- -
UserInfo

Welcome Anonymous




Membership:
Latest: autoloverzz
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 914

People Online:
Members: 1
Visitors: 0
Bots: 6
Total: 7
Who Is Where:
Members:
 Bots:
01. Photo Gallery
02. CPGNuCalendar
03. CPGNuCalendar
04. Forums
05. Forums
06. Forums
Hidden: 1
Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
We have received
36039757
page views since
July 27, 2010

Hits New Today: 3364
Hits New Yesterday: 31000

Server Time
25 April 2018 02:37:24 AEST (GMT +10)
Mustang Technical Discussion > Mustang Projects > New Heart for Scarlet > Community Forums > Mustang Forum Australia - Mustang Tech

New PostsLast 24hrsUnanswered
Forum Index > Mustang Projects

New Heart for Scarlet Reply to topic

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Author Message
boofhead
Mustang King

Offline
Joined: Nov 02, 2010
Posts: 4505
Location: Brisbane

0 👍 / 0 👎


If anyone wanted to try out a big head small cam build for the exercise try a 5.0 HO Block standard including the camshaft and install a TFS225 High port heads with big intake and big exhaust primaries and see how it goes. Might surprise you.


I will someday think of something clever to say.

View user's profile
Dwayne
Senior Mustang

Offline
Joined: Jun 01, 2016
Posts: 289
Location: Radelaide

0 👍 / 0 👎


boofhead wrote
If anyone wanted to try out a big head small cam build for the exercise try a 5.0 HO Block standard including the camshaft and install a TFS225 High port heads with big intake and big exhaust primaries and see how it goes. Might surprise you.


I'm selling all my bottom end bits cheap if anyone wants to give it a go.
https://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/stonyfell/engine-engine-parts-transmission/ford-5-0-motor-parts/1168480122


Last edited by Dwayne on Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:00 am; edited 1 time in total

View user's profile
boofhead
Mustang King

Offline
Joined: Nov 02, 2010
Posts: 4505
Location: Brisbane

0 👍 / 0 👎


While waiting for the next post here is a video to discuss



I will someday think of something clever to say.

View user's profile
ozbilt
Site Admin

Offline
Joined: Jul 27, 2010
Posts: 10416
Location: Now at the Duggo Ranch

0 👍 / 0 👎


Just finished helping G with his meth addiction ...... sorry, meant meth addition ..... Embarrassed

Sorry again, it was a unit to help him suck ......... sorry, I meant help his E car suck ........ I am not doing well here, I think I better sleep some


Kerry

"Thank you Boofhead for the wonderful memories"

Last edited by ozbilt on Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:12 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user's profile
Shaunp
Mustang King

Offline
Joined: Jul 29, 2010
Posts: 4163
Location: Brisbane Bayside

0 👍 / 0 👎


boofhead wrote
While waiting for the next post here is a video to discuss



My thinking is the cam was too small and the engine was too big to prove the theory entirely. With a bigger cam to allow more rpm I think the outcome would have been different, like wise if they had a smaller engine like a 302. Non the less the 165cc head surprised me, but I guess it shows an inherently good port and chamber design. In real terms if you look at the flow numbers on AFR's the 195s, the larger heads only exceed it beyond about 650 lift from memory and the 195 out flow most of the range at lower lift numbers.
I would like to see the same test with different cams on a small engine as well.


Last edited by Shaunp on Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:02 am; edited 1 time in total

View user's profile
nassi
Mustang King

Offline
Joined: Aug 01, 2010
Posts: 6493
Location: Perth

0 👍 / 0 👎


ozbilt wrote
Just finished helping G with his meth addiction ...... sorry, meant meth addition ..... Embarrassed

Sorry again, it was a unit to help him suck ......... sorry, I meant help his E car suck ........ I am not doing well here, I think I better sleep some


I understand that perfectly, E cars suck. Only problem is I thought Harlet sorry Scarlet was SC and therefore should blow, not suck.
Ohh, I think I see your problem.....


