carcraft article on ford 203ci 235 hp
- Thread starter 64 200 ranchero
- Start date
SAD , is a word Bad is a word , both apply here UNLESS it was built to race , The pull STARTS at 4000 , 90 % of street driving is UNDER 4000 so unless this is a race car , it will be a BIG DOG at DD speeds and RPM's , it at least shows the potential of the aluminum head
The context here is push the boundaries of the setup and discover it's potential.
That is the point, (and to create some marketing buzz.)
You have a problem with scientific research?
Who does articles on building daily driver engines?
Thousands of writeups are done on v8 engine builds, and you have a problem with this one?
I'd drop that engine in my wagon in a heartbeat, and have a blast.
That is the point, (and to create some marketing buzz.)
You have a problem with scientific research?
Who does articles on building daily driver engines?
Thousands of writeups are done on v8 engine builds, and you have a problem with this one?
I'd drop that engine in my wagon in a heartbeat, and have a blast.
I think it would have to be geared down quite a bit to be a daily driver, I think it would be a great race engine. at 4000 rpm im doing around 80 in my car
JackFish said:
The engine needs at least 10.5-11-1 compression & have close to 195 psi cranking compression.
For decent driving a 4.62 rear gear would be ideal. The aluminum head will handle an extra .5 in compression ratio over an iron head. A 108 L/C on that small engine is out of the question for street driving.
I see they ran the shorty headers without a collector. That would be a real easy test on a test stand dyno.
Good article but not for a street engine.
For decent driving a 4.62 rear gear would be ideal. The aluminum head will handle an extra .5 in compression ratio over an iron head. A 108 L/C on that small engine is out of the question for street driving.
I see they ran the shorty headers without a collector. That would be a real easy test on a test stand dyno.
Good article but not for a street engine.
Happy 4th! thanks for the mag article link. more below:
"...If you plot the torque curve, it’s nearly pool-table flat, which makes this a great street engine.
RPM TQ HP
4,000 225 171
4,200 228 182
4,400 227 190
4,600 225 197
4,800 227 208
5,000 227 216
5,200 225 223
5,400 223 229
5,600 219 233
5,800 211 233
6,000 200 229
6,200 199 235..."
Read more: http://www.carcraft.com/
4,000 'peak' is not TOO unreasonable for the street.
I don't know cams but that seems fairly street worthy, no? yes? Now it aint the 500 + hp seen 10/15 yrs ago with the "x-flow" (fella in Melbourne, FLA I think, built it w/Oz prts)?
These 'square engines' (bore=stroke) seem to do well in all RMPs and gears, while the "stroked" start to bottom out when revin higher?
"...If you plot the torque curve, it’s nearly pool-table flat, which makes this a great street engine.
RPM TQ HP
4,000 225 171
4,200 228 182
4,400 227 190
4,600 225 197
4,800 227 208
5,000 227 216
5,200 225 223
5,400 223 229
5,600 219 233
5,800 211 233
6,000 200 229
6,200 199 235..."
Read more: http://www.carcraft.com/
4,000 'peak' is not TOO unreasonable for the street.
I don't know cams but that seems fairly street worthy, no? yes? Now it aint the 500 + hp seen 10/15 yrs ago with the "x-flow" (fella in Melbourne, FLA I think, built it w/Oz prts)?
These 'square engines' (bore=stroke) seem to do well in all RMPs and gears, while the "stroked" start to bottom out when revin higher?
I don't have a dog in the fight, but I wish they simply would have run the dyno figures starting as 1500 or 2000 RPM. I have the same gripe with many magazine dyno test results, because most of us do not regularly wrap our cars out during daily driving.
The torque curve is great - again, I wish the results would have shown performance at lower RPM levels.
The torque curve is great - again, I wish the results would have shown performance at lower RPM levels.
:wow: 
:mrgreen: 
:checks: :thanks:
No disrespect to any of the above posters, as this is to inform and illuminte, and ulike some othe forums, we don't get kudos for blowing out a creative delicate candle in the wind discussion.
Work in progess just inputing the dyno numbers Dyno 2, Dyno 3 and Dyno 4 based on:-
1. flywheel hp, not rear wheel hp figures given in Classic Inlines Dyno 2A and
2. the two other Australian Street Machine 1996 and 2002 articles published on the net here at FordSix 11 years ago ( back in 2002!)
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5554&p=38262&hilit=+how+aussies+build%2A+#p38262
3. Required some work on making the rev range intervals 200 rpm, not 250 rpm, so I had to do a linear regression.
4. and lb-ft figures
For Car Craft, see http://www.carcraft.com/>http://www.classicinlines.com/Dyno2.asp
>>>>Dyno 1>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dyno 2>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dyno 3>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dyno 4
Car Craft 2013>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Classic Inlines Dyno 2Aa>>2001 Oz Street Machine>>>>1996 Aussie StreetMachine
235 flywheel 203 cid engine>>>>266 flywheel 200>>>>>.199 flywheel hp 2-bbl>>>>236 flywheel hp 3 1.75" SU
RPM TQ HP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>TQ HP>>>>>>>>>>>TQ HP>>>>>>>>>>>>RPM TQ HP
2,500 225 171>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>>2,500 225 171
2,750 225 171>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>>2,750 225 171
2,800 225 171>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>>2,800 225 171
3,000 225 171>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>>3,000 225 171
3,200 225 171>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>>3,200 225 171
3,250 225 171>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>>3,250 225 171
3,400 225 171>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>>3,400 225 171
3,500 225 171>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>>3,500 225 171
3,600 225 171>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>>3,600 225 171
3,750 225 171>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>>3,750 225 171
3,800 225 171>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>>3,800 225 171
4,000 225 171>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>>4,000 225 171
4,200 228 182>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>228 182>>>>>>>>>>228 182>>>>>>>>>>>4,200 228 182
4,250 228 182>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>228 182>>>>>>>>>>228 182>>>>>>>>>>>4,250 228 182
4,400 227 190>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>227 190>>>>>>>>>>227 190>>>>>>>>>>>4,400 227 190
4,500 227 208>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>227 208>>>>>>>>>>227 208>>>>>>>>>>>4,500 227 208
4,600 225 197>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>225 197>>>>>>>>>>225 197>>>>>>>>>>>4,600 225 197
4,750 227 208>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>227 208>>>>>>>>>>227 208>>>>>>>>>>>4,750 227 208
4,800 227 208>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>227 208>>>>>>>>>>227 208>>>>>>>>>>>4,800 227 208
5,000 227 216>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>227 216>>>>>>>>>>227 216>>>>>>>>>>>5,000 227 216
5,200 225 223>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>225 223>>>>>>>>>>225 223>>>>>>>>>>>5,200 225 223
5,250 225 223>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>225 223>>>>>>>>>>225 223>>>>>>>>>>>5,250 225 223
5,400 223 229>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>223 229>>>>>>>>>>223 229>>>>>>>>>>>5,400 223 229
5,500 223 229>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>223 229>>>>>>>>>>223 229>>>>>>>>>>>5,500 223 229
5,600 219 233>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>219 233>>>>>>>>>>219 233>>>>>>>>>>>5,600 219 233
5,750 211 233>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>211 233>>>>>>>>>>211 233>>>>>>>>>>>5,750 211 233
5,800 211 233>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>211 233>>>>>>>>>>211 233>>>>>>>>>>>5,800 211 233
6,000 200 229>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>229 xxx>>>>>>>>>>200 229>>>>>>>>>>>6,000 200 229
6,200 199 235>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>229 xxx>>>>>>>>>>200 229>>>>>>>>>>>6,200 199 229
6,250 199 235>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>229 xxx>>>>>>>>>>200 229>>>>>>>>>>>6,250 199 229
Summary: The Car Craft Dyno 1 cam pacakge is too much cam and raises the rev range too much. The Classic Inlines head is a high flow, low port runner volume head, and as such, its easy to wisk off efficency by have a cam too big for the port sizes and flow numbers. Its a little like Fords Cleveland engine, it responds better to the smaller 256 and 280 degree cams than the early 290, 300 and 310 degree solid cams. Although they made an extra 100 hp, the did so about 1000 rpm further up the scale. The Craft engine makes 30 hp less than Dyno 2a on Classic inlines, with 1100 rpm more, not as goos as making 266 hp at 5100 rpm. It made 211 hp at 5100 rpm at the wheels, which is better than 235 hp at 6200 rpm at the flywheel. That farily well sums it all up, its a loose torque, need more rpm combo which is inferior to Mike Raley's Mustang. I'd have his dyno tuned engine over car craft any day...the cam Car Craft used was was the Clay Smith hydraulic flat-tappet cam with 221/221 duration at 0.050 with a 108-degree lobe-separation angle and Yella Terra roller rockers verses Dyno 2a's 264-110 H, Product ID: CSC-264-HSP-10
264/264-110
The ideal combinations are listed for comparison. One is Dyno 3, a 12 port 2-bbl 4412 Holley XT5/XT6 Blue/Black Holden 202 cubic inch 3.3liter L6, and Dyno 4 Red l6 202 Holden GM Motor 9 port Triple SU carb and the Dyno 2a, the best 200 4V to date, the 480 Autolite equiped engine from http://www.classicinlines.com/Dyno2.asp
Comparing apples with apples is very hard, but I did it above off the dyno sheets provided from four sources...
Dyno 1 is "as is", but with 250 increment interpolations
Dyno 2 is "as is" but with full 250 increment interploations from the video
Dyno 3 based on the left hand Test One 4412 500 CFM 2-bbl carb XT5/XT6 3.3 engine. The right hand side Test Two is the F9a Haltech port injected 3.3
3250 rpm......Test One 109 hp......Test Two 120 hp
3500 rpm......Test One 123 hp......Test Two 144 hp
3750 rpm......Test One 157 hp......Test Two 168 hp
4000 rpm......Test One 177 hp......Test Two 193 h
4250 rpm......Test One 177 hp......Test Two 200 hp
4500 rpm......Test One 188 hp......Test Two 209 hp
4750 rpm......Test One 195 hp......Test Two 213 hp
5000 rpm......Test One 203 hp......Test Two 216 hp
5250 rpm......Test One 201 hp......Test Two 221 hp
Maximum torque for Test One is 232 lb-ft at 4000 rpm, and 254 lb-ft at 4000 rpm for Test Two
Case 2: A later model 202, called a 12 port 3.3liter, runs a very good cylinder head, but a milder 280 degree cam.The headers are special Genie tube items. For the first dyno run, a 500 cfm #2300, 4412 Holley 2-bbl carb on an alloy intake manifold is fitted up to a cars engine bay. A control trans, tire and diff is used. The rear wheel horspower figures have been read off the chart, and turned into net flywheel figures by multiplying by 33% for the drive train and tires losses.
Then a 1985 GM Tuned Port Injection manifold is placed on, with an EFI rail and a Haltech F9A fuel only electronic control module is calibrated on the rolling road. The figures between Test One and Test Two are listed below:-
5250 rpm......Test One 201 hp......Test Two 221 hp
5000 rpm......Test One 203 hp......Test Two 216 hp
4750 rpm......Test One 195 hp......Test Two 213 hp
4500 rpm......Test One 188 hp......Test Two 209 hp
4250 rpm......Test One 177 hp......Test Two 200 hp
4000 rpm......Test One 177 hp......Test Two 193 hp
3750 rpm......Test One 157 hp......Test Two 168 hp
3500 rpm......Test One 123 hp......Test Two 144 hp
3250 rpm......Test One 109 hp......Test Two 120 hp
Maximum torque for Test One is 232 lb-ft at 4000 rpm, and 254 lb-ft at 4000 rpm for Test Two
In a vehicle weighing around 2950 pounds with a driver, there is a 14.2 second quarter with Test Twos EFI combination. The EFI system brings an extra 10% torque and power right through the rev range.
Calculations find that the 202 *RPM over delivered power is 4975 for Test One, and 4798 for Test Two. These figures indicate the engine maps as a "worked to an expert semi-race spec" machine.
Dyno Four is a culmination of of all detail from
Case 1: Holden Six, 202 cubic inch (1971 to 1980) . Head 9 port, engine is a miniture 230/250 with same bore spacing as FordS 144-250 I6's
Test one: Guy comes into Speed shop with an Eccon Rail with a 202 engine which won't past the 10.99 cut off for entry into the class. It has tube headers, triple SU 1.75" carbs, a worked head, 11.2:1 compression and HEI ignition. Dyno triggers 210 hp net at 4750 rpm, and torque peaks at the same 4750 rpm as 190 lb-ft. This shouldn't happen if the cam is sorted. Normally peak torque is at about a third this speed ( 3600 rpm). So the 308 degree high lift screemer cam is removed and replaced with a Waggot E3, a cam known for good results.
Test Two: the new cam is set at 22 thou lash, and the carbs get some ram tubes placed on them to smoothen the entry of air into the carbs. Dyno reads 222 hp at about 5700rpm, and now produces 205 lb-ft from over 5000rpm to 195 lb-ft at 3000 rpm. Something is not right with the exhast tunning. The torque peek should still be at a lower rpm.
Test Three: Six dyno runs are done with lesser valve clerances until 10 thou lash gives 236 hp at 5250 rpm. Over 219 lb-ft at 5000 rpm. Still looks to be an issue with the exhast system.
Test Four: Some bright spark grabs a set of old cast iron twin branch headers, used on the touring car special XU1 GTR. These on there own, with some tubing pipes running from them, loose 9 hphave shortened tubular pipes running off them for the dyno test. From 3000 to 4000 rpm, there is now an extra 20 lb-ft extra, but maximum power is only 227 hp at 5250 rpm.
Test Five: The dyno operator tries an old motor cycle trick...painting the tubes in acrylic paint, runs the engine at hi rpm, and cuts the tube where the paint stops burning off. Suddenly, during the last run, a mighty 254 hp @ 5250 rpm appears. At 2500 rpm, there is another 42 lb-ft there! The torque peek is now much lower at about 3800 rpm.
Now, do the sums. 202 cubic inches, times 5250 rpm, divided by some factor, gives 252 hp. What is it? 4208. At the start, it was only 4570.
:mrgreen: :checks: :thanks: No disrespect to any of the above posters, as this is to inform and illuminte, and ulike some othe forums, we don't get kudos for blowing out a creative delicate candle in the wind discussion.
Work in progess just inputing the dyno numbers Dyno 2, Dyno 3 and Dyno 4 based on:-
1. flywheel hp, not rear wheel hp figures given in Classic Inlines Dyno 2A and
2. the two other Australian Street Machine 1996 and 2002 articles published on the net here at FordSix 11 years ago ( back in 2002!)
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5554&p=38262&hilit=+how+aussies+build%2A+#p38262
3. Required some work on making the rev range intervals 200 rpm, not 250 rpm, so I had to do a linear regression.
4. and lb-ft figures
For Car Craft, see http://www.carcraft.com/>http://www.classicinlines.com/Dyno2.asp
>>>>Dyno 1>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dyno 2>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dyno 3>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dyno 4
Car Craft 2013>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Classic Inlines Dyno 2Aa>>2001 Oz Street Machine>>>>1996 Aussie StreetMachine
235 flywheel 203 cid engine>>>>266 flywheel 200>>>>>.199 flywheel hp 2-bbl>>>>236 flywheel hp 3 1.75" SU
RPM TQ HP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>TQ HP>>>>>>>>>>>TQ HP>>>>>>>>>>>>RPM TQ HP
2,500 225 171>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>>2,500 225 171
2,750 225 171>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>>2,750 225 171
2,800 225 171>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>>2,800 225 171
3,000 225 171>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>>3,000 225 171
3,200 225 171>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>>3,200 225 171
3,250 225 171>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>>3,250 225 171
3,400 225 171>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>>3,400 225 171
3,500 225 171>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>>3,500 225 171
3,600 225 171>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>>3,600 225 171
3,750 225 171>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>>3,750 225 171
3,800 225 171>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>>3,800 225 171
4,000 225 171>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>225 171>>>>>>>>>>>4,000 225 171
4,200 228 182>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>228 182>>>>>>>>>>228 182>>>>>>>>>>>4,200 228 182
4,250 228 182>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>228 182>>>>>>>>>>228 182>>>>>>>>>>>4,250 228 182
4,400 227 190>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>227 190>>>>>>>>>>227 190>>>>>>>>>>>4,400 227 190
4,500 227 208>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>227 208>>>>>>>>>>227 208>>>>>>>>>>>4,500 227 208
4,600 225 197>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>225 197>>>>>>>>>>225 197>>>>>>>>>>>4,600 225 197
4,750 227 208>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>227 208>>>>>>>>>>227 208>>>>>>>>>>>4,750 227 208
4,800 227 208>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>227 208>>>>>>>>>>227 208>>>>>>>>>>>4,800 227 208
5,000 227 216>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>227 216>>>>>>>>>>227 216>>>>>>>>>>>5,000 227 216
5,200 225 223>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>225 223>>>>>>>>>>225 223>>>>>>>>>>>5,200 225 223
5,250 225 223>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>225 223>>>>>>>>>>225 223>>>>>>>>>>>5,250 225 223
5,400 223 229>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>223 229>>>>>>>>>>223 229>>>>>>>>>>>5,400 223 229
5,500 223 229>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>223 229>>>>>>>>>>223 229>>>>>>>>>>>5,500 223 229
5,600 219 233>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>219 233>>>>>>>>>>219 233>>>>>>>>>>>5,600 219 233
5,750 211 233>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>211 233>>>>>>>>>>211 233>>>>>>>>>>>5,750 211 233
5,800 211 233>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>211 233>>>>>>>>>>211 233>>>>>>>>>>>5,800 211 233
6,000 200 229>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>229 xxx>>>>>>>>>>200 229>>>>>>>>>>>6,000 200 229
6,200 199 235>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>229 xxx>>>>>>>>>>200 229>>>>>>>>>>>6,200 199 229
6,250 199 235>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>229 xxx>>>>>>>>>>200 229>>>>>>>>>>>6,250 199 229
Summary: The Car Craft Dyno 1 cam pacakge is too much cam and raises the rev range too much. The Classic Inlines head is a high flow, low port runner volume head, and as such, its easy to wisk off efficency by have a cam too big for the port sizes and flow numbers. Its a little like Fords Cleveland engine, it responds better to the smaller 256 and 280 degree cams than the early 290, 300 and 310 degree solid cams. Although they made an extra 100 hp, the did so about 1000 rpm further up the scale. The Craft engine makes 30 hp less than Dyno 2a on Classic inlines, with 1100 rpm more, not as goos as making 266 hp at 5100 rpm. It made 211 hp at 5100 rpm at the wheels, which is better than 235 hp at 6200 rpm at the flywheel. That farily well sums it all up, its a loose torque, need more rpm combo which is inferior to Mike Raley's Mustang. I'd have his dyno tuned engine over car craft any day...the cam Car Craft used was was the Clay Smith hydraulic flat-tappet cam with 221/221 duration at 0.050 with a 108-degree lobe-separation angle and Yella Terra roller rockers verses Dyno 2a's 264-110 H, Product ID: CSC-264-HSP-10
264/264-110
The ideal combinations are listed for comparison. One is Dyno 3, a 12 port 2-bbl 4412 Holley XT5/XT6 Blue/Black Holden 202 cubic inch 3.3liter L6, and Dyno 4 Red l6 202 Holden GM Motor 9 port Triple SU carb and the Dyno 2a, the best 200 4V to date, the 480 Autolite equiped engine from http://www.classicinlines.com/Dyno2.asp
Comparing apples with apples is very hard, but I did it above off the dyno sheets provided from four sources...
Dyno 1 is "as is", but with 250 increment interpolations
Dyno 2 is "as is" but with full 250 increment interploations from the video
Dyno 3 based on the left hand Test One 4412 500 CFM 2-bbl carb XT5/XT6 3.3 engine. The right hand side Test Two is the F9a Haltech port injected 3.3
3250 rpm......Test One 109 hp......Test Two 120 hp
3500 rpm......Test One 123 hp......Test Two 144 hp
3750 rpm......Test One 157 hp......Test Two 168 hp
4000 rpm......Test One 177 hp......Test Two 193 h
4250 rpm......Test One 177 hp......Test Two 200 hp
4500 rpm......Test One 188 hp......Test Two 209 hp
4750 rpm......Test One 195 hp......Test Two 213 hp
5000 rpm......Test One 203 hp......Test Two 216 hp
5250 rpm......Test One 201 hp......Test Two 221 hp
Maximum torque for Test One is 232 lb-ft at 4000 rpm, and 254 lb-ft at 4000 rpm for Test Two
Case 2: A later model 202, called a 12 port 3.3liter, runs a very good cylinder head, but a milder 280 degree cam.The headers are special Genie tube items. For the first dyno run, a 500 cfm #2300, 4412 Holley 2-bbl carb on an alloy intake manifold is fitted up to a cars engine bay. A control trans, tire and diff is used. The rear wheel horspower figures have been read off the chart, and turned into net flywheel figures by multiplying by 33% for the drive train and tires losses.
Then a 1985 GM Tuned Port Injection manifold is placed on, with an EFI rail and a Haltech F9A fuel only electronic control module is calibrated on the rolling road. The figures between Test One and Test Two are listed below:-
5250 rpm......Test One 201 hp......Test Two 221 hp
5000 rpm......Test One 203 hp......Test Two 216 hp
4750 rpm......Test One 195 hp......Test Two 213 hp
4500 rpm......Test One 188 hp......Test Two 209 hp
4250 rpm......Test One 177 hp......Test Two 200 hp
4000 rpm......Test One 177 hp......Test Two 193 hp
3750 rpm......Test One 157 hp......Test Two 168 hp
3500 rpm......Test One 123 hp......Test Two 144 hp
3250 rpm......Test One 109 hp......Test Two 120 hp
Maximum torque for Test One is 232 lb-ft at 4000 rpm, and 254 lb-ft at 4000 rpm for Test Two
In a vehicle weighing around 2950 pounds with a driver, there is a 14.2 second quarter with Test Twos EFI combination. The EFI system brings an extra 10% torque and power right through the rev range.
Calculations find that the 202 *RPM over delivered power is 4975 for Test One, and 4798 for Test Two. These figures indicate the engine maps as a "worked to an expert semi-race spec" machine.
Dyno Four is a culmination of of all detail from
Case 1: Holden Six, 202 cubic inch (1971 to 1980) . Head 9 port, engine is a miniture 230/250 with same bore spacing as FordS 144-250 I6's
Test one: Guy comes into Speed shop with an Eccon Rail with a 202 engine which won't past the 10.99 cut off for entry into the class. It has tube headers, triple SU 1.75" carbs, a worked head, 11.2:1 compression and HEI ignition. Dyno triggers 210 hp net at 4750 rpm, and torque peaks at the same 4750 rpm as 190 lb-ft. This shouldn't happen if the cam is sorted. Normally peak torque is at about a third this speed ( 3600 rpm). So the 308 degree high lift screemer cam is removed and replaced with a Waggot E3, a cam known for good results.
Test Two: the new cam is set at 22 thou lash, and the carbs get some ram tubes placed on them to smoothen the entry of air into the carbs. Dyno reads 222 hp at about 5700rpm, and now produces 205 lb-ft from over 5000rpm to 195 lb-ft at 3000 rpm. Something is not right with the exhast tunning. The torque peek should still be at a lower rpm.
Test Three: Six dyno runs are done with lesser valve clerances until 10 thou lash gives 236 hp at 5250 rpm. Over 219 lb-ft at 5000 rpm. Still looks to be an issue with the exhast system.
Test Four: Some bright spark grabs a set of old cast iron twin branch headers, used on the touring car special XU1 GTR. These on there own, with some tubing pipes running from them, loose 9 hphave shortened tubular pipes running off them for the dyno test. From 3000 to 4000 rpm, there is now an extra 20 lb-ft extra, but maximum power is only 227 hp at 5250 rpm.
Test Five: The dyno operator tries an old motor cycle trick...painting the tubes in acrylic paint, runs the engine at hi rpm, and cuts the tube where the paint stops burning off. Suddenly, during the last run, a mighty 254 hp @ 5250 rpm appears. At 2500 rpm, there is another 42 lb-ft there! The torque peek is now much lower at about 3800 rpm.
Now, do the sums. 202 cubic inches, times 5250 rpm, divided by some factor, gives 252 hp. What is it? 4208. At the start, it was only 4570.
Your cam at 112 will be much better down low than a 108 lobe sep
I spend four hours going over the dyno curves. Due to video falling off internet, and some previous FordSix Performance message bouard crashes taking the information off the search list, Mike R's 227 lb-ft/211 hp corrected engine details aren't around to look at as closely as I did in 2009 when the results were published online.
See http://fordsix.com/forum/viewtopic.php? ... 76#p392876
I won't be filling out the sheet above, I've proved enough.
The earlier Dyno Runs for Classic Inlines and the other two articles from Australian Street Machine prove that there is just as much torque and power to be had in a 3.3 engine, with less cam timing. As for the ideal cam lobe center, I bow to superior knowledge. One thing I've learned, is that maximising the area under the torque curve, and making as much hp for as little revs creates the best street engines.
The Classic Inlines head breathes better than any other I6 head, so it needs a lower duration cam perfected suited to the intake runner volume and cfm flow rates. That work has already been done by Classic Inlines, and Mike Raley's Mustang is better set up than the Car Craft article, and your better off with less cam and perhaps a different lobe centre.
I'd like to thank Car Craft.
see https://www.hotrod.com/articles/ccrp-13 ... nline-six/
The point I wanna make is that in the Classic Inlines write up, the orginal dyno test video, and in other articles, a milder 200 makes 211 rear wheel hp,, which is making a 266 flywheel hp. Other articles then put Mike R's engine at 235 flywheel hp, and 228 lb-ft like this one.
http://www.mustangandfords.com/featured ... _cylinder/
More copying a better combo required, and that was 4 years ago.
No one should ever have to carry another 1100 rpm to get less hp....
See http://fordsix.com/forum/viewtopic.php? ... 76#p392876
I won't be filling out the sheet above, I've proved enough.
The earlier Dyno Runs for Classic Inlines and the other two articles from Australian Street Machine prove that there is just as much torque and power to be had in a 3.3 engine, with less cam timing. As for the ideal cam lobe center, I bow to superior knowledge. One thing I've learned, is that maximising the area under the torque curve, and making as much hp for as little revs creates the best street engines.
The Classic Inlines head breathes better than any other I6 head, so it needs a lower duration cam perfected suited to the intake runner volume and cfm flow rates. That work has already been done by Classic Inlines, and Mike Raley's Mustang is better set up than the Car Craft article, and your better off with less cam and perhaps a different lobe centre.
I'd like to thank Car Craft.
see https://www.hotrod.com/articles/ccrp-13 ... nline-six/
The point I wanna make is that in the Classic Inlines write up, the orginal dyno test video, and in other articles, a milder 200 makes 211 rear wheel hp,, which is making a 266 flywheel hp. Other articles then put Mike R's engine at 235 flywheel hp, and 228 lb-ft like this one.
http://www.mustangandfords.com/featured ... _cylinder/
More copying a better combo required, and that was 4 years ago.
No one should ever have to carry another 1100 rpm to get less hp....
wsa111":3qnently said:
An aircooled Volkswagen has a 108 degree LSA... They are pretty displacement limited. 1585cc being the biggest with something along the lines of 7.2:1 compression... I know it's not ideal by any means, but they still run and they REALLY aren't as much of a dog as folks think.
Joshwho-
that's the vehicle the Falcon (engine) wuz built to beat. the Bug wuz decimatin the american auto industry (~1960) and ford brought out the 144 ci in response (but w/bigger trunk, roll up windows, real frame, bigger cabin, etc).
@ near 1600cc is that about 144ci?
that's the vehicle the Falcon (engine) wuz built to beat. the Bug wuz decimatin the american auto industry (~1960) and ford brought out the 144 ci in response (but w/bigger trunk, roll up windows, real frame, bigger cabin, etc).
@ near 1600cc is that about 144ci?
"...1600cc is about 98ci.
2350cc is about 144ci..."
1 Lt vs 2 Lt?
Oh Boy, that seems like a real "out class" even tho the Bug didn't have a frame
under it.... If it was today's American public they'd desert the bug purchases (it
would B hoped).
OK, sorry, I r e a l l y jacked this thread.
Back to your regularly scheduled program
2350cc is about 144ci..."
1 Lt vs 2 Lt?
Oh Boy, that seems like a real "out class" even tho the Bug didn't have a frame
under it.... If it was today's American public they'd desert the bug purchases (it
would B hoped).
OK, sorry, I r e a l l y jacked this thread.
Back to your regularly scheduled program
chad":30701gre said:"...1600cc is about 98ci.
2350cc is about 144ci..."
1 Lt vs 2 Lt?
Oh Boy, that seems like a real "out class" even tho the Bug didn't have a frame
under it.... If it was today's American public they'd desert the bug purchases (it
would B hoped).
OK, sorry, I r e a l l y jacked this thread.
Back to your regularly scheduled program
It's all good Chad. French (Metric) units are unconstitutional anyway. :rolflmao: Unless your from Idaho...
nightwatchman59
Well-known member
I just ran across this, and could not help but wonder what you guys could do to a 300 six. Thanx.....
Lots. Preparation H for the 300 Ford in the Big Six section covers off how much power you can make with as little as possible revs. The extra 100 cubes yields another 150 odd hp at less than 6200 rpm.
The Jim Grubbs Motorsports (JGM) dyno run for Tory Singers engine shows that it uses 1100 rpm too much to make the same power as Mike Raleys. 5100 rpm vs 6200 rpm, although I recon 266 hp is what Mikes made at the flywheel based on the dyno run at Pony Carbs.
Basically the same cam, but with different carb, headers and lobe centers. And that's all it takes to loose low end torque. Our X-flow 250's are making about 350 hp at 5500 rpm. So the little 3.3 six is well on its way to being proportional to the power of the best 250 and 300 cube I6 engines.
Either way, Texas or California tuned, the 200 cube aluminum headed engine is a total win for the Classic Inlines development of small six parts.
Mike at CI has done a great job...especially compared to the time honored 9 port triple carb and high port Aussie GM Holden L6 3.3 engines mentioned back in my first posts on this topic. His power figures match or exceed the very best of those, and they have 50 years of development.
The Jim Grubbs Motorsports (JGM) dyno run for Tory Singers engine shows that it uses 1100 rpm too much to make the same power as Mike Raleys. 5100 rpm vs 6200 rpm, although I recon 266 hp is what Mikes made at the flywheel based on the dyno run at Pony Carbs.
Basically the same cam, but with different carb, headers and lobe centers. And that's all it takes to loose low end torque. Our X-flow 250's are making about 350 hp at 5500 rpm. So the little 3.3 six is well on its way to being proportional to the power of the best 250 and 300 cube I6 engines.
Either way, Texas or California tuned, the 200 cube aluminum headed engine is a total win for the Classic Inlines development of small six parts.
Mike at CI has done a great job...especially compared to the time honored 9 port triple carb and high port Aussie GM Holden L6 3.3 engines mentioned back in my first posts on this topic. His power figures match or exceed the very best of those, and they have 50 years of development.
"...Lots. Preparation H for the 300 Ford in the Big Six section..." of this site i.e.
we have another forum here (many others) on the 300 engine.
Nice things bout them is U can get an efi stock, made em till '96 (recent & long term availability) and may B best,
the intake and exhaust are NOT on the same side...
for pumped up 300s look in the "alt fuels" forum, I think that's where I saw some rad stuff. Forget tho cuz I mostly stay right here...
we have another forum here (many others) on the 300 engine.
Nice things bout them is U can get an efi stock, made em till '96 (recent & long term availability) and may B best,
the intake and exhaust are NOT on the same side...
for pumped up 300s look in the "alt fuels" forum, I think that's where I saw some rad stuff. Forget tho cuz I mostly stay right here...