CI/VI head setup questions

Moderator: Mod Squad

fast64ranchero
Registered User
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:58 am
Location: Boise ID

CI/VI head setup questions

Post #1 by fast64ranchero » Fri Jul 27, 2018 3:26 pm

Questions about setting up the Alum head. Spring installed height is short unless you bury the valves in the seats. mine is 1.564" stock is 1.68 and CI use to say the alum head setup was 1.6"
what are you guys using for springs? My cam is 0.505 lift at the valve and I'm not finding much for springs that have 110+ seat pressure.
I'm thinking about just having valves made that are 0.20" longer to get me into good spring selection.
Thx
Walt
Last edited by fast64ranchero on Mon Jul 30, 2018 2:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
63 Ranchero,1965 Mercury Comet Convert V-8, 1978 Fairmont small six, mill'd off intake, 62-1 ET 12.332 @ 123.49 mph (gone)

SydneytheMustang
Registered User
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2016 11:17 am

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #2 by SydneytheMustang » Fri Jul 27, 2018 4:00 pm

As it was told to me, there are no 110# springs at the right height. Need longer valves but there are no off the shelf drop ins for the alum head. Look up "The Legend of Dyno 2A" as the community answered this in detail for me when I began my engine build. I still haven't decided on if I want to do a custom valve run but if I do (should know in the next 2 weeks) and you're interested I'd be happy to go halvsies. Might get a better deal.

Happy building.

Mark

fast64ranchero
Registered User
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:58 am
Location: Boise ID

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #3 by fast64ranchero » Fri Jul 27, 2018 5:21 pm

I just read your thread, kind of funny, I've had this head for a long time and everything has fought me dealing with it, Porter backed up and took months, machine shop backed up. I ordered my head unassembled, if you order it this way be prepared, I expected machine work to be completed, my mistake for not making sure I passed on what I really wanted. What I got was a Alum head and a box of parts, the head was bare, not even a Guide or valve seat in it... Now I have a head that flows 234 and 188 @ 0.550" and still can't use it. Looks like another $300-400 for valves, prob $150 for springs and retainers.
63 Ranchero,1965 Mercury Comet Convert V-8, 1978 Fairmont small six, mill'd off intake, 62-1 ET 12.332 @ 123.49 mph (gone)

fast64ranchero
Registered User
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:58 am
Location: Boise ID

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #4 by fast64ranchero » Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:06 pm

Well new valves ordered at $30 each. valve info if anyone cares is 0.30" longer than stock for a length of 4.56" This gives a installed height of 1.802" after a 0.060" spring centering cup is used. opens up the use of springs with proper seat and open pressures. Now to find a cam company that will cut me a cam in the 0.550+" lift range to take advantage of the heads capabilities.
63 Ranchero,1965 Mercury Comet Convert V-8, 1978 Fairmont small six, mill'd off intake, 62-1 ET 12.332 @ 123.49 mph (gone)

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #5 by pmuller9 » Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:01 pm

Excellent!
Will this head be for the turbocharged 250?

User avatar
bubba22349
Global Moderator
Posts: 8372
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Flagstaff, Az. 86005 near the old Route 66

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #6 by bubba22349 » Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:23 pm

:beer: that's going to be a nice flowing head with the better longer lenght valves. Good luck :thumbup: :nod:
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.

fast64ranchero
Registered User
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:58 am
Location: Boise ID

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #7 by fast64ranchero » Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:36 pm

This is going on a mild 200 that will be running a turbo and FI tech injection. Really not the proper setup as I'll have more compression than I should run with a turbo. We have E85 here local so it may get a E85 tune and more boost.
63 Ranchero,1965 Mercury Comet Convert V-8, 1978 Fairmont small six, mill'd off intake, 62-1 ET 12.332 @ 123.49 mph (gone)

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #8 by pmuller9 » Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:55 pm

fast64ranchero wrote:This is going on a mild 200 that will be running a turbo and FI tech injection. Really not the proper setup as I'll have more compression than I should run with a turbo. We have E85 here local so it may get a E85 tune and more boost.


What is the compression ratio?

Does the engine have stock rods and cast pistons?

fast64ranchero
Registered User
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:58 am
Location: Boise ID

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #9 by fast64ranchero » Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:21 am

Right at 10.0 to 10.1 depending on what calc I use with Felpro gasket or 10.7 with a thin Ford replacement gasket. I'll be using the thicker Fel Pro. I know it's hi, don't fear the Compression! I've ran 13 to 1 on 91 Oct. pump gas N/A without backing timing off much. special attention to the chambers to prevent hot spots helps and my elevation (2800 feet) both allow higher cranking compression.