View user's profilePhoto Gallery
boofhead
Mustang King

Offline
Joined: Nov 02, 2010
Posts: 4505
Location: Brisbane

0 👍 / 0 👎


Shaunp wrote
boofhead wrote
While waiting for the next post here is a video to discuss



My thinking is the cam was too small and the engine was too big to prove the theory entirely. With a bigger cam to allow more rpm I think the outcome would have been different, like wise if they had a smaller engine like a 302. Non the less the 165cc head surprised me, but I guess it shows an inherently good port and chamber design. In real terms if you look at the flow numbers on AFR's the 195s, the larger heads only exceed it beyond about 650 lift from memory and the 195 out flow most of the range at lower lift numbers.
I would like to see the same test with different cams on a small engine as well.


Yes - the AFR165 did show how good the port design has become. it still flowed well beyond normal air speed hence the port design is quiet when it passes sonic chock. There is little more they could do to improve the port design. AFR and TFS are the only companies doing this level of development. if this was tried with an edelbrock 170 I would wager a very different result for worse The AFR195 has better low lift flow so improvement shown while the AFR220 was the right head it was chock on intake by to small ports on thr airgap as well exhaust restriction from the headers. Side note since the exhaust valve was smaller as well as header miss size and alighnment it was a problem. Also, the larger flow differences are at higher lift points then their cam was providing.

When building with a larger head the cam choice is more critical as it is less for giving.


I will someday think of something clever to say.

Last edited by boofhead on Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:45 am; edited 1 time in total

View user's profile
hybrid
Mustang King

Offline
Joined: Jul 27, 2010
Posts: 8637

0 👍 / 0 👎


I did find it a bit weird that they sacrificed exhaust port valve size to go bigger with the intake valve.
I guess they have done their testing/research, but it just seemed a little strange to me.


View user's profilePhoto Gallery
boofhead
Mustang King

Offline
Joined: Nov 02, 2010
Posts: 4505
Location: Brisbane

0 👍 / 0 👎


hybrid wrote
I did find it a bit weird that they sacrificed exhaust port valve size to go bigger with the intake valve.
I guess they have done their testing/research, but it just seemed a little strange to me.


Well they are limited to a 4 inch bore so you go down in exhaust valve size and use a longer exhaust duration in the camshaft spek to make up for it.


I will someday think of something clever to say.

View user's profile
Shaunp
Mustang King

Offline
Joined: Jul 29, 2010
Posts: 4163
Location: Brisbane Bayside

0 👍 / 0 👎


boofhead wrote
hybrid wrote
I did find it a bit weird that they sacrificed exhaust port valve size to go bigger with the intake valve.
I guess they have done their testing/research, but it just seemed a little strange to me.


Well they are limited to a 4 inch bore so you go down in exhaust valve size and use a longer exhaust duration in the camshaft spek to make up for it.


With the growth now of 4-1/8 and above cylinders , I wouldn't be surprised if they revise their Ex valve sizing i the future. the other option would be to Notch the top of the bores Ive done that on Holden Red motors, and MGB's as well to give valve clearance.


View user's profile
hybrid
Mustang King

Offline
Joined: Jul 27, 2010
Posts: 8637

0 👍 / 0 👎


boofhead wrote
hybrid wrote
I did find it a bit weird that they sacrificed exhaust port valve size to go bigger with the intake valve.
I guess they have done their testing/research, but it just seemed a little strange to me.


Well they are limited to a 4 inch bore so you go down in exhaust valve size and use a longer exhaust duration in the camshaft spek to make up for it.


Yeah, but many cams already go longer in the exhaust duration to make up for the supposed lack of exhaust flow in the SBF even with the regular sized valves.
But maybe the newer heads don't have the same exhaust flow issues, so it's not a consideration.


View user's profilePhoto Gallery
boofhead
Mustang King

Offline
Joined: Nov 02, 2010
Posts: 4505
Location: Brisbane

0 👍 / 0 👎


hybrid wrote
boofhead wrote
hybrid wrote
I did find it a bit weird that they sacrificed exhaust port valve size to go bigger with the intake valve.
I guess they have done their testing/research, but it just seemed a little strange to me.


Well they are limited to a 4 inch bore so you go down in exhaust valve size and use a longer exhaust duration in the camshaft spek to make up for it.


Yeah, but many cams already go longer in the exhaust duration to make up for the supposed lack of exhaust flow in the SBF even with the regular sized valves.
But maybe the newer heads don't have the same exhaust flow issues, so it's not a consideration.


All depends on the head - most AFR heads have very good exhaust port flow felative to the intake at the same lift, for example close to 80% which is high while many other heads have less say around 65%. So different cams needed particularly on the exhaust side to allow the exhaust mass to be completely expelled at right point in time.

Edit'
so i decided to look at publish port flow figures for AFR165 and AFR220
at 500thou lift the AFR165 has a rlow ratio of 83%
while at 500thou the AFR220 had a flow ratio of 74%

Assuming the exhaust system is not a restriction,
The 165 head does not need extra exhaust duration. A single pattern cam is sutible.
Now in the case of the 220 it likely requires 6 to 10 deg split.


I will someday think of something clever to say.

Last edited by boofhead on Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:15 pm; edited 3 times in total

View user's profile
gbx78
Mustang King

Offline
Joined: Jun 29, 2011
Posts: 2946
Location: NSW

0 👍 / 0 👎


boofhead wrote
While waiting for the next post here is a video to discuss


Good timing... to follow up from the end of that video and next episode on rocker arms..

Afr Stud girdle to suit heads, adjustment studs, comp cams magnum pro xd rocker arms



'You can never test fire too many times.' - Hybrid

'You can never have too many gauges' -
Boofhead

View user's profilePhoto Gallery
boofhead
Mustang King

Offline
Joined: Nov 02, 2010
Posts: 4505
Location: Brisbane

0 👍 / 0 👎


Sexy stuff nice Christmas for you.

your rocker setup will not deflect much with the steel rockers and the stud girdle. Good choices especially given the 220lbs seat pressure and 600lbs per inch pressure.


I will someday think of something clever to say.

Last edited by boofhead on Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:21 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user's profile
lukep6470
Mustang Star

Offline
Joined: Jan 06, 2014
Posts: 479
Location: Brisbane

0 👍 / 0 👎


Yes If I had to do mine now I wouldn't be using the LGM shaft rockers.

I looked them up the other day and he as doubled his price!!!


View user's profile
All times are Australia/Sydney
Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next


Jump to:

TopPostersToday
   jbb 
 Posts: 
 2 

   Pinto-Pete 
 Posts: 
 1 

   Astro 
 Posts: 
 1 

   xpconnor 
 Posts: 
 1 

   ants 
 Posts: 
 1 

   Dwayne 
 Posts: 
 1 

LatestForumPosts
Last 10 Forum Messages

Project Lil Blue Coupe
Last post by Dwayne in Mustang Projects on Apr 24, 2018 21:26:01

Parts for sale
Last post by jbb in Other Parts for Sale on Apr 24, 2018 21:23:04

Door glass seal
Last post by jbb in General Tech Advice on Apr 24, 2018 21:21:05

Husky's 65 Restomod
Last post by ants in Mustang Projects on Apr 24, 2018 21:00:10

Project Brandy
Last post by nassi in Mustang Projects on Apr 23, 2018 22:01:10

alternator size
Last post by lifeis4living in Pre 1973 on Apr 21, 2018 16:24:52

NSW: Rear brake blinker configuration 65-66 Mustang
Last post by Husky65 in Pre 1973 on Apr 21, 2018 08:16:25

Edz 66 Convertible
Last post by hybrid in Mustang Projects on Apr 20, 2018 10:29:09

2020 Shelby GT500 spy shots
Last post by hybrid in 2015 onward on Apr 20, 2018 08:08:11

Project Pheonix
Last post by nassi in Mustang Projects on Apr 19, 2018 21:43:08