FAQ |
Members List |
Social Groups |
Calendar |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#441
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
His speacialty seems to be finding fault with others. Got to give him some credit though... I think he actually posted something positive earlier in this thread. |
#442
|
||||
|
||||
Sort of....
My "specialty" as you label it are "inconsistencies" As well, people who know me personally would tell you I am an extraordinary judge of character A credit of "several national records" is a very strange accolade for any "motorsports professional" to state from just nowhere! Very often things are not what they seem. |
#443
|
||||
|
||||
Wow - -talk about some one that is acting like there 5 -- His point was pretty easy to understand - With the kind of response you put up - and those of Lynn - the picture is starting to become more and more clear -- and I also am wondering who has the "hard-on" for Lynn.
|
#444
|
||||||
|
||||||
Quote:
Quote:
Would you like me to post all of the pictures? Did you guys just happen to take them off every time you decided to take a picture? How did you install ALL of the header bolts if the bolt pattern on the heads you had was wrong? Just about all turbo headers I’ve seen are at least somewhat symmetrical indicating that some though was put into the actual design, this doesn’t seem to be the case here as 1 header physically fits with regards to the tall valve cover. It does have issues with flange vs. header bolt hole alignment, wrench clearance and the ability to easily install header bolts. ie: Due to clearance issues with some of the tubes, you can’t just push a header bolt through the flange. I have only taken my car to only one chassis shop, so far the work they have done is outstanding. Yes, Lynn provided you with his mockup 69 firebird, I provided you with radiator dimensions, turbos, waste gates, blow off valves, intercoolers, and engine front/mid plates. If I’m not mistaken, all turbo header example pictures I sent have aftermarket valve covers. Can you explain how you could have mocked up the turbos, then after building the headers and moving on to the transition pipe w\waste gate I get a call saying the turbo’s don’t fit where you though they would, yet I was still charged for 7 hours? From your invoice dated 8/10/2011: “mock up of turbos, core support, timing cover, front motorplate, research of turbo mounting, air filter etc...” I’ll cover the EGT bungs and transition pipe in detail later if you’d like. Quote:
3 months to get a header flange… Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#445
|
||||
|
||||
Like most stories, you only want to hear the parts that make your happy.
Without taking sides, I do remember Ed telling me by phone that the exhaust ports were already opened to 2" at the flange and agreed that a "step" downward would be a bad idea for flow. Most on the board already know that the header flange was wrong. 3 months is a long time. I can have one water-jetted, in Livonia, (by a Race Shop if they have a cad file) in 30 minutes. Did you do any cad work on Ed's engine before you started fabricating? I also remember a long discussion with Ed about the Turbos and the Headers not packaging in the car. Normally you would set the Turbo Position (in cad) and design the headers to the package space. Then verify that your fastener clearances were correct, the package clearances were correct, and the final step would be building each header and verifying that your proposal was solid for the package. That being said, Fabricators/Engineers like Travis Quillen have the Turbo background to do both parts of the design. Ed, I still think that you made a mistake not having Travis help you on this deal. Tom Vaught
__________________
"Engineers do stuff for reasons" Tom Vaught Despite small distractions, there are those who will go Forward, Learning, Sharing Knowledge, Doing what they can to help others move forward. |
#446
|
|||
|
|||
Boy-o-boy... jump from page 4 to page 23 and you miss ALOT!!!! (Sheeeesh)
__________________
Jeff Ianitello |
#447
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#448
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
A Pipemax evaluation for your 535 cubic inch engine using 9.1 compression ratio and 5800 RPM for peak power says average 660 Horsepower would be flowing between 310 CFM and 330 CFM through the intake tract related to normal flow bench test. I think you previously mentioned your ported heads peaked at 388 flowbench CFM or so. I would be VERY curious to see what your intake and head would flow test peak when bolted together..(loss should not be too severe) You payed good money for porting of both cylinder heads and intake. Quote:
Now for a little word on engine "piston demand". Ideally for good efficiency and power at RPM you hope to have an intake tract that does a good job at keeping up with the engine flow (CFM) demand at given RPM. By far most applications do fall short of keeping up, but maybe aim to be within 95 percent, and certainly within 90 percent of demand. I've attached an image below with estimated peak piston demand as it would translate on a flowbench vs RPMs. You can see a naturally aspirated engine with 535 cubes displacement gets very hungry with flow demand (CFM) very quickly as RPMs increase. |
#449
|
||||
|
||||
Butler kicked out a 630 hp NA "Street Engine" about 10 years ago (for a great deal less money) for a friend of mine. That being said you assume that you are getting "the best" with a "BES" engine build.
Boosted Engines, just have more mass flow going thru the engine. You build a quality moderately higher horsepower NA engine and you will easily double the horsepower at low boost (15-18 psi). Ed's target was 1600 hp and street driven. If you look at the engine built by Charlie66 in the Boost Forum and do a comparison to Ed's engine: There are some things similar. Both engines will use a Turbonetics Turbo package with the turbo(s) picked by Dave Austin. Charlie has a factory 198 cubic Inch Tempest Block. He put 4 Bolt main caps on the factory block. He has a cast factory crank but good rods and pistons. He stepped up and had SD Performance do him a nice flowing head, 300+ cfm head. It is pretty common knowledge that a properly designed head package should make 2 hp per cfm without really special parts. So Charlie would make 600+ hp if he had a 400 cid V-8 engine (lots of these combinations documented on the board). So lets say he makes 300+ HP with his 4 cylinder engine, NA. So now Charlie adds boost. He was at 15 psi of boost for a long time, before he stepped up to 25 psi of boost. Probably 600 street driven horsepower from a 4 cylinder 195 cid engine at 15 psi boost. Charlie is using a single HP76 Turbo. Even though Charlie now has gone to 25 PSI of boost, he still drives the car daily on the street, using e-85 gasoline. Dave Austin assumed that Ed's engine would have 750 HP NA. Lynn says the head flows 388 cfm or so. That should allow the NA engine to produce 776 hp using the 2 HP per cfm rule. Ed also has a 535 cid engine vs a 195 engine so making that 750 hp should have been fairly easy with even higher compression. It did not happen! Charlie is around 8.5 - 8.75 to 1 compression ratio. So Ed's engine is down 116 hp on the normal NA formula with a 9 to 1 CR engine vs Charlies 8.5-8.75 CR engine. Charlie engine would make 300 hp from 195 cid NA or 1.5 HP per Cubic Inch (Home built engine by Charlie with decent parts.) Ed's engine makes 660 hp from a 535 engine NA so 1.23 HP per CID with the High Dollar heads/engine build. You can see why Ed and others are somewhat confused by the deal. If we look back at the Turbonetics Sheet Dave Austin assumed that with the larger HPR-88 Turbos Ed could make over 1400 hp with an inter-cooler at 15 psi. With the inter-cooler Dave thought that the engine would make 1680 HP at 20 psi of boost. 5 psi less than Charlie drives around with every day. The HPR-88 Turbos are big HP Turbos, they will make a lot more HP vs Charlies HP-76 Stuff. So I say, check everything out on the engine, get it fixed to where you are happy, Ed, and then throw some boost at it with a proper Water to Air Inter-cooler or Air to Air inter-cooler. Once Charlie cranked up the boost he was VERY HAPPY with his 4 cylinder project. How about we stop with the BS for the time being, build the package, put it on a proper Engine Dyno with proper instrumentation, and go for a 1600 hp number. Tom Vaught Note: (Charlie had excess NA air flow through the head vs the size of his engine). Pastry Chef says Ed has less head flow that he needs NA with the 535 cid engine.
__________________
"Engineers do stuff for reasons" Tom Vaught Despite small distractions, there are those who will go Forward, Learning, Sharing Knowledge, Doing what they can to help others move forward. Last edited by Tom Vaught; 08-17-2012 at 07:34 PM. |
#450
|
||||
|
||||
Ported intake pictures...
|
#451
|
||||
|
||||
One more addition to my post above.
The 515 Big Chevy posted here: http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/....php?p=4704122 makes 2000 Horsepower race tune, 1000 Horsepower street de-tune. I see a few parallels beginning with engine size and power goal to Ed's. The Cam in the Chevy was 252 intake dur @ .50 256 exhaust dur @ .050 .715 lift with 115 LSA The Cylinder Head was Brodix Big Duke PB1802 - intake port 456cc flowbench numbers attached image |
#452
|
||||
|
||||
Nice info but apples to oranges (in that we do not have a 4.6L bore or a 2.4" valve),
I believe in Ed's Heads/engine. What would the cfm numbers be on the Ed's Bore size/ Valve Size? John Mahovitz can run big hp numbers on a 4 valve Modular Engine with a smaller camshaft too. Tom Vaught
__________________
"Engineers do stuff for reasons" Tom Vaught Despite small distractions, there are those who will go Forward, Learning, Sharing Knowledge, Doing what they can to help others move forward. |
#453
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
535 cubes, 7000 RPM to hit the power on the Turbonetics spec sheet. A cylinder head ceiling of about 390 CFM??? I just don't get it.. |
#454
|
||||
|
||||
But it is a "Street Engine", Pastry Chef!
"Street Engines" cruise around at 3500 rpm from the Big Boy to the Twin Arches. Actually Dave Austin was assuming that at 6500 rpm the engine would make about 750 hp. His assumption is that it takes about 1 lb of air mass to make 10 horsepower. 75.2 lbs of air mass at 0 boost times 10 = 752 Horsepower at 6500 rpm. If the engine has a 390 cfm head, that head will be flowing 390 cfm whether it has no boost or 25 psi of boost. The mass flow per cfm goes up but the cfm stays the same. We already agreed that a 390 cfm head should support 780 hp naturally aspirated based on lots of dyno testing. I wonder what the rest of the induction system looked like. Can you post that Ed? Tom Vaught
__________________
"Engineers do stuff for reasons" Tom Vaught Despite small distractions, there are those who will go Forward, Learning, Sharing Knowledge, Doing what they can to help others move forward. |
#455
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
This information would be invaluable in helping me determine next steps. |
#456
|
||||
|
||||
Can you send me the actual cam card for the engine Ed?
Posting it is fine too. Tom Vaught
__________________
"Engineers do stuff for reasons" Tom Vaught Despite small distractions, there are those who will go Forward, Learning, Sharing Knowledge, Doing what they can to help others move forward. |
#457
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I wasn't at either of the BES NA dyno sessions, I do have a few pictures though. |
#458
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Its VERY hard to discount the opinion of Darin Morgan, one of the top cylinder head guys in the world! But what I see so far is TWO V-head engines from the same source fall short of expectations! 1) Ed Page 535 2) The 755 HP street engine that supposedly *shoulda* made 900 HP if it did not float the valves at 6600 RPM's So 0 for 2... Quote:
Someone needs to start getting it done and STOP making excuses! |
#459
|
||||
|
||||
1) Some rockers rarely achieve a true 1.65 Rocker Ratio. I do not believe that your installed stud roller rockers will achieve 1.65 Rocker Ratio.
2) You don't really have .701 lift as you have the lash to subtract and some pushrod deflection in the system. Lets say that you have an honest lift closer to .650 lift. What is your head flow at that checking point? 3) Did they give you numbers for the intake system (intake and head) vs just a head number? Typical low rise intakes (not tunnel rams) also cause some flow loss. You made 660 hp. That would imply that you had an actual system flow around 330/340 cfm vs your assumed 367 cfm head. Hard to make 750 hp with a 330/340 head Naturally Aspirated Ed. The event timing on the camshaft is not conducive to making big NA power with only 25 degrees of overlap. Tom Vaught
__________________
"Engineers do stuff for reasons" Tom Vaught Despite small distractions, there are those who will go Forward, Learning, Sharing Knowledge, Doing what they can to help others move forward. |
#460
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Does anyone know what the as-cast flow numbers are for these heads? |
Reply |
|
|