Stock early polished beam rods, Aussie hypereutectic pistons. (I don't understand why everyone is not using these, they are cheap, and way better than Cast stock replacements). It was going to be a N/A setup, if it makes ok power I'll build a better bottom end to better suited handle a turbo setup...
Search my user name and look for stroked and turbo'd milled head 250, I built that a few years ago, it is only one of the turbo setup's I've done.
63 Ranchero,1965 Mercury Comet Convert V-8, 1978 Fairmont small six, mill'd off intake, 62-1 ET 12.332 @ 123.49 mph (gone)

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #10 by pmuller9 » Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:26 pm

As you already know your ported head is good for 300+ hp N/A and 600 hp under boost for a street driven engine.
The difference will be the 200 will need to run a lot higher rpm than the 250 to get there.
The longer valves with the correct valve springs you are installing is the key to the higher rpm. (I'm restating this stuff for those that are looking on)

The other difference is, the 200 will not tolerate as tight a LSA on the cam profile as the larger sixes if a reasonable idle is expected.

You mentioned a Clay Smith 292 turbo grind for the 250 engine.
Is that the cam you presently use in the turbo 250 and if so does it have a 112 LSA?

fast64ranchero
Registered User
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:58 am
Location: Boise ID

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #11 by fast64ranchero » Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:44 pm

This set up will be more mild, the 250 was fun but didn't live long. Rod ratio was to short and wore out the cylinders from side load. This engine is 67 CU. inches less than the 250 I built. I'm hoping to find a cam company that will cut a more modern cam than the Clay Smith 292 grind (it was on 112 LSA) thinking less duration @ 50 and more lift if possible. Something like 0.575" 220-224 @50, 113lsa
The 250 wouldn't make any power or turn past 5,500 so that cam was overkill anyway.

At this point, I'll be glad to just get the head together and on the short block so I can start mocking up the turbo header. After my last project, I fell in love with EFR turbo's, this project will get an EFR 8374. Not shooting for the moon just 350whp, it should do that with about 10 psig. The 250's head was neat but nothing like the flow numbers this head produces. The last time I had the 250 on the chassis dyno it made 444whp/501ft lbs @ 18psig. and went over 123mph with massive wheel spin in 1-3 gears on normal street tires. My new project sole purpose in life is to dead hook on the street. No one has any respect for the little "old school" inline. If it only runs 12's in the 1/4 but hooks on the street, It'll be respected.
63 Ranchero,1965 Mercury Comet Convert V-8, 1978 Fairmont small six, mill'd off intake, 62-1 ET 12.332 @ 123.49 mph (gone)

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #12 by pmuller9 » Wed Aug 15, 2018 11:30 pm

The new plans look good.
Would you be using a BW 8374-B with a .83 A/R T3 single scroll or a 8374-C with a .92 A/R Twin Scroll turbine housing?

You may have already looked at this, with a 200 six, if you make much boost before 3500 rpm the 8374 compressor will be operating close to the surge zone.
It would be great to make power from 3500 to 7500 rpm.

fast64ranchero
Registered User
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:58 am
Location: Boise ID

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #13 by fast64ranchero » Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:07 pm

I looked at the 7670, 8374 and the 91 series. The 7670 is just a tad small for a 200, and the 8374 shouldn't fully spool up till 3300-3500rpm. The 9180 plots a lot better but I know spooling it will be hard for a street car. Plan is a twin scroll, unsure of AR yet, haven't ordered it, so I could still change my mind and run a 7670.
I really liked the 7670 on my last project,it made 478whp and 434 ft lbs with the 7670 @ 28psig on a 2.3 EcoBoost Mustang, it spooled like the tiny stock turbo and just kept making power. I should just start a build thread on it.
63 Ranchero,1965 Mercury Comet Convert V-8, 1978 Fairmont small six, mill'd off intake, 62-1 ET 12.332 @ 123.49 mph (gone)

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: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #14 by xctasy » Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:49 am

I love your advice, pmuller9. Anyone who doesn't consider everything you say is gonna be sad when it comes time to bolt together any Ford Six.

My personal opinions follow.


The five methods of assessing the adequacy of cam and port requirements I like are

1. Stan Weiss's peak Power RPM verses cfm flow at 400/450/500/550 lift charts.


2. Eduardo Webbers idealised Venturi area verses peak power rev range calculation. You have to calcualte the ideal sizes by removing the venturi verses throttle diameter, and its kid of restricted to Independent Runner systems, but its perfect for optimizing EFi or a 6-bbl carb system (two 4bbls with one venturi each blocked off, six 1-bbls carbs, two 3-bbl IDFC3's, three 2-bbls Holleys or DCOE's etc.
3. Flow Net analysis (Civil and Mechanical Engineering process, which creates a sectional number of 90 degree flow paths verses flow drops)

4. PipeMax

5. Any of the six common Hp and Torque programs which generally use five general kinds of estimation.

I ignore the simulations because they tend to push into the earth bound idea of increasing air velocity, of down grading a cam duration and lift to get out of a potential turbo chart hole.

Oversizing turbos is okay if you use upper turbo intake boost modulation, or by pulling the timing out and adding fuel to operate the turbo as a giant gas turbine engine. Ak Miller did the former (TC-1 contoller) , Anthoony Rodregiaz did the later (treation the turbo as an auxilar engine), each is an easy solution to avoid the dreaded over conservative V8 derived strictures, which are essentially Air Restricted ideas based on US air restriction rules for cost reduction in all forms of motorsport. Its simply that if everything used Indpebdent runner philosphies in each class of racing, then NASCAR's would use 8 S&S D type carbs with 1.875" venturis and bigger than that throotles, and the perforamce landscape would then have a lot of lead ignots in the chassis to stop them over-performing

The Lambda ratio/L/R ratio of the little 200 is just the same as the Aussie 221, and US/Australia 250, and the same as the Australian 215/245/265 in line sixes...pretty poor, and it likes nice wide lobe separtion angles, and any time you turbo, the engine is suddenly behaving more like an engine 100 cubic inches bigger, and so you just add another 5 degrees on you stock 108, 110, or 112 figure, and pump up the 50 thou and at lash durations, and look at how you migh best optimise the valves to suit the area of the ports.


fast64ranchero Your old sawn off 250 log had upside down cathederal ports, and the average area after savage porting was still less than the Round Port M code 170HP 250 Aussie Ford engine the Classic and Vintage Inlines head was copied on. The VI head de-dagged flows well over 230 cfm at 25"Hg, and its got all the good points of the best HFII casting Aussie 200/250 X-flow heads, with better mixture motion, and the only ratty part is the shallow legth valves and that was only becasue its taken 10 years for people to get gready enough to go straight for 330 hp plus packages.

It really wasn't helpfull for people to say that a natuarlly aspirated 200 or 250 will never match an M3 BMW in line six for power out put when in 2005, little Holden 202's with 30 year old aluminum Phil Irving Heads were making 370 hp on pump gas with triple Weber DCOE's at less than 7500, and tiny four bearing 170's with cut off logs, 280 hp net at 6500 rpm with triple 45 DCOE carbs.

Adding a 1.7 to 2.0 boost ratio to those non cross flow 170 and 202 engines takes us right up to at least 486 or 666 hp (oops, did I say that).

Yes, off idle performance is really important, and yes, an engine has to meet its target requirements on the street if its going to be used that way, but plenty of V8's are over built with too much exhaust and no suitable attention to toning it down for use on the street. People love rumpity rumpity cams, but on an in line six, they hate noisy cams with tappetty ramps, and this is ture of side plate engines and engines with converted rocker gear which aren't masked by the tradiational V8 exhaust, or the intake that covers the lifter valley of a V8. The way modern people just go to big, droning single exhausts with massive fart can exhausts is a function of the ricer crowed, and for turbo engines, people need to get a lot more creative to avoid the awfull IHI Red Seal Six drone so it doesn't sound like a garbage truck. Cam timing should be a lot more aggressive, IMHO, and the turbo should be sized larger, as the six cylinder ports and active rev ranges on the street won't cause holes in the delivery. There are no jump into top at first chance automatics for Fords like there are with Ford V8's. The AOD in stock form is a pefect boat anchor for making a V8 a dog unless some attention is given to making the stall ratio and axle ratios suit the 3rd and 4th gears. IF manual, it'll be a 3 speed 3.03, T5, and top loader 4 speeds and SROD's or wrong ratio 4 cylinder T5's are a lot more rare, so generally, a C4, T5 or 3 speed 3.03 will be awesome with a really big turbo. Pinto and higher stall spinners are around, and so are reaaly good 7.5 and 8.8" live axles from Rangers and Exploders to raid the 3.73's that work so well with autos, 3 speeds and T5's.

In a V8 setting, yeah, its easy to mess up and overload a turbo. In an I6 setting, not easy to mess it up because an in line six is very responsive to aggressive cams than V8's are. This stuff is all right back to the SEFI Buick T types, and the later GN's and GNX''s. The log head six with a multiple V head transplant will just lap up the cam and duration's

My classmate had an SL/T 3300 L34 LH Holden Torana replica, basically a 1973 XU1 Torana engine with a 1978 era AIT twin Zenith Stromberg CDS175 carb TO4 that made 350 hp athe flywheel under boost. The 3.3 Holden was an initial GM disater Area engine with crook valve sizes, low duration and lift cam, and it got worse each year from 1971 to 1980. The only good one was the 3300 Torana XU1 version, A stock cam on the base engine was 256 degree with about 370 thou lift. On the XU1, there were three cam choices, as they were mated with triple carbs, and each of thse cams had huge duration, but only moderate lift because the rocker gear was a disater. With the right turbo, the smallest came was horriable.Each growth in cam fixed up the ineraction bettwen the TO4 and the smallest XU1 3300 cam was over 300 degrees at lash, worked great with the right size T3 60 turbo. Then there was a Speco Thomas 260 degree cam which took the stock 90 hp engine to 160 hp with the right mods, and then a 280 degree hydraulic cam, which made an easy 200. The real cam was the XU1 cam, and too much would have been the 314 or 326 degree mother, but they had really low lift, and would work great on a much wider than stock 110 lobe center.



The little Toran was a four door Fox Mustang in every way, and Jaqui Peck cooked it on the way to school in the 25 miles from her place to my hometown, but it was a piston and vale issue, not really anything except the engine not being clearanced to suit. With an XU1 cam, it was exceptional, even better with the 5 speed Toyota Celica gearbox. Turbo 3.3's are essentially supposed to be like a Porsche Turbo 3.0 or 3.3 911/930 Carreras, full of off turbo docility, and then an all might mid range whoosh like Chris Cornell or Eddie Vedder on hyperdrive. And more like a 3800 231 Buick.


Never loose site of the ability of camshaft to suit the purspose of the build. Down here, our early Turbo Sixes were V8 substitutes with GM 180 THM gearboxes, and they didn't get any support from GM Australia because it was too worried about the Japanese and how it would ace the 2 liter market. It spent money on J cars hwne the public wanted tow cars for its boats, and Holden got out of that market and replaced its big pickups and subframe chassis cars with puny Jap cars and German based unibodies with Nissan engines. It never did anthing for its own stuff untill it was too late. Ford Australia, under corporate orders from Dearborn, didn't even run a Ford developed turbo on ther long stroke in lione OHC six untill 1987 internally with AIT.


Don''t hold back. Your cam machinists and turbo development leads the world, but you all are too conservative in my opinion, and if a little 3.3 liter six with a better L/R ratio of 1.65 and less over square bore to stroke ratio of 3.625 by 3.25 and a lousy 9 port head can take a 314 degree cam, pas emissdions, and win 500 mile races, then you better believe a modern US cam and turbo combination on a less revable engine with a much better VI head can work with more aggressive specs. The port area was set up for revs, hp, and taking the old log 200 kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

The 250 cut off log needed more lift, more duration, and squaring off and high porting of the roof of the intake ports to improve the shot to the short turn radius. Elmo fow benched the Classic inlines head to imporved on the mixture motion, maintan the port areas, but improve efficency and port to port balance. That head needs, cries out for lift, duration, and over rev potential past the power peak so it doesn't suffer power loss at high rpm like every US engine except the SBC, SB Mopar and Cleveland 351. You won't get the "gosh is this thing ever gonna stop" endless elasticaity past the 5800 rpm level the best Hydraulic or solid lifter versions of the early 350 Vette LT1, Mopar 340 4-BBL and 340 Six Pack and 351 4V HO and Pantera Clevelands made.
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
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: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #15 by xctasy » Sat Aug 18, 2018 5:19 am

The two stratergies to make a too big turbo work are:-



a) to restrict air into the turbo and make boost (throttle it upstream by a flow restrictor plate, a YFA Carter throotle plate as gate valve

b) to control boost growth by swinging the air fuel ratio and engine timing.

Turbos run restrictor plates too. So do naturally aspirated engines. The NA BMW 7 liter V12's at Le Mans run one quite big diameter plate, and World Rally Championship 2 liter Turbos run a 35 mm restrictor plate. So do F1 engines, about 53 mm. So do NASCAR Carb and EFI engines. So does nearly every turbo production engine, including the Barra Turbo in 240/270 or 315 Killer Wot form (322, 362, 423 and 476 hp on Overboost). Its called the "intake manifold". Just because they do doesn't mean you must too.


Especially Will and Kelly's '63 Falcon, Turbocharged 250, C4, 9", Best ET: 10.64@127mph 11/21/14. This beast started with a 2 bbl 350 or laterly 4-bbl 450 cfm Carb before it went to a similarly restrictive 4150 4-bbl SDS port EFi system.

Image
609172


I'm not judging, just sayin'.


Air restriction should be upstream of the turbo, not down stream. Flow net analyses shows pinch points, and on production or race engines, engine noise, emissions or curtailing peak power is the reason for the restriction.



The ITB system works because of reduced air speed, and increase duty time to feed the engine, just like adding long rods, or a wider lobe center cam on an engine. Adding intake runner bends and restrictions always meters an engine, and pefroamce loss is a result. The Aussies found that adding cam duration within certain limits, adding intake volume to the EFI plenumb, and being free to take away or add ignition advance and fuel (witin limits) allows you freedom to get more power with less boost. within limits.


The idea is the same as running 2.5 " pipes instead of 3" to and from the inter/aftercooler. Its the same issue bandied about when you go for Four 2-bbl Weber IDA's on your 302 when you can do and reach the same horspower levels with one 4-bbl carb. Or toing down the came to avoid turbo surge. You change your turbo type, and dodge th turbo surge bullet by doing something better for performance. On a 6 ITB Normally aspirated EFi car, the air intake volume and intakes are made large.



Turbo guys taking a BEAMS 2 liter, or a Ford Broad Band Intake then diable the twin path intkae, and then run the pipes in small, and then say, hey, itsaul goode, Ned Bender. The extra cfm of a turbo raming Alien Air into Bishops andriod facial features features makes up for it. This idea needs to stop. Its an old idea, like a car needs back pressure or a carb can be too big for a turbo, a cam can bee too big for a turbo, yadda, yadda, yadda.



Maybee, but boost grows by restricting the air intake side at the turbo, and Ak Miller made a lot of TC-1 controllers that worked pretty good as a flow restrictor. It was Colin Townsend's Turbo 265 Propane 1970 VG Valiant that first figured out how to increase boost without turbo pressure line to intake restriction in 1996.


Image
609173


T04-equipped and running straight LP-gas with a tiny 4-bbl 462 cfm Impco CA 425 carb, this six-pack Val unleashed 375 rear wheel hp down the drive train. 480 hp from a carb that is normally restricted by the air valve to flowno more than 288 hp, or 325 hp from the converter. He modified it to flow more, but the lines are still stock 3/8" propane reinforced.


http://fa5t-drive.blogspot.com/2011/07/ ... 4.html?m=0


Colin Townsend wrote:Colin also took a different route when it comes to blow-off valves; he hasn't got one. Instead, there's a large diameter butterfly at the mouth of the compressor inlet that opens and closes as the engine throttle butterfly moves. Careful adjustment has enabled boost to rise instantly after gear changes.




WRC World Rally Championship 2 liter Turbos racers had been using the 1984 F1 Ferrari 120 degree Turbo V6 style of anti lag with down stream injectors to get a turbo spining. Anti lag came of age with WRC in the late 90's. In Australia, the External Wastegate Air Feed Line Pressure Close Off that was Tassone/Rodriguez developed Active Automotive~Maztech way of creating boost without restricting the intake flow made a farly stock stroker erupt with 50 psi of boost.
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

fast64ranchero
Registered User
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:58 am
Location: Boise ID

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #16 by fast64ranchero » Tue Aug 21, 2018 11:03 pm

Custom Camshaft, Conical Springs, retainers, keepers, and spring locators ordered. That put a dent in my wallet!
63 Ranchero,1965 Mercury Comet Convert V-8, 1978 Fairmont small six, mill'd off intake, 62-1 ET 12.332 @ 123.49 mph (gone)

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #17 by pmuller9 » Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:24 am

fast64ranchero wrote:Custom Camshaft, Conical Springs, retainers, keepers, and spring locators ordered. That put a dent in my wallet!


This is exciting!

What are the cam specs?

fast64ranchero
Registered User
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:58 am
Location: Boise ID

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #18 by fast64ranchero » Wed Aug 22, 2018 5:15 pm

Exact specs will be on the cam card when the cam comes. Over the phone specs are .571/.584 and 238/242 @ 50 on 113 or 114 he talked about both.
I have more Cylinder head and Cam than my short block can handle. Guess I should build a bottom end that will handle what the top end is capable of making. Now to go find that thread about those Toyota rods..
Last edited by fast64ranchero on Wed Sep 19, 2018 2:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
63 Ranchero,1965 Mercury Comet Convert V-8, 1978 Fairmont small six, mill'd off intake, 62-1 ET 12.332 @ 123.49 mph (gone)

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #19 by pmuller9 » Wed Aug 22, 2018 7:05 pm

fast64ranchero wrote:Exact specs will be on the cam card when the cam comes. Over the phone specs are .571/.584 and 238/242 @ 50 on 113 or 114 he talked about both.
I have more Cylinder head and Cam than my bottom end can handle. Guess I should build a bottom end that will handle what the top end is possible of making. Now to go find that thread about those Toyota rods..

That's a little more cam than what I was expecting for street use but it will certainly utilize the head potential.
Which cam company is it.

Here is the connecting rod thread.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=77943#p600461

fast64ranchero
Registered User
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:58 am
Location: Boise ID

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #20 by fast64ranchero » Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:58 am

pmuller9 wrote:
fast64ranchero wrote:Exact specs will be on the cam card when the cam comes. Over the phone specs are .571/.584 and 238/242 @ 50 on 113 or 114 he talked about both.
I have more Cylinder head and Cam than my bottom end can handle. Guess I should build a bottom end that will handle what the top end is possible of making. Now to go find that thread about those Toyota rods..

That's a little more cam than what I was expecting for street use but it will certainly utilize the head potential.
Which cam company is it.

Here is the connecting rod thread.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=77943#p600461


Little more than I was expecting also. Started off even bigger but we backed it down. My only request to the tech was I want a cam that will start making power by 3K rpm.
I better put the Spring info in here also. Springs I am going to us are, Comp cam 7228, retainers are tool steel 1772 and locators are 4680. Installed height is 1.80" seat pressure is 137lbs, and 410lbs @ .625"
Last edited by fast64ranchero on Wed Sep 19, 2018 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
63 Ranchero,1965 Mercury Comet Convert V-8, 1978 Fairmont small six, mill'd off intake, 62-1 ET 12.332 @ 123.49 mph (gone)

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #21 by pmuller9 » Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:02 pm

Nice spring and retainer set.
Specs look good.

Should have no problem at 8000 rpm

fast64ranchero
Registered User
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:58 am
Location: Boise ID

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #22 by fast64ranchero » Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:34 am

Problems never end. The springs are 165lbs on seat @ 1.8 and 440lbs @ .625 lift, too much for a flat tappet cam. Comp cams is now involved as this is way out of spec. For anyone doing this in the future. have the valves made with Bead lock groves. you have better options for keepers (can get up to +50 to -50 keepers) mine are flat/square groves.
I did order Toyota 1JZ rods
63 Ranchero,1965 Mercury Comet Convert V-8, 1978 Fairmont small six, mill'd off intake, 62-1 ET 12.332 @ 123.49 mph (gone)

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #23 by pmuller9 » Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:24 pm

Good thing you checked the actual spring pressure.
Did Comp give an explanation why the spring pressure is so far off?

fast64ranchero
Registered User
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:58 am
Location: Boise ID

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #24 by fast64ranchero » Sun Sep 09, 2018 2:52 pm

pmuller9 wrote:Good thing you checked the actual spring pressure.
Did Comp give an explanation why the spring pressure is so far off?

No response from Comp yet, it is at Comp QA. Lots of options for Beehive springs, but I kinda wanted the Conicals. I even coil bound one for a couple minutes and it only dropped 2 lbs to 163 @ 1.8" Kinda funny Comp ask if we are checking them with retainer... Once we said no they started to believe us.
63 Ranchero,1965 Mercury Comet Convert V-8, 1978 Fairmont small six, mill'd off intake, 62-1 ET 12.332 @ 123.49 mph (gone)

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #25 by pmuller9 » Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:01 pm

update?

fast64ranchero
Registered User
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:58 am
Location: Boise ID

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #26 by fast64ranchero » Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:44 am

Comp's QA team checked the springs they have and they are all within "spec" they did admit they all tested higher than advertised but within 5% and at the same time admitted they ranged from 145-152lbs @ 1.8" Still too much as we have to set installed height @ 1.75"

They list Beehive springs that should work and will correct the problem. I should be used to all these little problems, but I'm not. be lucky to have it together and running by Spring.

On the positive side of things, I got my MaxSpeedRods for a Toyota 1JZ in the mail, they look really nice for the money. Now I need to pull the engine so I can get the crank to the same guy that offset ground my 250 stroker crank.

Walt
63 Ranchero,1965 Mercury Comet Convert V-8, 1978 Fairmont small six, mill'd off intake, 62-1 ET 12.332 @ 123.49 mph (gone)

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #27 by pmuller9 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:51 pm

Would you mind posting a picture of the rods or a single rod?

fast64ranchero
Registered User
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:58 am
Location: Boise ID

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #28 by fast64ranchero » Wed Sep 19, 2018 2:47 pm

pmuller9 wrote:Would you mind posting a picture of the rods or a single rod?

I haven't Posted pictures sense Photo Bucket pulled there crap. I use Tapatalk on other sites but this site doesn't come up on tapatalk. I'll have to figure it out so I can start a build thread with pics and info.
63 Ranchero,1965 Mercury Comet Convert V-8, 1978 Fairmont small six, mill'd off intake, 62-1 ET 12.332 @ 123.49 mph (gone)

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #29 by pmuller9 » Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:36 pm

I use Dropbox.

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: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #30 by xctasy » Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:41 am

fast64ranchero wrote:
pmuller9 wrote:
fast64ranchero wrote:Exact specs will be on the cam card when the cam comes. Over the phone specs are .571/.584 and 238/242 @ 50 on 113 or 114 he talked about both.
I have more Cylinder head and Cam than my bottom end can handle. Guess I should build a bottom end that will handle what the top end is possible of making. Now to go find that thread about those Toyota rods..

That's a little more cam than what I was expecting for street use but it will certainly utilize the head potential.
Which cam company is it.

Here is the connecting rod thread.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=77943#p600461


Little more than I was expecting also. Started off even bigger but we backed it down. My only request to the tech was I want a cam that will start making power by 3K rpm.
I better put the Spring info in here also. Springs I am going to us are, Comp cam 7228, retainers are tool steel 1772 and locators are 4680. Installed height is 1.80" seat pressure is 137lbs, and 410lbs @ .625"



The short rod to stroke ratio will work on settling down the cam. I really prefer the Windsor 0.875" lifter Restrictor Jet NASCAR profile used in the 289 8.7;1 compression engine the late Frank Currie used. Its bang on the 50 thou and peak lift values you have. The cam choice is important, and its important to add just a little more duration at the 235 degrees at 50 thou level. The Big head ports are offset by excellent mixture motion Elmo put into blending the port and valve cuts, and the rod ratio softens the aggression. Lobe centers are best kept around 112 to 114.


You should look at what kind of induction works best. No judging you, if 4bbl EFi is your bag, then dive in, but the VI/ CI intake was never a real smoot supplier of juice to all six cylinders. I seriously wouldn't even look at a 4bbl Throttle Body EFi system, but port EFi and an Aftermarket ECM.


You and others like 67Six should pool your resources, and use the Holley Commander Port EFi.


I can't see any cam probelms. I like Sodium Mercedes Benz G wagon, or 280e/280SE 9mm or the earlier 10 mm quide valves, which have a lash cap/cup to to cope with cam lobe, and come in at a 5.16" length. This is the 253/304/308 GM Holden valve size, similar to the 283 chev, but with another 250 thou length. US engines that perform are V8's. The FE 332-352 designers who pushed the 144/170 engine into prodction during the Whizz Kid 18 month Crash Course McNamara instigated a course of down grading the FE valve lengths to suit the common German Cologne V4/V6 valve gear they had qued up for the planned front drive Corsair/ Cardinal subcompact due out in 1962. It was Y block with a twist. The FE valve gear, and longer 280 Twin Cam Mercedes Benz valves will get you a proper valve spring that won't chop out the cam lobes. You then have to decide....1.5, 1.6 or 1.73:1 rocker ratios.

With the exception for how to quell detonation, a little 200 with the right turbo will eat up the cam you have. Ak Miller and Racer Walsh were sticking far more aggressive bumpsticks in there 5.13:1 geared C4 trans 2 liter Pinto's with T04's in the mid seventies.


Stop using Fords downgraded valve length. Follow the Australian path ofr 7000 to 8000 rpm production racing engines. The longer valves were devised by Repco and were used in F5000, then the L34 and A9X 600 mile endurance racing V8's. The in line sixes in Sports Sedans and Super Sedans then used the same Chevy plus 250 thou long valves to allow the engine to rev without making Locomotive Springs for the stock short a$$ valves in XU1 GTR's and 2V 250's. All the Oval track and speedway guys dialed up aftermarket Yella Trrra 253 valves with V8 valve gear on 202 Holden Sixes and some 221 or 250 Falcons with the cutoff log head.


The 240/300's have the same stupid down graded valve height, mainly because of rocker ball valve noise and pushrod side plate noise in an in line six getting really bad when you go to bigger valve lift. So no one looks at 1.73 or 1.76 Fe or 1.75 Chevy rocker ratios, and taking advantage of the 0.875 " lifter to add some real early valve lift.


A set of Benz valves are at a wrecking yard, and you can then use some simple FE logic with lash caps, and rockers and springs which are supple enough to avoid over loading the cam. Rocker gear can be redrilled for Fords shaft rocker gear, of redrilled to suit the 200/250 valve pitches.


Fords 144/170/188/221/250 small six valve gear is a disaster, and shouldnm't be copied, but upgraded to FE parts, and use the SAME Internastional/ FE 427/428 Le Mans style sodium cooled valves and good old US LeMans winning endurance ideas. Not the stock crap thats giving you grief.
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

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #31 by pmuller9 » Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:26 am

xctasy wrote:Stop using Fords downgraded valve length.


The valves in this head are custom with a +.300" length.
I would expect that YellaTerra 1.65 ratio adjustable roller rockers will be used.

On the Ford 240/300 side we use +.260" length valves with the high lift cams.

fast64ranchero
Registered User
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:58 am
Location: Boise ID

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #32 by fast64ranchero » Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 pm

pmuller9 wrote:
xctasy wrote:Stop using Fords downgraded valve length.


The valves in this head are custom with a +.300" length.
I would expect that YellaTerra 1.65 ratio adjustable roller rockers will be used.


Both are correct statements.
Anyone have info on what the design thinkness of the alum head at the valve spring pocket is? I know it's not suppose to be cut deeper, but would like to know what Mike and the others that designed the head set for the spring pocket minimum between spring pocket and intake port roof.

No real progress to report, if someone wants to host/post pictures of this stuff for me, please pm me with contact info (text number or email)
63 Ranchero,1965 Mercury Comet Convert V-8, 1978 Fairmont small six, mill'd off intake, 62-1 ET 12.332 @ 123.49 mph (gone)

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #33 by pmuller9 » Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:30 am

Image
Image
Image
Image

User avatar
bubba22349
Global Moderator
Posts: 8372
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Flagstaff, Az. 86005 near the old Route 66

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #34 by bubba22349 » Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:31 pm

:beer: thats beautiful port work and some really great looking rods too :thumbup: :nod:
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.

SydneytheMustang
Registered User
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2016 11:17 am

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #35 by SydneytheMustang » Wed Oct 17, 2018 3:19 pm

Hey, Ranchero how are things coming along? Is she coming together nice now?

fast64ranchero
Registered User
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:58 am
Location: Boise ID

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #36 by fast64ranchero » Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:43 am

Finally got the head mocked together, and figured out, it's a big cam and we had to work around a coil bind issue. The head is back at the porters for final touch ups and hopefully flow testing again.
I'm having trouble finding a low mount large bell 81-83 engine at a reasonable price, so my hold up right now is me not wanting to pull the stock engine out for machine work until the weather gets crappy and I can't drive it, or I could pay $400 for a core engine, (which is really what I should do). So sorry nothing really to report, as things come together I'll start a new engine build thread. I'm sure I'll have little issues with the rotating assembly also.
Walt
63 Ranchero,1965 Mercury Comet Convert V-8, 1978 Fairmont small six, mill'd off intake, 62-1 ET 12.332 @ 123.49 mph (gone)

fast64ranchero
Registered User
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:58 am
Location: Boise ID

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #37 by fast64ranchero » Tue Oct 30, 2018 3:36 pm

Update, The head is done and in my hands ready to bolt on. Beehive springs ended up 140-145 on the seats and 350 open.
I also purchased a low mount big bell engine off FeBay. When the engine arrives I'll strip it and get the crank and block to the machine. shop. I'll start a new thread in one of the sections to cover the head and short block details.
63 Ranchero,1965 Mercury Comet Convert V-8, 1978 Fairmont small six, mill'd off intake, 62-1 ET 12.332 @ 123.49 mph (gone)

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: CI/VI head setup questions

Post #38 by pmuller9 » Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:55 pm

Thanks for the update.
A new thread with details on the head will help those that want to maximize the head performance.
The short block details will be of great help also.
Looking forward to your results.

Side Note: I use BWE (Bruce Walker) zero gap rings since he was the one that developed them.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests