Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 12, 2018, 04:10:11 pm

Login with username, password and session length
Team Z Motorsports
Tech Section
* SBFTECH Membership Required *
435276 Posts in 37274 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 ... 4 5 [6] 7 Go Down Print
Author Topic: What size engine works best with these heads?  (Read 114677 times)
ERStettin
6 Banger
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55

Location: Afghanistan

« Reply #75 on: December 23, 2014, 01:04:03 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.

Just an FYI on this.  I spoke with CHI and you can get their bigger heads with the Windsor front dress used on them as well. 
Logged
CDW6212R
Big Block
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2466


Location: Knoxville, TN.

« Reply #76 on: December 23, 2014, 01:45:35 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.

Just an FYI on this.  I spoke with CHI and you can get their bigger heads with the Windsor front dress used on them as well. 

Excellent, thanks. The 208cc head is the one I'll select if they cannot talk me out of it.
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 #77 on: December 24, 2014, 03:17:40 am »


Quote
Excellent, thanks. The 208cc head is the one I'll select if they cannot talk me out of it.

Who is 'they' and what do 'they' want you to run?
Logged
CDW6212R
Big Block
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2466


Location: Knoxville, TN.

« Reply #78 on: December 24, 2014, 07:15:43 pm »


Quote
Excellent, thanks. The 208cc head is the one I'll select if they cannot talk me out of it.

Who is 'they' and what do 'they' want you to run?

I do plan to discuss the heads with the source. Given their advertising they look to suggest the smallest 185cc head for a small displacement like 351 and the 6500rpm I have in mind. I've learned here that the larger heads can usually be made to work better than the smaller popular choices. So I lean to a larger size than what advertising usually suggests.

I want this 302 based 351(3.4" and .060 over) to be completely all weather street friendly, EFI and a wide power band from off idle to near 6500rpm. I think that's a good limit for a truck without the traction of a dedicated set up for straight line suspension etc. I would prefer the power to trail off before the shifts rather than a higher peak which makes you want to run it out faster to each shift.

People have been doing very well with huge Cleveland(stock 250cc) heads in all kinds of street vehicles, so it's hard to take that a 185cc can so easily do much better with so little size.
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 #79 on: December 25, 2014, 12:59:07 am »

I hear you.

I have talked to many racers and they all say torque wins races, not horsepower.  I see it at the track as well.  Guys with low trap speeds but even lower ET's and you know it is an all torque setup.  Then you have the guys with the big trap speeds and slower ET's and you know they are big on the horsepower.  I guess it depends on what you want.  I would think you would want more torque in a heavy vehicle than horsepower.  Trap speeds no longer impress me.

I would think those 185 heads would work great for your combination.  CHI put a set of the 208's (not too much bigger than the 185's) on a 427 and made 600 hp and 600 ft lbs of torque and all below 6500 rpm on pump gas. 
Logged
juiced coupe
Six figures worth of don't give a f*ck
Global Moderator
Big Block
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8394


Location: Pascagoula, MS
The land mass between New Orleans and Mobile


« Reply #80 on: December 25, 2014, 01:14:03 am »

I see it at the track as well.  Guys with low trap speeds but even lower ET's and you know it is an all torque setup.

Thats normally a indication of a balanced combination, a well setup car, and good driving. Most cars don't fall into that category, and tend to need more power to run out the back end.
Logged

Doing more with less, or something like that.
http://sbftech.com/index.php/topic,20009.0.html

Quote from: Monte Smith
Bottom line, if it was the hot ticket, the fast guys would do it.............they don't

You might need some Titanium rods and a flow bench!  LMAO on floor

I honestly don't get it.

I'm sweating, my heart is racing, my clutch foot is twichin', and my right arm punched the computer screen doing an involentary 2-3 shift while reading all that. 
Joel5.0
El Hombre
Administrator
Big Block
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 22510


Location: Puerto Rico
Miracles?.... by appointment only!


« Reply #81 on: December 25, 2014, 06:26:49 am »

I see it at the track as well.  Guys with low trap speeds but even lower ET's and you know it is an all torque setup.

Thats normally a indication of a balanced combination, a well setup car, and good driving. Most cars don't fall into that category, and tend to need more power to run out the back end.
What He Said...... keep in mind that a 400 lbs-ft setup @4500 RPM has a 343 HP rating whereas, a 400 lbs-ft setup @5800 RPM has a 442 HP rating. It's how you setup the whole thing (either one) to perform at the track what matters.
Logged

ACRONYMS:
LUK  LMK  JIC  BTSTDTRT  YCYDYP  NFI-YTM  SPOBI, and the classic... DILLIGAS

'86 Mustang GT, X-303 cam, Holley DP 700, RG Tran., 289 Heads   Ford Smilie 2


Quote from: Joel5.0
The right to be stupid is inalienable for sure however, there is no such thing as a right to impose stupidity onto others
Great Thoughts will Overwhelm a Feeble Mind
There is never money to do it right, but there's always money to do it over.
Knowledge based on external evidence is unreliable.
He, who doesn't ask, does not deserve an answer.
A mind is like a parachute it only works when it is open.  (oldmanjoe)
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein)
Tuning on a Dyno for the track, is like swim practice in a bathtub.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you. (90lxcoupe)
The proof of understanding is the ability to explain it. (H. Torruella)
Ignorance is bliss, but stupidity is orgasmic.
Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it. (Samuel Johnson)
The chaotic resistance of the opponents leads to the conclusion that they are not prepared to meet the challenge. The problem is already much more psychological then technological. [Bojidar Djordjev]
Individuals are rational and humane... Crowds are reactionary and barbaric. (Jason)
The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it. –Chinese Proverb
Nothing sways the stupid more than arguments they can't understand - Cardinal de Retz
69 Merc
The Ricer King
Adv_SBFTechie
Big Block
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13801


Location: OC, CA

« Reply #82 on: December 25, 2014, 08:47:11 am »

I hear you.

I have talked to many racers and they all say torque wins races, not horsepower.  I see it at the track as well.  Guys with low trap speeds but even lower ET's and you know it is an all torque setup.  Then you have the guys with the big trap speeds and slower ET's and you know they are big on the horsepower.  I guess it depends on what you want.  I would think you would want more torque in a heavy vehicle than horsepower.


 Trap speeds no longer impress me.


That is like saying I am not concerned about muzzle velocity -- I just care about the size of the bullet for it's stopping power.

Trap speeds give you an understanding of how powerful your engine and transmission are working together.  High MPH and a not so good ET lets you know that you need transmission, suspension and/or driver tuning.

"I have talked to many racers and they all say torque wins races, not horsepower" lets me know that those "many racers" do not understand the principles about torque and horsepower.    I have talked with and seen racers who do not even work on their own ride.

The engine outputs a measurable force we call "torque".  At what RPM that torque is measured is turned into work versus time as "horsepower" in a mathematical formula.


I can unquestionably tell you that great low-end torque is perfect for a tow truck or a train and that awesome mid and upper RPM torque is going to win you the race if your driver is experienced and his ride is set-up for that particular race.

 Wink
Logged

Robert's 1969 Mercury Montego (FordStrokers 408W, QFT 850cfm RQ-AN, Super Victor, 1" aluminum open spacer, CamMotion HR .624"/.609" 251*/256* 108* LSA, 1-3/4"x3-1/2" headers, Dynomax Ultra #17224 mufflers, C6/4R100 trans, 8"/9" 5500 converter, Broader Performance manual V/B, 9" 4.56 Detroit Truetrac, Hoosier Pro Street 31x12.5R15 on 10" rims)

The Merc started here = http://sbftech.com/index.php/topic,27178.0.html  Now = http://sbftech.com/index.php/topic,34648.0.html

Thanks to Jim "Woody" and Nicole Woods @ FordStrokers 408W, Westminster Performance Transmission (W.P.T.) transmissions, TCS Performance converters, Broader Performance valvebodies and last but not least a BIG thanks (always) to my friends here and abroad in the World!
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 #83 on: December 25, 2014, 11:47:58 am »

It all depends to acceleration.

A well set up setup uses the torque multiplier and traction to utilize
The engines power in almost all gas engine applications.
The reliance on rpm is critical for quick acceleration.

In my experiments, I have successfully produced 1000 ft lbs of torque
and gone no measurable distance.
Under the same experiment, the addition of horsepower resulted in
A measurable distance covered.

Thus...

IMO, the engine with quicker acceleration will cover a said distance in less time
than its reciprocal if all things being the same.
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 . . .  
CDW6212R
Big Block
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2466


Location: Knoxville, TN.

« Reply #84 on: December 25, 2014, 09:28:05 pm »

It all depends to acceleration.

A well set up setup uses the torque multiplier and traction to utilize
The engines power in almost all gas engine applications.
The reliance on rpm is critical for quick acceleration.

In my experiments, I have successfully produced 1000 ft lbs of torque
and gone no measurable distance.
Under the same experiment, the addition of horsepower resulted in
A measurable distance covered.

Thus...

IMO, the engine with quicker acceleration will cover a said distance in less time
than its reciprocal if all things being the same.

That's the biggest key that's hardly mentioned, except on a forum like this. Light weight 347's will eat a 351 easily given similar heads and induction, due the lighter assembly. On a dyno they might be tough to tell apart, but at the track it's a whole different thing.

I want the quickest rpm acceleration, with the largest possible power area under the curve(in the RPM range where the engine runs at WOT).
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.
juiced coupe
Six figures worth of don't give a f*ck
Global Moderator
Big Block
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8394


Location: Pascagoula, MS
The land mass between New Orleans and Mobile


« Reply #85 on: December 25, 2014, 10:01:42 pm »

That's the biggest key that's hardly mentioned, except on a forum like this. Light weight 347's will eat a 351 easily given similar heads and induction, due the lighter assembly. On a dyno they might be tough to tell apart, but at the track it's a whole different thing.

While I don't disagree with you, I think people exaggerate the 347's superiority. Comparing a custom built 347 to a production type 351 is far from equal playing fields. If both were built with the same attention to detail and judgment of component selection, I believe the outcome would be much closer. And the 351 is much stronger, and can ultimately be pushed harder.
Logged

Doing more with less, or something like that.
http://sbftech.com/index.php/topic,20009.0.html

Quote from: Monte Smith
Bottom line, if it was the hot ticket, the fast guys would do it.............they don't

You might need some Titanium rods and a flow bench!  LMAO on floor

I honestly don't get it.

I'm sweating, my heart is racing, my clutch foot is twichin', and my right arm punched the computer screen doing an involentary 2-3 shift while reading all that. 
289nate
"IL BUONO"
Global Moderator
Big Block
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11467


Location: Los Angeles

« Reply #86 on: December 26, 2014, 12:41:51 am »

I hear you.

I have talked to many racers and they all say torque wins races, not horsepower.  I see it at the track as well.  Guys with low trap speeds but even lower ET's and you know it is an all torque setup.  Then you have the guys with the big trap speeds and slower ET's and you know they are big on the horsepower.  I guess it depends on what you want.  I would think you would want more torque in a heavy vehicle than horsepower.  Trap speeds no longer impress me.

Engine torque does not win races.  Anyone who says so doesn't know what they're talking about.  It should be said that torque at the tire wins races.  Torque at the tire takes into account the gearing.  Some people get so caught up in low rpm torque that they forget a higher rpm range allows them to run more gear which is an immediate increase in torque at the tire from idle up.

Also, to dismiss horsepower would be equal to dismissing torque on a dyno sheet since torque is measured and horsepower is calculated. 

There are plenty of mega torque turbo cars that run insane mph but do not ET for crap.  There are plenty of combos that run great ET's for the mph that are not high torque combos.  The relationship between ET and MPH is not an indication of engine torque.
Logged

\'65 fastback pump gas 289, 4.56 gears, and faceplated T5.  11.123 at 122.4
ERStettin
6 Banger
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55

Location: Afghanistan

« Reply #87 on: December 26, 2014, 02:25:52 am »

Enzo Ferrari - "Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races."  Carrol Shelby was supposedly quoted saying it as well. 
Logged
ERStettin
6 Banger
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55

Location: Afghanistan

« Reply #88 on: December 26, 2014, 03:19:13 am »

I hear you.

I have talked to many racers and they all say torque wins races, not horsepower.  I see it at the track as well.  Guys with low trap speeds but even lower ET's and you know it is an all torque setup.  Then you have the guys with the big trap speeds and slower ET's and you know they are big on the horsepower.  I guess it depends on what you want.  I would think you would want more torque in a heavy vehicle than horsepower.


 Trap speeds no longer impress me.


That is like saying I am not concerned about muzzle velocity -- I just care about the size of the bullet for it's stopping power.

Trap speeds give you an understanding of how powerful your engine and transmission are working together.  High MPH and a not so good ET lets you know that you need transmission, suspension and/or driver tuning.

"I have talked to many racers and they all say torque wins races, not horsepower" lets me know that those "many racers" do not understand the principles about torque and horsepower.    I have talked with and seen racers who do not even work on their own ride.

The engine outputs a measurable force we call "torque".  At what RPM that torque is measured is turned into work versus time as "horsepower" in a mathematical formula.


I can unquestionably tell you that great low-end torque is perfect for a tow truck or a train and that awesome mid and upper RPM torque is going to win you the race if your driver is experienced and his ride is set-up for that particular race.

 Wink

LOL, so you are saying, with that analogy, a .45 with less than 1000 fps will not stop a guy as quickly as a .9mm with 1300 fps or more?  Ok.....lol.
Logged
juiced coupe
Six figures worth of don't give a f*ck
Global Moderator
Big Block
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8394


Location: Pascagoula, MS
The land mass between New Orleans and Mobile


« Reply #89 on: December 26, 2014, 04:47:49 am »

LOL, so you are saying, with that analogy, a .45 with less than 1000 fps will not stop a guy as quickly as a .9mm with 1300 fps or more?  Ok.....lol.

No, but if you shoot each slug with a sling shot, it would just really hurt.

And BTW, I didn't agree with his analogy either. Energy and acceleration are not the same.
Logged

Doing more with less, or something like that.
http://sbftech.com/index.php/topic,20009.0.html

Quote from: Monte Smith
Bottom line, if it was the hot ticket, the fast guys would do it.............they don't

You might need some Titanium rods and a flow bench!  LMAO on floor

I honestly don't get it.

I'm sweating, my heart is racing, my clutch foot is twichin', and my right arm punched the computer screen doing an involentary 2-3 shift while reading all that. 
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 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