360
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Increasing boost.

Post #5 by pmuller9 » Thu May 18, 2017 1:06 am

Clean looking set-up! Not bad for a hand tool fabrication project.

In order to get 12 lbs of boost from the M62, it would need a drive ratio of 3:1
That would require an 7 7/8" crank pulley with the 2 5/8" supercharger pulley.
The M62 14K max rpm would restrict the engine rpm to about 4800 rpm and the supercharger would run very hot at those limits.

A M90 would only need a drive ratio of 2:1 to get 12 lbs of boost.
The M90 12K max rpm would allow the engine to operate up to 6000 rpm.
It would run much cooler just below 5000 rpm than the M62.

67Straightsix
Registered User
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 3:46 pm

Re: Increasing boost.

Post #6 by 67Straightsix » Fri May 19, 2017 11:53 pm

Looks good. :thumbup:

George66Falcon
Registered User
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 11:05 am

Re: Increasing boost.

Post #7 by George66Falcon » Sun May 21, 2017 3:58 am

Thanks for the info, folks. It sounds like my best bet is to either swap to an m90, or make sure everything is sealed nice and tight to make the most of what I've got.

1Bad71
Registered User
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 8:41 pm
Location: Cocoa, FL

Re: Increasing boost.

Post #8 by 1Bad71 » Wed Jun 07, 2017 10:07 pm

Can we see more pics of how you have that mounted?
"Remember when sex was safe and hot rods were dangerous?"

1971 Ford Mustang coupe:
250 c.i. inline 6 with an Autolite 2bbl w/ cable linkage, Superstock Plug wires, Pertronix Ignitor, Pertronix Flame Thrower coil and dual 12" Magnaflow glasspacks.

George66Falcon
Registered User
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 11:05 am

Re: Increasing boost.

Post #9 by George66Falcon » Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:58 pm

Two swedged tubes up front connect to one of the thermostat housing bolts and from the opposite side of the alternator bolt. On the back a plain mild steel bracket goes from the supercharger inlet to an intake manifold bolt. It's basically cinched down tight to the head and valve cover. I've had it off a few times and haven't seen any evidence of wear to the head, vc, or supercharger on the final iteration.

Image

Image

Image

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6416
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: Increasing boost.

Post #10 by xctasy » Sat Jul 08, 2017 1:49 am

Nice workmanship! Good stuff like this produces results, even if its a small supercharger in the "Grand Scheme of Things".

pmuller9 wrote:The M62 should not be run past 14,000 rpm.
I think you would be pushing it past it's limit if the drive ratio was set up for 12 lbs of boost

You may need to look for a M90.



Even an M90 is limited.

viewtopic.php?t=56560

Dyno runs on C4 autos normally have a 1.5 rwhp to flywheel net hp figure due to torque converter to counterweight matters on all dynos.

A manual, the total loss is 1.26 or so. On a drag strip, the losses are a lot less in some cases due to the manner in which the weight of the flywheel or the action of a transbraked C4 can slingshot a care, sometime 1.14 to 1.18. Some electric dynos to a full parastic check, and got a 1.314 figure, like long time member 80stang

Image


http://www.ponikorjaamo.com/ti80/index_inline.htm


His Gen I engine was like that, 1.314 drive train loss from 109 to 83.1 rwhp

http://www.ponikorjaamo.com/ti80/gen1.htm

Image

Going back to balldrick's M 90 supercharged 250 back in 2009

303 flywheel net hp from a 203 rwhp dyno run is all an M90 can really be expected to do if its really well sorted.

Image
Last edited by xctasy on Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:42 am, edited 1 time 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

George66Falcon
Registered User
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 11:05 am

Re: Increasing boost.

Post #11 by George66Falcon » Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:11 am

Thanks, folks, I really appreciate the feedback.

I did find a large Chevy water pump pulley that let me play with the ratios a bit more, so I'm now sitting at just under 9lbs of boost. Everything I've read has led me to believe that it isn't the boost the kills our motors, it's over revving. I have a used gear vendors unit that I'll be installing soon, so my plan is to keep it under 4500 rpm (puts the blower just over manufacturer reccommended rpm at redline) with the gv splitting gears.

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6416
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: Increasing boost.

Post #12 by xctasy » Sat Jul 22, 2017 7:56 am

Its detonation from varying air fuel mixture between cylinders that kills the small Ford six.


RPM is a factor, but not the primary cause.

I know from the very early development work (before the US 1969 head and block casting down grade, and the 1976 [200] and 1978 [250] con rod downgrade to cast iron), the engine even in 250 form could take 7500 rpm with the right rod bolts and oil pump supply. That means
no plasticine bolts,
and no windage stopping oil getting to the main bearings, or stopping drain back from the head.

Fox sumps are very good, but the pickup is not well grounded and needs rewelding

Image

Image

Image


On X bodies, it really needs a windage tray and crank scraper.

The common US replacement piston specification with its 90 thou pin offset might be suspect, but if the right ring clearances are used and your pistons have the good quality piston skirts, then even over the customary 4000 feet per second, you can make them survive.

Most racers TIG weld any slotted skirt piston, and make it a solid skirt with drilled holes....that can make any cast alloy piston survive at very high revs.

Image

Image


/viewtopic.php?t=919
xctasy wrote:This is a piece of information from an August 1990 Australian Street Machine article on high performance sixes. It's from Bill Santuccione, a Ford Australia development engineer who worked on the Aussie 250 and Cleveland V8 engines during the 60's and 70's. It is worth a read to determine ways of making a six cylinder Aussie Cross flow Falcon engine produce big power.

"The 250 six is a good engine to modify in a mild sense - if you make the torque work for you. On an around - town street car, a strong 250 can be a lot quicker in the first 50 to 100 yards away from the lights than even a V8.

Bill says the biggest problem with the 250 is its design. "Almost across the board, I believe the 250 suffers because of its stroke/rod length ratio. Rod length verses stroke is a crucial factor when it comes to determining the optimum 'revability' or torque output of engines. The Falcon six has a bloody terriable ratio copared to the ideal formula.

"Back in the old days at the engine laboratory in Geelong, we did a lot of development work on cams for the 250. You know, aiming for driveability, torque - getting the best of all worlds if you like. And I remember then playing with compression ratios and valve sizes and all the things you do in research and development. It didn't matter what comp ratio. valve sizes or cams we evaluated., all wen were able to do was move the horsepower peak up or down in terms of horsepower out put but not in rpm.

"Normally when you start to 'cam' an engine up, the horsepower goes up and the power peak moves up accordingly. On the Falcon six, due to what I believe was that rod lentgh ratio, it didn't matter what you did. It remained at around the 4800 rpm mark'. Bill reckons the Ford six can rev to around 7500 - which is prettydamned good for a stock Falcon six. It's just there's no point in doing it. Peak grunt happened 2700 rpm ago...

"What I'd be suggesting to anyone going for more horsepower is to be conscious of that characteristic and aim to fill the torque curve as much as possible, " Bill says. "Your horsepower will increase proportionally but not much further than that rpm point." Bill says that the 250 is agood street package. But for racing, he thinks you'd have to consider increasing the rod length. Okay.Fine. And you wonder why there aren't many killer 250's around! As it happens, Bill is curently planning a kit designed specifically to get around this problem...

Lets assume you want to get good power out of a 250. First port of call is, of course, the cam. "I'd think of someone like Crow Cams," Bill says. "They 've got a coputer so you can feed that kind of stroke/rod length data into it and come up with the best result."

The same torque characteristics come into play when you're talking about carb choices. " The fact that you're only revving to the 5000 rpm mark means big carburation isn't that critical. But the tripple Webers are probably the best package to go with because they lend themselves to 'pulse - tuning' (Timing the pulse to coincide with the next intake filling charge). That complements the fat torque curve situation." Bill says he's also done a lot of promising development on four barrel Holleys by altering the tune length of the intake runners.

Headwise, Bill reckons you just have to go for the better breathing crossflow head."In terms of making maximum torque and horsepower, it just breathes that much better - the port shapes and angles are very, very good. But with the Series II alloy head, I think, the combustion chamber shape was different to the earlier one. They changed to an almost kidney shaped chamber and I remeber they appeared to be a bit prone to pinging. That's a particularly critical thing if you start building a higher compression engine."

Bill says that apart from the torque curve and the possibly suspect later model alloy head - plus the fact that the water pump location tends to cause number one cylinder to run cooler than the rest - the 4.1 litre (sic)engine is a pretty srong engine. "I've never found any weaknesses in the bottom end, the bearings or any thing else." That means if you'd like to build one up, normal rules apply."We almost always up - rate the oil pump output - that's always good insurance. And the standard conrod bolts tend to be a bit on the plsticine side. Even if you're not reving the engine too high I'd still go to a set of high performance bolts."



So with all that squared off


you then only have the flow distribution issues

If you have


1. uniform air fuel fuel,
and

2. suitable timing,
and

3. the right piston type and ring clearance for the Brake Effective Mean pressure target

You won't loose pistons, cylinder head gaskets and rods.

Hydrosurf racers with bored out 144's used to pull 8400 rpm for a full season with a cat four bearing crank. They did it because of ideal air fuel distribution from Hillborn Fuel injection

Image

MIike 1157's turboed, intercooled and injected engine runs cast iron 1978 D8 250 con rods, and it hits out 12 pounds of boost with a 292 dgree cam with 558 lift, and he has hammered it in a consistant development using Tuner Studio and MSii.

Having proper air fuel deliver to each cylinder has avoided all kinds of issues. Unturboed with that cam, there is 235 hp net at 5200 rpm. Turboed, 425 hp net at 5200 rpm.

He has had it to 6900 rpm. When Parkwood60 went through three modified stock 200 engines in the 24Hours at Lemonz when they flashed to 7000 rpm, then its obvous the differences between log head air fuel distribution and port on port fuel supply is the main issue.


xctasy wrote:It is...interesting, powerfull, but also very complicated, because 1978 to 1983 3.3'S were downgraded to cast iron rod econo engines, as from 1969 on wards, the castings and reliabity was downgraded due to cost cutbacks. Heads improved, ignition, emissions, induction, cam profiles, gearboxes and carbs got better, but everything else performance and factor of safety declined.

The I6 is always normally way more reliable than any other engine, but when pressed, in the same way the Essex V6 was a lottery, so is the I6

But ya know, $2500 always gets you 13.5 seconds, even with an old automatic C5 equiped X code 3.3 with a 400 dollar turbo.


On 13 pounds boost, you can get 84.76 mph at 8.93 secs over the 1/8 th mile and 92.68 mph at 13.879 sec
Image


On 20 pounds boost 85.45 mph at 8.907 secs 1/8 mile with 2600 pounds makes 252.10 flywheel HP and 226.89 rear wheel HP from http://www.wallaceracing.com/hpcalculatoreigth.php
.
102.5 mph 1/4 mile with 2600 pounds is 224.62 rear wheel HP from http://www.wallaceracing.com/et-hp-mph.php.
Image


One Chinese turbo, a rising rate fuel pump, an intercooler, and 3.3, you are golden for a few seconds on the 1320. http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthread.php?145379-Best-turbo-for-3-8

Then you get this.

This happens at cylinders 5 and 2 usually, as they get the best cylinder filling under boost, while the others vary in air fuel ratio by 2.5 to 4 air fuel ratios.

Image

In a racing setting, if you Add this....

Image

Image

and ultimately use a stock late model 3.3 engine,

you get this

Image

Image

Image

Image






So adding a blower, while simple, takes a heck of a lot more work to avoid a pile of ferric oxide...But Yes You Can!!!!!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-bh9xzCMvw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAeOS_8-KJ4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJUrQRzQeF4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOWFECDUxEw

Image

balldrick is a Scaffolder,Rigger,Crane Driver from Rockhampton Australia with a penchant for really hard out 250 Falcon round bodies....




Broncitis has done similar stuff. He now has a F150 truck with a 4.9 six, but has had an Early Bronco with Supercharged 200


His photobucket shows it (some of his earlier pictures have been removed)

http://s717.photobucket.com/user/bronci ... t=3&page=2

use right click to open in a new tab or window

http://i717.photobucket.com/albums/ww17 ... ner030.jpg

http://i717.photobucket.com/albums/ww17 ... ner029.jpg

The true hint to how complicated Supercharging is on even a V6 is looking at the work Rick from the Four Eyed Fox forums had to do to get this Ford T-bird SuperCoupe set up below to work with a properly sized intercooler and with better bends and piping. That's what was needed to cover off the extra 31 cubic inches of bored and stroked 3.8 that came from a 210 Bhp 1989 "Supercoupe" T-Bird

http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthread.php?133612-More-than-quot-just-a-six-quot/page10

http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z216 ... 241b9f.jpg
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

George66Falcon
Registered User
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 11:05 am

Re: Increasing boost.

Post #13 by George66Falcon » Sat Jul 22, 2017 9:54 am

Thanks for the great info! I had to read your reply a few times, and I'll probably mine it for more later. On the topic of fuel distribution -- I'm using the 250 2v head on my motor, does it see similar distribution problems, or is that just the log that causes issues?

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6416
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: Increasing boost.

Post #14 by xctasy » Sat Jul 22, 2017 11:43 am

George66Falcon wrote:Thanks for the great info! I had to read your reply a few times, and I'll probably mine it for more later. On the topic of fuel distribution -- I'm using the 250 2v head on my motor, does it see similar distribution problems, or is that just the log that causes issues?



Yes, in fact 5 and 2 flow bias is a problem with all I6 engines, log or 2v. Does10s found the same thing. Pulling an engine appart, the head gasket failures are often between 5 and 6. I've noticed this first in 1993, with an LD28 Nissan, a diesel injected engine, where that shouldn't be a problem, and then a 2.6 Leyland OHC six. In 1996, I was away in Invercargill, and my wife had to tout the kids around, and the Crossflow 250 Falcon blew its headgasket between 5 and 6. The radiator had sprung a leak, and being an automatiic, my beloved had to get the kids home to the 1000 feet level before the snow hit, and drove it home.

The strip down showed melting in the exhaust valve and caviatation (eating away) in the valve pocket.

The Argentinains had the right idea....it seams like you could run six wide bands on this.

Image


If you can fuel it evenly, and stop the detonation being in one of two cylinders, then the termal loads can be delt with. Its wide open throttle stuff that causes the proble, so wide open throttle plug readings are what you should focus on, if your happy with the way its set up mechanically. Tuning wide open throttle air fuel and detecting knock in the cylinders is your best bet for longeivity. I like narrow bands for overall air fuel, color tune for idle, and plug readings for WOT. Innovate make am modern twin O2 wideband sensor for V8's. They work well for mdern cars, but our six cylinder stuff has a lot nastier fuel distribtion, and just having some tell tales to hook into the wide open throttle air fuel variance is easy. I don't like wide bands because they tell you too much. I like narrow bands because the operate as a switch...15.5 and down to 13:1 air fuel. You should be able to see too lean and too rich if a air fuel mixture goes off scale.


Don't get me wrong, Innovate is the top option for anaylsis, but you want to check all cylinders, and six narrow bands a very easy to get an to calibrate. Once you've gotten an idea of how much wide open throttle distribtions you've got, you can then focus on how you want to taylor fuel supply.


Now, I've reposed your pictures...

Image

Image

Image

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest