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


<<< New Site Update >>>

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

Moderator: Mod Squad

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

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

Post #1 by clintonvillian » Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:05 pm

I have been pretty absent from here....sorry. I have focused all of my time into the body work, and stepped back from the drivetrain for awhile. Plus life threw a few other hurdles at me.

Here are some pics of the '56:

ImageImageImageImage

Now help me get back into this 300, as it sits now I have:

-87 4.9L
-The head completed: 2.02 Intake, 1.72 Exhaust, 1.72 Rockers, and a CNC Head Port.
-240 no hole rods
-Custom sheet metal intake and a Clifford Intake
-Dynomax Headers
-T-5 3.35 1st, 1.93 2nd, 1.29 3rd, 1.00 4th, .68 5th
-2.78:1 Rearend


I have the M112 setting there, still not sure if I want to use it. Mounting it depends on which way I go with my ignition. So it is time to crap or get off of the pot on my end.

I WANT 400 ft-lbs of torque and 300 HP. What is the most reliable way to get there building on what I have?

Can higher compression and a torque cam alone get me there? Or is the Supercharger a must?

BigBlue94
Registered User
Posts: 330
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2018 6:38 pm
Location: Hoyt, Kansas

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

Post #2 by BigBlue94 » Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:16 pm

I'm running 9.75:1 CR with a Schneider 140 cam. 1.94 and 1.6 valves. Clifford intake and headers. 450cfm 4bbl and HEI ignition. It runs on 91 octane great. Havent dynoed it yet but I estimate 250 hp and 350 ft/lbs.
1985 Bronco. 309ci I6, NP435, 4.56 gears, Detroit locker and tru-trac, 4" lift, and 37" swamper tires. The 309 is 9.75:1 CR with a Schneider 140H cam, 4bbl, roller rockers, larger valves, and headers.

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3321
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

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

Post #3 by pmuller9 » Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:43 pm

You can have 300 HP using a cam with a .050" duration in the 230s and a 10:1 compression ratio.
You will not get 400 ft lbs of torque without some boost.

Using the same cam, the M112 will get you there and more with 6 lbs of boost.
A blower drive ratio around 2:1 should get you there.
The engine compression ratio will need to be around 9:1
I'm assuming you would be using the highest octane pump gas available.

Are you going to use a carburetor or EFI if you use the M112?

User avatar
THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER
VIP Member
Posts: 6047
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 9:25 pm
Location: FRENCHTOWN

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

Post #4 by THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER » Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:30 pm

Nice metal work on the body. It looks like you're making a flip front end clip. Very ambitious. I like those old F-series trucks. I have a '46 half-tonner but V8 powered. Wish it were a six.
FORD 300 INLINE SIX - THE BEST KEPT SECRET IN DRAG RACING

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

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

Post #5 by clintonvillian » Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:56 pm

If life will allow it, I plan to travel the country in this truck. So reliability is a MUST. I also plan to drive it regularly.

I want to keep it on pump gas.

I plan to run some type of efi. But I have NO experience with it. I would LOVE to run FAST, FiTech, or Sniper setup. It keeps it looking old school and simple. None of those will work with TFI nor do they have a magnetic plug and play distributor for a 300 six. So I have to figure that out as I would like it to control the timing.

Holley HP and megasquirt are both options and I am setup for the crank trigger wheel. Not having tuning experience SCARES me with these. Plus by the time I buy injectors, fuel rail, and the various pieces to make it work I can buy the SNIPER Kit. AND IT WONT LOOK OLD SCHOOL.

The new SNIPER units handle power adders so if I can figure out the ignition and timing system, this feels like the way I want to go...

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

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

Post #6 by clintonvillian » Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:18 pm

Some additional food for thought.....

I was looking over some of my old notes from talking to Arnie at CTech, and he gave me these Dyno numbers from a recent build of his:

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

It was making 360 ft-lbs at 3000, and 300HP at 5000 rpms.

When they went to a 225 Crower the HP dropped to 260.

Does that sound reasonable?

User avatar
bubba22349
Global Moderator
Posts: 9087
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Flagstaff, Az. 86005 near the old Route 66

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

Post #7 by bubba22349 » Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:27 pm

The 1956 F100 is a huge faveriote of mine! Going back to early 1956 when I got to go with my Dad to the locale Ford dealership to special order his new 56 F100 later on I learned to drive in that 56. Yours is looking really straight great job on the body work, it's going to be a real beauty.

I think since you have the M112 that would be an excellent combo for the power level you want to get or you could also do a Turbo for that level of power. But in my opinion there’s just something really great about the looks and instant power of a blower.

For the old school look plus being bullet proof simple install that Clifford intake with an Autolite or Holley carb (Autolites for a little bit better MPG / Holley for a bit more power), a DuraSpark II ignistion and drive it. Though it might not have quite as much power output as you would like, yet it will still be more than enough power for that light weight 56 F100. 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.

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3321
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

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

Post #8 by pmuller9 » Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:17 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post #9 by clintonvillian » Sun Aug 18, 2019 12:31 pm

So, it sounds like for simplicity, the M112 with the SNIPER Kit is where I want to be. The SNIPER can also be tuned which would make it nicer down the road. But would get me up and running pretty quick.

I have not touched the head. I have to pull the hood to finish metal work on it. When I do I plan to stick the motor back in and position the supercharger and intercooler.

Is there a specific distributor I should be looking for?

Is there an off the shelf Cam suited for the supercharger?

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3321
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

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

Post #10 by pmuller9 » Sun Aug 18, 2019 3:17 pm

For that head you need a cam with at least a 232 .050" duration intake and usually we add extra exhaust duration to help evacuate the extra exhaust gas volume created by the supercharger.
Because Arnie gave you more exhaust port flow you would only need a few extra exhaust degrees.

There are no shelf cams for the 300 six from anyone.
All cams for the 300 are ground per order.
I would order a Jones cam using his H72334 lobe for the intake and the H7334 for the exhaust.
That gives you a 232* intake and 236* exhaust with .534" valve lift on both using a 1.6 ratio rocker.
Mike Jones quality is hard to beat.

Use a DS2 distributor to trigger the Sniper.
Since the Sniper will be controlling the ignition advance curve the mechanical advance gets locked.
Once the distributor is in placed and timed for the Sniper, you can lock the vacuum advance plate down so the rotor is phased with the cap at 30* BTDC.

Since you are running an intercooler, in what order would the Blower, intercooler and Sniper carb be in?

Have you checked the combustion chamber volume?
It may be between 74 and 75cc

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

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

Post #11 by clintonvillian » Sun Aug 18, 2019 4:34 pm

It would be...

M112
Intercooler
Sniper

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3321
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

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

Post #12 by pmuller9 » Sun Aug 18, 2019 4:50 pm

Unlike a turbocharger the supercharger is a positive displacement device that pushes the same amount of air per revolution regardless of what is afterwards.
If you have a throttle plate afterwards, the blower will continue to push the same amount of air past the throttle at any plate angle and the boost pressure will skyrocket as the plate closes.
Is there something I'm missing about how you want to set this up?

Would you do yourself a favor and set the head with the combustion chambers up and fill each chamber with water or alcohol and see if any leaks past the valves into the ports.

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

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

Post #13 by clintonvillian » Sun Aug 18, 2019 5:25 pm

I thought someone else said that wouldn't be an issue? That within an revolution or two it would suck any excess through the system.... But I don't know.

You couldn't place the SNIPER prior to the supercharger and intercooler???

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

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

Post #14 by clintonvillian » Sun Aug 18, 2019 5:31 pm

How do these guys get away with running the huge superchargers without intercoolers? Almost all "hotrods" with drawthrough carbs don't have intercoolers....

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3321
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

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

Post #15 by pmuller9 » Sun Aug 18, 2019 6:56 pm

The Sniper can be run before the supercharger but having an intercooler full of air/fuel mix is dangerous.
If there is a backfire the intercooler becomes a bomb.

Most racers including the team I work with use methanol with a blower which can get cold enough to form ice on the blower hat.
There are after coolers in the blower intake manifolds or racers use VP C16 gasoline.
Lower boost street guys with no intercoolers use low compression and longer duration cams.

Mdixon300f100
Registered User
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed May 02, 2018 6:43 am

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

Post #16 by Mdixon300f100 » Mon Aug 19, 2019 9:11 am

A blow-off valve would solve the over boost problem when the throttle plate closes. Either open vent or recirculated to the air box would be fine.

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3321
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

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

Post #17 by pmuller9 » Mon Aug 19, 2019 10:42 am

Mdixon300f100 wrote:A blow-off valve would solve the over boost problem when the throttle plate closes. Either open vent or recirculated to the air box would be fine.

The problem is not just overboost.
If you installed a blow off valve, until the valve opens the blower is still forcing too much air past the throttle plate making the throttle ineffective.
A positive displacement unit pushes a constant flow of air independent of throttle position if the blower is first in the line-up.

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

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

Post #18 by clintonvillian » Mon Aug 19, 2019 2:50 pm

Would a controlled blow off valve work?

The read the negative ohms from the throttle position and open the valve? I am assuming of course the sniper would be able to control that....

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

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

Post #19 by clintonvillian » Mon Aug 19, 2019 7:44 pm

https://www.procharger.com/procharger-bypass-valves

It looks like this is exactly for the problem you described. The M112 has a valve built in that operates off of vacuum, when you let off of the throttle and it closes, there should be negative pressure below the throttle body. Above the throttle body would still be positive. Correct?


Here is the valve:
Image

Here is the vacuum actuator:
Image

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3321
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

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

Post #20 by pmuller9 » Mon Aug 19, 2019 10:24 pm

I hope I can explain this clearly.
The valve you see on the M12 is indeed a bypass valve.
Remember that a M112 has a throttle body in front of it and no restriction after it.
When the throttle body is closed enough to create a vacuum after the M112 so the engine can idle or just cruise along the highway with intake manifold vacuum, the M112 is still trying to pump from behind the barely open throttle which creates a pumping loss and effects fuel mileage at cruising.
The bypass valve opens as soon as a vacuum is developed which opens the inlet to the outlet to each other and pumping ceases eliminating the pumping loss and dropping the power to turn the M112 to less than 1 hp.

The bypass valve does not resolve the problem because a Carburetor or Throttle Body EFI must control airflow at it's throttle blades in order to have linear control and since the Roots, Eaton or Twin Screw superchargers are positive displacement superchargers that have a constant airflow with a wide open inlet side there is no way to have a linear control versus the throttle blade angle at the throttle body.

A turbocharger and Procharger and all other centrifugal pumps are not positive displacement and when the outlet is restricted or blocked pumping ceases as the compressor is driven into surge. A blow off valve clips the pressure spike as the centrifugal pump transitions to a non pumping state and the pressure is released from the intake system volume.

The positive displacement pumps do not stop pumping when there is a restriction and will continue to pump until something fails either by pressure or heat.

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3321
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

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

Post #21 by pmuller9 » Wed Aug 21, 2019 1:32 am

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

Mdixon300f100
Registered User
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed May 02, 2018 6:43 am

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

Post #22 by Mdixon300f100 » Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:17 am

I was thinking about this yesterday and was wondering, wouldnt it be far more complicated to intercool this setup since these units generally bolt directly to an intake? It would have to be built over a plenum and piped out to the inter cooler, then back to the carb and to the intake. Unless using a water to air intercooler bolted between the M112 and the intake manifold, non intercooler with water injection would be much simpler.

guhfluh
Registered User
Posts: 407
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 9:40 am

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

Post #23 by guhfluh » Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:23 pm

Non-intercooled with the Sniper TBI ahead of the SC would be the way to go, but with that type of SC, I'd worry more about fuel distribution with the inlet and outlet style of the SC and fuel running through it. I'd want to run a tapered style adapter from the SC to a carb style OFFY C or Clifford vs the SC bolted to a custom open plenum manifold directly, but it may not be as bad an issue as I imagine.

It'd be better to run port injection and water/air IC below the SC like usual.
1967 F-250 Crew Cab 2wd, 300 6cyl, T-170/RTS/TOD 4-speed overdrive
240 head, Offy C, EFI exhaust manifolds, Comp 268H, mandrel 2.5-3" exhaust, Edelbrock 500, Pertronix ignitor and coil, recurved dizzy. 200whp/300wtq

User avatar
curts56
VIP Member
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 12:15 am
Location: San Jose, California

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

Post #24 by curts56 » Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:39 pm

I've always been a fan of water/methanol injection, though as FTF once pointed out "It works great. Until it doesn't". I used it on a previous turboed engine and it worked well. All the pinging/detonation stopped as soon as the pump turned on.

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

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

Post #25 by clintonvillian » Thu Aug 22, 2019 7:28 pm

I just don't want to have to rely on water/meth if I'm driving for 2000 miles non stop....

guhfluh
Registered User
Posts: 407
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 9:40 am

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

Post #26 by guhfluh » Thu Aug 22, 2019 8:17 pm

Not sure I've ever known anyone to drive 2000 miles nonstop or how much fuel that would actually take, but I understand that not everyone likes to use water/meth injection and the downsides to using it.

I like using methanol or water/meth in certain instances, but my biggest concern is always the distribution of it and the reliance on it too heavily. I've seen many instances when a cyl doesn't get enough from an intake manifold design and single nozzle or a nozzle clog in a port injected setup when the nozzle size needs to be small. That said, I still plan on using a kit I have used in the past if I ever turbo my truck and injecting either pre-turbo or in the volute while not using an intercooler. If I ever figure a decent way to fit an intercooler, I may inject it post intercooler, though in that instance only if air Temps are still too high for my comfort.

I have had success in the past using single nozzle 1000cc pure meth injection with 93 octane at the 500hp and 28psi level on my 2.4L 4cyl.
1967 F-250 Crew Cab 2wd, 300 6cyl, T-170/RTS/TOD 4-speed overdrive
240 head, Offy C, EFI exhaust manifolds, Comp 268H, mandrel 2.5-3" exhaust, Edelbrock 500, Pertronix ignitor and coil, recurved dizzy. 200whp/300wtq

User avatar
THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER
VIP Member
Posts: 6047
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 9:25 pm
Location: FRENCHTOWN

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

Post #27 by THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER » Thu Aug 22, 2019 10:13 pm

guhfluh wrote:I have had success in the past using single nozzle 1000cc pure meth injection with 93 octane at the 500hp and 28psi level on my 2.4L 4cyl.

What size nozzle and at what injection pressure?
FORD 300 INLINE SIX - THE BEST KEPT SECRET IN DRAG RACING

guhfluh
Registered User
Posts: 407
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 9:40 am

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

Post #28 by guhfluh » Fri Aug 23, 2019 8:57 am

THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER wrote:
guhfluh wrote:I have had success in the past using single nozzle 1000cc pure meth injection with 93 octane at the 500hp and 28psi level on my 2.4L 4cyl.

What size nozzle and at what injection pressure?
It is AEM's single nozzle progressive kit and large nozzle. They say it's 200psi for the pump and the nozzle is supposed to be "1000cc/min" at that 200psi.
1967 F-250 Crew Cab 2wd, 300 6cyl, T-170/RTS/TOD 4-speed overdrive
240 head, Offy C, EFI exhaust manifolds, Comp 268H, mandrel 2.5-3" exhaust, Edelbrock 500, Pertronix ignitor and coil, recurved dizzy. 200whp/300wtq

User avatar
THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER
VIP Member
Posts: 6047
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 9:25 pm
Location: FRENCHTOWN

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

Post #29 by THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER » Fri Aug 23, 2019 9:41 am

Thanks.
So it sounds like its a constant flow delivery?
FORD 300 INLINE SIX - THE BEST KEPT SECRET IN DRAG RACING

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3321
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

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

Post #30 by pmuller9 » Fri Aug 23, 2019 9:53 am

clintonvillian
I should have asked you What type of intercooler did you want to use?

guhfluh
Registered User
Posts: 407
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 9:40 am

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

Post #31 by guhfluh » Fri Aug 23, 2019 10:06 am

THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER wrote:Thanks.
So it sounds like its a constant flow delivery?

No, it's a progressively controlled, PWM pump speed output based upon user defined boost pressures and ramp rate. Mine started around 10psi and all in above 21psi, though I did try starting around 1psi and saw quicker spool and boost came on quicker at lower RPM. I rathered having it come on later and relying on it less, while saving fluid.

PWM pump speed progressive setups aren't as good as solenoid or injector style controlled at varying the injection rates, but can still work decently in my experience.
1967 F-250 Crew Cab 2wd, 300 6cyl, T-170/RTS/TOD 4-speed overdrive
240 head, Offy C, EFI exhaust manifolds, Comp 268H, mandrel 2.5-3" exhaust, Edelbrock 500, Pertronix ignitor and coil, recurved dizzy. 200whp/300wtq

User avatar
THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER
VIP Member
Posts: 6047
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 9:25 pm
Location: FRENCHTOWN

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

Post #32 by THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER » Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:04 pm

Thanks again.
I learned something today.
FORD 300 INLINE SIX - THE BEST KEPT SECRET IN DRAG RACING

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

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

Post #33 by clintonvillian » Sat Aug 24, 2019 3:35 pm

Image

Image

PMuller:

I understand what you are saying to an extent. Above is my configuration and a typical procharger configuration. I understand that with every revolution of the engine the compressor is still making pressure. Here is where I am having issues:

When the throttle blade closes, regardless of which compressor is being used, wouldn't there be vacuum created between the blade and the intake ports on the engine? The throttle is closed but the engine is still turning and gasping for air?

OR are you saying that the pressure would push pass the blade?

I guess the other question is could a vacuum line be placed after the fuel and air have been mixed and are running through the intake.

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

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

Post #34 by clintonvillian » Sat Aug 24, 2019 3:56 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThcKdqbIsd0

This is EXACTLY what I want to do.....except air to air.

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

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

Post #35 by clintonvillian » Sat Aug 24, 2019 4:01 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOWFECDUxEw

Here is more about the build, he is running a bypass and blow off valve.

User avatar
bubba22349
Global Moderator
Posts: 9087
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Flagstaff, Az. 86005 near the old Route 66

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

Post #36 by bubba22349 » Sat Aug 24, 2019 5:20 pm

:hmmm: I wonder if there is enough of a benifit in even using an inter cooler and all that extra pipping? On the stock Ford built supercharged engines that used the M90 like a 1989 to mid 90's Thunderbird Super Coupe operating at 12 PSI it didn't use one and I don't think the M112 Ford early versions did either. The super charger could then be mounted direct onto the intake manifold like the old Roots type blowers were with the Sniper on top of it in a very simple design. 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.

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

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

Post #37 by clintonvillian » Sat Aug 24, 2019 5:23 pm

bubba22349 wrote::hmmm: I wonder if there is enough of a benifit in even using an inter cooler and all that extra pipping? On the stock Ford built supercharged engines that used the M90 like a 1989 to mid 90's Thunderbird Super Coupe operating at 12 PSI it didn't use one and I don't think the M112 Ford early versions did either. The super charger could just be mounted direct onto the intake with the Sniper on top of it in a very simple design. Good luck :thumbup: :nod:



I "think" the early lightnings ran 8psi, and used an air to water Intercooler directly under the M112, hidden in the intake.

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3321
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

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

Post #38 by pmuller9 » Sat Aug 24, 2019 6:07 pm

OK, That will work. I didn't see the blow-off valve in your hand drawing.

If you use the blow-off valve and/or the bypass valve to regulate the boost pressure then the carburetor can regulate airflow the same as if there was a turbocharger or a centrifugal supercharger up front.

The water to air intercooler has less volume than the air to air intercoolers which decreases boost lag.
As always an intercooler will decrease the required fuel octane as well as condense the air for more power.

I learned something. Thanks.
I will be looking forward as your project progresses.

Mdixon300f100
Registered User
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed May 02, 2018 6:43 am

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

Post #39 by Mdixon300f100 » Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:30 am

That’s what I suggested earlier in regard to the over boost condition. with something like this it may even be a good idea to use 2 blow off valves to ensure that enough air can escape, given the volume of air in the piping and the way the supercharger functions. It would be a shame to bend the throttle plate shaft because of boost surge when the throttle closes.

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

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

Post #40 by clintonvillian » Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:24 am

Am I correct in my thinking, that when the throttle closes there will be pressure on the intake side of the throttle plate, and vacuum on the exit of the throttle plate?

I will definitely run a blow off, it's cheap insurance.

Mdixon300f100
Registered User
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed May 02, 2018 6:43 am

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

Post #41 by Mdixon300f100 » Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:45 am

clintonvillian wrote:Am I correct in my thinking, that when the throttle closes there will be pressure on the intake side of the throttle plate, and vacuum on the exit of the throttle plate?

I will definitely run a blow off, it's cheap insurance.


Yes, as Pmuller stated that blower is used after the throttle body on OEM applications. In a blow thru setup the throttle plate is downstream of the compressor, so when you let up there is going to be a lot of pressure on the throttle blades, and it will be multiplied by the vacuum in the plenum. The BOV is going to need to be able to flow a lot of air, and how you gear the blower will have an impact as well.

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

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

Post #42 by clintonvillian » Mon Sep 02, 2019 6:55 pm

Okay, NOW LETS TAKE THIS THREAD IN THE N/A DIRECTION FOR A BIT.


I spent some time measuring and mocking up the supercharger today on the left side of the motor, over the dizzy. It is going to be cumbersome to say the least. Doable, but cumbersome.

I started going back through notes from Arnie, and threads and feel that the 360 ft-lbs, and 300 HP should be doable.

PMuller, you mentioned my head was setup for the supercharger. All I would need to do is switch out the springs?

What compression ratio should I be looking at to keep this ting on pump gas? Should I go with custom pistons, or go with the KB hypers and have the tops shaved down?

I'm looking at this grind....
https://www.crower.com/camshafts/ford-2 ... 0-hdp.html

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3321
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

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

Post #43 by pmuller9 » Mon Sep 02, 2019 10:25 pm

clintonvillian wrote:I started going back through notes from Arnie, and threads and feel that the 360 ft-lbs, and 300 HP should be doable.

PMuller, you mentioned my head was setup for the supercharger. All I would need to do is switch out the springs?

What compression ratio should I be looking at to keep this ting on pump gas? Should I go with custom pistons, or go with the KB hypers and have the tops shaved down?

I'm looking at this grind....
https://www.crower.com/camshafts/ford-2 ... 0-hdp.html

The reason the head is set up for the supercharger is because of the oversized 1.710" exhaust valve which brings the exhaust port flow closer the intake port flow to help evacuate the increase exhaust volume produced by the supercharger.

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

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

The "No oil hole" 240 rods have a .912" pin and the pistons need to have a pin height (CD) of 1.20"
There aren't any KB/Sivolite pistons that even come close.
The piston on the left is for the 240 rod and the piston on the right is the size of the KB/Silvolite piston.
There is no cutting a KB piston down to fit the 240 rod.
Order a custom Autotec piston.

Image

In order to make 300 horsepower with your head the cam must have an .050" duration at least 230 degrees.
Order a Jones Cam, F300-I6, H72334, L/C 112 along with J875H lifters.
You will not find a listed cam that comes close to the needed specs.
With this cam you could run between 9.7 and 10:1 compression ratio for a N/A engine

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

Phase3
Registered User
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:34 pm
Location: Pittsburgh pa

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

Post #44 by Phase3 » Tue Sep 03, 2019 7:48 am

bubba22349 wrote::hmmm: I wonder if there is enough of a benifit in even using an inter cooler and all that extra pipping? On the stock Ford built supercharged engines that used the M90 like a 1989 to mid 90's Thunderbird Super Coupe operating at 12 PSI it didn't use one and I don't think the M112 Ford early versions did either. The super charger could then be mounted direct onto the intake manifold like the old Roots type blowers were with the Sniper on top of it in a very simple design. Good luck :thumbup: :nod:


Just for readings sake, id like to mention the video series gale banks made on youtube, killing a duramax. In this series he shows how an intercooler will add as much power as the boost creator itself or possibly even more. The heat created compressing air is very parasitic to horsepower gains! Very informative videos from gale!
https://youtu.be/iBoyW2e0ra0
1996 f150 turbo 4.9 OBD2 M5OD 4x4 12 lbs on 93
1997 f350 351w cclb

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

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

Post #45 by clintonvillian » Tue Sep 03, 2019 11:15 am

Are the 1.71 valves a hinderance then in a N/A setup, or is it just a larger valve that just won't be taken full advantage of?

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3321
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

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

Post #46 by pmuller9 » Tue Sep 03, 2019 12:42 pm

The larger exhaust valve and throat area reduces the exit velocity which can be a hinderance to scavenging but the small tube headers will compensate some.
IMO the 1 1/2" tube header is too small for a 300 six and I would prefer the 1 5/8" header for making upper rpm power.

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

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

Post #47 by clintonvillian » Sat Sep 07, 2019 9:54 pm

Pmuller, would a head for a turbo be setup the same as mine?

If so, the turbo would push the torque and HP up the room curve some correct?

And lastly which turbo should I be looking at?

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3321
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

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

Post #48 by pmuller9 » Sun Sep 08, 2019 2:26 pm

Your head can be used with a turbocharger but here is what you need to know.
The turbocharger size is determined by the engine displacement, the engine's Volumetric efficiency (VE) and the rpm range.
It has very little to do with the boost level.

Your head produces a very high VE on a 300 six that can approach 90% at 3000 to 4000 rpm with the proper cam profile for street use.
It is capable of a very street worthy 600 hp at 5500 rpm and well over 600 ft lbs of torque at 3500 rpm.

At 10 lbs of boost you can have near 500 ft lbs of torque and 400+ hp at those same points.

The proper match for your head would be a turbocharger with a 60 to 62 mm compressor inducer size.

GT3582
Borg Warner S300SX-E 83S74
Holset HX40 with a 60 mm compressor inducer

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

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

Post #49 by clintonvillian » Sun Sep 08, 2019 3:36 pm

Okay while we are at it....

What are your thoughts on a vortech/procharger style supercharger?

Of the three options this would probably be the easiest to mount and plumb.

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3321
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

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

Post #50 by pmuller9 » Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:38 pm

The centrifugal supercharger builds boost proportional to RPM.
You set up the drive ratio so you get the target boost at the highest rpm you intend to run the engine.

Let's say you drive the supercharger to get 15 lbs of boost at 5500 rpm.
It may start to produce boost at 2000 rpm and then the boost increases with rpm till it gets to 15 lbs at 5500 rpm.

At 5500 rpms and 15 lbs of boost with an intercooler at 60% the airflow will be about 750 cfm.
You want to run the supercharger at 75% to 80% of it's max rpm to keep it running in the efficiency zone.
So you are looking at a Procharger that has a max cfm rating of 900 to 1000 cfm.
That gives you a choice if a CS-1, C-1 or a C-2
Last edited by pmuller9 on Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests