Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 21, 2018, 01:07:23 am

Login with username, password and session length
Director PLEASE!!!!
Add your location information to your personal profile. Thanx!
435265 Posts in 37271 Topics by 9537 Members
Latest Member: Mgabski
Search: Advanced search
Advertiser Inquiries
+ My Community
|-+ Small Block Talk
| |-+ Other Ford Engines
| | |-+ 351c, 351M, & 400 Small Blocks
| | | |-+ What size engine works best with these heads?
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7 Go Down Print
Author Topic: What size engine works best with these heads?  (Read 112480 times)
289nate
"IL BUONO"
Global Moderator
Big Block
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11467


Location: Los Angeles

« Reply #15 on: December 05, 2014, 10:25:05 pm »

ERStettin, don't you already run 130+mph in the 1/4?  You already have bottom 10 second to 9.99 MPH.  A 9.2 Dart block is going to weigh a whole more than the aluminum 8.2 deck block you have now.  Making the power will be easy.  Getting the car to run a 9.99 is going to be tough IMHO.   It sure will be fun though! 
Logged

\'65 fastback pump gas 289, 4.56 gears, and faceplated T5.  11.123 at 122.4
CDW6212R
Big Block
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2466


Location: Knoxville, TN.

« Reply #16 on: December 05, 2014, 10:33:37 pm »

Once again you're wrong.
I ran 9.80 with a SBC in 1988, N/A and no adder.
The above is called "getting under 10s..."

You build this 427ci ford with a hydraulic roller and I'll keep watching for this 9 second run out the back UNDER 7000rpm, gas station gas, and no adder at 3300# or more.
This will be very impressive to me...   even if it's simple.




I'm with you Dana on the 9.7 or less being more a 9 second level. I'm a math guy, and there are a lot of things in racing nomenclature that make no sense(racing guys say something 50-75 years ago and it becomes a saying, and sticks(even though it's technically wrong)).

To me, a time referencing only to the nearest second should mean within 1/2 second of that figure. A 9 second car to me should mean a range of 8.5 to 9.49 seconds. That's my logic rant, I'll drop it there.

I'm watching this thread just to learn what I can about the CHI heads and what others know of them, what engine levels they are best for etc. I'm still planning to build a .060 over 302 block with the CHI 3V small heads, the 185 or 205's. Those I think are the only Cleveland heads that can have Windsor front dress used on them. One end of each of those heads has Windsor bracket bolt patterns. So I'm working at finding the best compression and rpm range for those heads on a 302(stroked to 351).

Go for it, keep the ideas coming guys.
Logged

Don

1991 Mark VII LSC Special Edition, soon to be OBDII and 4R70W, then GTC body kit and 347.
1998 Mountaineer, plans for A4WD and KB 2200 blower later, XP8 parts, paint and a 332.
1973 Ranchero and 72 Sport front end ...will be a 351 Clevor, EFI and 4R70W.
ERStettin
6 Banger
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55

Location: Afghanistan

« Reply #17 on: December 06, 2014, 01:54:56 am »

Why the 7000 rpm cap? Even without lightweight components, 7500-8000 is fairly easy. Throw in a 1.3" spring package and decent lifters, and 8000+ becomes commonplace. It just takes properly selected components.

I was just putting that in for the hydraulic roller setup.  If I can spin it past that safely with the hydraulic roller, I will.
Logged
ERStettin
6 Banger
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55

Location: Afghanistan

« Reply #18 on: December 06, 2014, 01:58:55 am »

Anything from 400-454 c.i.d will work.

Thanks Bill.  Some on other sites seem to be concerned with the airflow velocity on larger setups and say I should run the 242 runners instead.  They are 2.6 cross section where the 220 is 2.5, what do you think?

Again, that 454 on www.cnc-motorsports.com is running the 220 heads and pushing over 715 hp.  I was guessing it would work but probably not optimal.

Thanks for your help.

Ed
Logged
ERStettin
6 Banger
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55

Location: Afghanistan

« Reply #19 on: December 06, 2014, 02:03:41 am »

  The only hard part I will have is getting it to hook.
Yeah, I agree.
I assume more money will be spent on a transmission and a grenade proof rearend and a lot of weight loss.

I will run the same setup I used on my 363 setup.  Pro Motion TKO or maybe step up to a T-56, 33 spline axles; right now I have a locker in the back but might opt for a spool for less weight, braced 8.8 housing and my standard Global West suspension package, (Subframes, lowers, trac link, springs, Strange adjustable shocks).

Running an aluminum block and after market K member along with my normal weight reductions prior to going to the track, should put me in the 3170lb range.  I did 10's with weighing 3317lbs with the 363 so I am not too concerned with the weight at this point and a big stroker.  Getting it to hook will be my biggest challenge.
Logged
ERStettin
6 Banger
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55

Location: Afghanistan

« Reply #20 on: December 06, 2014, 02:07:29 am »

Once again you're wrong.
I ran 9.80 with a SBC in 1988, N/A and no adder.
The above is called "getting under 10s..."

You build this 427ci ford with a hydraulic roller and I'll keep watching for this 9 second run out the back UNDER 7000rpm, gas station gas, and no adder at 3300# or more.
This will be very impressive to me...   even if it's simple.

Today, that is easy with the SBF stuff, just raise the compression, run a solid roller and you can do it with a 363 and race gas....lol.  It is harder doing it the way I am doing it for all the reasons discussed, BUT it is streetable and I will be driving it to the store, kids hockey games, cruise nights, gym, etc..  Back in 88 there was not a big aftermarket for the SBF stuff.  It was just getting started.  I wold say our aftermarket is almost as big as Chevys now for the SBF stuff.
Logged
ERStettin
6 Banger
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55

Location: Afghanistan

« Reply #21 on: December 06, 2014, 02:11:23 am »

ERStettin, don't you already run 130+mph in the 1/4?  You already have bottom 10 second to 9.99 MPH.  A 9.2 Dart block is going to weigh a whole more than the aluminum 8.2 deck block you have now.  Making the power will be easy.  Getting the car to run a 9.99 is going to be tough IMHO.   It sure will be fun though! 

I recently sold this car back to the original owner and am building an 89 notch now.  I had a Dart Iron Eagle in it, never owned an aluminum block.  I will have an aluminum block in this new car though and more for the weight savings than anything else.  I am surprised you feel it will be hard to run 9's with this new setup.  I am looking forward to proving this.  Thanks for the reply bud.
Logged
ERStettin
6 Banger
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55

Location: Afghanistan

« Reply #22 on: December 06, 2014, 02:14:34 am »

Once again you're wrong.
I ran 9.80 with a SBC in 1988, N/A and no adder.
The above is called "getting under 10s..."

You build this 427ci ford with a hydraulic roller and I'll keep watching for this 9 second run out the back UNDER 7000rpm, gas station gas, and no adder at 3300# or more.
This will be very impressive to me...   even if it's simple.

I'm with you Dana on the 9.7 or less being more a 9 second level. I'm a math guy, and there are a lot of things in racing nomenclature that make no sense(racing guys say something 50-75 years ago and it becomes a saying, and sticks(even though it's technically wrong)).

To me, a time referencing only to the nearest second should mean within 1/2 second of that figure. A 9 second car to me should mean a range of 8.5 to 9.49 seconds. That's my logic rant, I'll drop it there.

I'm watching this thread just to learn what I can about the CHI heads and what others know of them, what engine levels they are best for etc. I'm still planning to build a .060 over 302 block with the CHI 3V small heads, the 185 or 205's. Those I think are the only Cleveland heads that can have Windsor front dress used on them. One end of each of those heads has Windsor bracket bolt patterns. So I'm working at finding the best compression and rpm range for those heads on a 302(stroked to 351).

Go for it, keep the ideas coming guys.


So those are the only CHI heads that have the Windsor bracket bolt patterns?  Do you know if CHI make the bigger heads with those options?  Might have to opt for the Kaase P38's with this build if that is the case.
Logged
289nate
"IL BUONO"
Global Moderator
Big Block
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11467


Location: Los Angeles

« Reply #23 on: December 06, 2014, 10:36:38 am »

ERStettin, don't you already run 130+mph in the 1/4?  You already have bottom 10 second to 9.99 MPH.  A 9.2 Dart block is going to weigh a whole more than the aluminum 8.2 deck block you have now.  Making the power will be easy.  Getting the car to run a 9.99 is going to be tough IMHO.   It sure will be fun though!  

I recently sold this car back to the original owner and am building an 89 notch now.  I had a Dart Iron Eagle in it, never owned an aluminum block.  I will have an aluminum block in this new car though and more for the weight savings than anything else.  I am surprised you feel it will be hard to run 9's with this new setup.  I am looking forward to proving this.  Thanks for the reply bud.

That is good to know.  I have read some of your posts on HC50 and couldn't remember your exact time or if you were running an aluminum block or are going to be running one.  Thanks for the clarification.

Your old 360 combo ran 10.74 at 127.68.  By the ET and MPH I was thinking the car would need a lot of mph (more power) to get a 9.99.  Sounds like the new combo will be lighter and more efficient.  Good luck and keep us informed of how this build comes along.  It's definitely cool!

I would let the cam guy tell me what each cylinder head will do if you are going to use Ed Curtis for the cam. There aren't going to be many around with his experience, data base, familiarity with his programs, and familiarity with what lobes he uses .  Go with what Ed would like to see on the combo and rest assured it will be right if you are going to use him for the cam.
Logged

\'65 fastback pump gas 289, 4.56 gears, and faceplated T5.  11.123 at 122.4
347HO
A-1 Super Genious / Director of Maintenance
Section Moderator
Big Block
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12850


Location: Seattle, Washington
I believe they landed on the moon.


« Reply #24 on: December 06, 2014, 12:09:22 pm »

Why the 7000 rpm cap? Even without lightweight components, 7500-8000 is fairly easy. Throw in a 1.3" spring package and decent lifters, and 8000+ becomes commonplace. It just takes properly selected components.

I was just putting that in for the hydraulic roller setup.  If I can spin it past that safely with the hydraulic roller, I will.
So the exercise is to run under 10 using a hydraulic roller, everything else is "untied"?

IMO, you'll probably end up shimming your lifters and having a lobe profile ground as such.  At least you can still say it's a "hyd lifter" setup.

Up till now, I thought this was going to be the ol' run 9 seconds with a hyd roller, shifting under 7000rpm, on Chevron, no adder,  in a heavy car Thread...   hence my cynicism.

Running 9 seconds is a big deal no matter what, and I wish you well on the project.
Logged




... it was REALLY revving at like 4K...
If I saw that thing in my rear view Im pulling over to let you by, I be scared of that thing Huh? i dont know wich car is uglier ur or mine?
Javier
Ugly?  Easy now -- that's my baby and it's got lots of unique character!  When I drop that built 445" stroker in it you won't have any time to "pull over to let me pass" because I'll have already blown past you when you figure out what the hell was that loud noise behind you . . .  
ERStettin
6 Banger
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55

Location: Afghanistan

« Reply #25 on: December 06, 2014, 02:46:48 pm »

ERStettin, don't you already run 130+mph in the 1/4?  You already have bottom 10 second to 9.99 MPH.  A 9.2 Dart block is going to weigh a whole more than the aluminum 8.2 deck block you have now.  Making the power will be easy.  Getting the car to run a 9.99 is going to be tough IMHO.   It sure will be fun though!  

I recently sold this car back to the original owner and am building an 89 notch now.  I had a Dart Iron Eagle in it, never owned an aluminum block.  I will have an aluminum block in this new car though and more for the weight savings than anything else.  I am surprised you feel it will be hard to run 9's with this new setup.  I am looking forward to proving this.  Thanks for the reply bud.

That is good to know.  I have read some of your posts on HC50 and couldn't remember your exact time or if you were running an aluminum block or are going to be running one.  Thanks for the clarification.

Your old 360 combo ran 10.74 at 127.68.  By the ET and MPH I was thinking the car would need a lot of mph (more power) to get a 9.99.  Sounds like the new combo will be lighter and more efficient.  Good luck and keep us informed of how this build comes along.  It's definitely cool!

I would let the cam guy tell me what each cylinder head will do if you are going to use Ed Curtis for the cam. There aren't going to be many around with his experience, data base, familiarity with his programs, and familiarity with what lobes he uses .  Go with what Ed would like to see on the combo and rest assured it will be right if you are going to use him for the cam.


Yepper, I ran those numbers 10 years ago as well.  Going 9's with 80 more cubic inches will be a given.  If I can get the car to hook, it will be well in the 9's.

I have used Ed Curtis for my last three combinations and always let him plan out the induction piece. They have always been hydraulic roller setups with inline heads as well and always made more power than I asked for.  He is VERY good at what he does and that is why I keep going back to him.  I am really just asking these questions for my own knowledge and to get a better understanding of the whole head flow thing.....lol.
Logged
ERStettin
6 Banger
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55

Location: Afghanistan

« Reply #26 on: December 06, 2014, 02:52:03 pm »

Why the 7000 rpm cap? Even without lightweight components, 7500-8000 is fairly easy. Throw in a 1.3" spring package and decent lifters, and 8000+ becomes commonplace. It just takes properly selected components.

I was just putting that in for the hydraulic roller setup.  If I can spin it past that safely with the hydraulic roller, I will.
So the exercise is to run under 10 using a hydraulic roller, everything else is "untied"?

IMO, you'll probably end up shimming your lifters and having a lobe profile ground as such.  At least you can still say it's a "hyd lifter" setup.

Up till now, I thought this was going to be the ol' run 9 seconds with a hyd roller, shifting under 7000rpm, on Chevron, no adder,  in a heavy car Thread...   hence my cynicism.

Running 9 seconds is a big deal no matter what, and I wish you well on the project.

You definitely need to get to the track more.  I am wondering what you are going to say when I do it.....lol.
Logged
CDW6212R
Big Block
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2466


Location: Knoxville, TN.

« Reply #27 on: December 06, 2014, 04:05:47 pm »


...


I'm still planning to build a .060 over 302 block with the CHI 3V small heads, the 185 or 208's. Those I think are the only Cleveland heads that can have Windsor front dress used on them.

...


So those are the only CHI heads that have the Windsor bracket bolt patterns?  Do you know if CHI make the bigger heads with those options?  Might have to opt for the Kaase P38's with this build if that is the case.

The 3V 185 heads are the only version I found that mentioned having the Windsor bracket bolt patterns. I hope to find out that other versions can be ordered with them. The 208cc head is the next step up so that's the one I'm debating on, the intake ports are higher than other heads(another unique intake they sell), and you can choose to have the exhaust ports higher than normal.
Logged

Don

1991 Mark VII LSC Special Edition, soon to be OBDII and 4R70W, then GTC body kit and 347.
1998 Mountaineer, plans for A4WD and KB 2200 blower later, XP8 parts, paint and a 332.
1973 Ranchero and 72 Sport front end ...will be a 351 Clevor, EFI and 4R70W.
Outlaw Bill
Adv_SBFTechie
Big Block
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4760


Location: Canton, Michigan

« Reply #28 on: December 06, 2014, 04:53:46 pm »

All that's needed is 625 hp, and 427 to 440 c.i.d will get it done.
Logged

www.TeamZmotorsports.net

TeamZmotorsports 25.2 outlaw drag radial stock suspension 1991 Mustang
Thank You to the following for their help
TeamZmotorsports
Marcella Manifolds
Schoneck Composite
Ultimate Converter Concepts


"Stupid is as stupid does", "You can't fix stupid"
"Common sense is not common"
289nate
"IL BUONO"
Global Moderator
Big Block
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11467


Location: Los Angeles

« Reply #29 on: December 06, 2014, 04:57:32 pm »

You definitely need to get to the track more.  I am wondering what you are going to say when I do it.....lol.

Dana knows what he's talking about.  You make it sound like a 9.99 or quicker slip will just fall in your lap the first time you put it into first gear and let the clutch out.  You will have to work at it especially with a face plated TKO or 6 speed.  We will all be happy for you if you nail it on your first pass though. 
Logged

\'65 fastback pump gas 289, 4.56 gears, and faceplated T5.  11.123 at 122.4
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines



408 Stroker