Engine and Transmission Tech

Fred, Finally, your avatar matches the date! LOL

[www.camresearchcorp.com] a lot of factors to consider 1 phone call 10 min and instantly the perfect cam custom for your car ( tell him how you want it to sound )

> The statement is to vague. I have seen my share of dyno testing, one thing that I
> have learn is that it is a process,1 , 2, 3 etc. skip one and hurts everything.

Completely agree. You can make a particular part look good just by changing the
sequence in which in it was tested. My point was that an engine is a system and
all the parts need to work together in your desired RPM range.

> Some engines actually get hurt with a muffler change, some used a tune exhaust.

Yes. Different types of mufflers can appear as an extension to the header
collector length or a wave termination or wave reflection so can alter the tuning
for better or worse. A lot of people still believe the myth that an engine needs
some back-pressure but that is a myth. If a muffler with higher restriction
increases a particular engine's performance it is because it altered the wave
dynamics not because the restriction is desirable. BTW, the inexpensive PipeMax
software is very good at calculating the best exhaust parameters (header dimensions,
cross-over positions, tail pipe lengths, etc.) for an engine and also for calculating
which exhaust system lengths that should be avoided. Plus it does both tri-y and
4-into-1 header designs.

> I disagree on this one. Unless the engine tested was plugged up. then yes.
> But if you are referring to a stock Mustang or Camaro, big YES

In this specific case, it was a Pantera. The stock mufflers are quite restrictive
and showed a 50 HP loss on a 400+ HP street 351C Ford V8. There was an optional
ANSA GTS muffler available that was supposed to be less restrictive. We tested a
pair on a 525 HP street 408 cubic inch Cleveland Ford and they also lost 50 HP.
They were cut open, gutted and welded back together but still lost something like
32 HP. Put a pair of straight through Magnaflows on and got it all back. Cylinder
head testing (on the 400+ HP 351C with Magnaflow mufflers) showed a loss of 30 HP
(Chinese Pro Comp copies of the Australian CHI Cleveland heads) compared to the
stock 351C iron heads. The real CHI heads gained 20 HP at peak and better than that
below peak (were better everywhere).

> Some books have second third and fourth edition which have the same information with
> some minor updates and tell the story in a different way, end result is the same.

That's not the case for these books. While the books share similar names, the new
book is not a revised edition of either Volume 1 or Volume 2 of the earlier books.
It's entirely new.

> the flat tappet .212/.262 duration cam I have installed may be expected to post
> better HP/TQ curves than a roller lifter of similar specs, and do it with less
> valve spring pressure to boot, along with less complexity.

Yes. In most cases, I run enough duration where the roller is better. After having
suffered flat tappet cam lobe failures, I'm willing to pay more for the reliability
of a hydraulic roller when they are available.

Have you given thought to mushroom lifters? They are still flat tappets but the
much larger diameter face allows more radical lobes. Short of that, some GM
builders will enlarge the block lifter bores to take a larger diameter Ford or
even larger diameter Mopar lifters.

Dan Jones

Fred, I want a little better performance than my stock 302 will deliver, but still be reasonable reliable to take a trip. I realize I'll be sacrificing mileage but that's the price you pay to put a smile on your face. Curtis, I realize I didn't give an adequate response to your recommendation about drive it first. Dan has given me a great plan of action and parts list. I doubt the prices will be cheaper in a year or two so my plan is, baring any more health issues, to buy the parts now, finish the car this winter, drive it next summer, than do the engine and HVAC work next winter.


Paul

Located this video with praises for the Ford Racing "B" Cam. This video explains why this is The ONLY cam to consider. LMAO

[www.youtube.com]

Now I understand. I must get one to put in my Yanmar diesel 3 cylinder. It will triple the power output.

Jim

How have I missed the "B" cam for all these years now?
I feel so foolish doing all that testing and record keeping.
Must be what all those magazine rice burner 4 bangers are using to crank out a reliable 1000 hp. in a daily driver.
Cheers
Fred

Not going in my small block Chevy! ;)

But Carl... wouldn't that be good for something like 8 million horsepower? How can you pass that up?

Jim

Might be just a few too many horses. :)

I just ran across that video while reading one of my Mustang Forums. The Ford alphabet cams were great 20 years ago, but time has moved forward and they have not. Both the "B" & "E" cams along with the newer "X" cam leave a few ponies in the stable. It is odd Ford Crate Engines still have them when more efficient profiles are available. The Rectal application of the "B" cam must be AWESOME. SAFETY FASTER! SLMAO



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2014 06:53PM by kstevusa.

Quote:

The Rectal application of the "B" must be AWESOME

DO What!! Kelly, we need to get you out & in your MG, waaaay more! :) :)