[BruceWilkie]

Originally Posted by jerzfabguy

My bad dude. For some reason I thought he did. I'm one of the few people that will admit when he's wrong. But why are you acting like you're 5 about it? Talking about "imaginations" etc... You gotta ****ing hard on for lynn or something?

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.

[pastry_chef]

Originally Posted by BruceWilkie

His speacialty seems to be finding fault with others.

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.

[cgeise]

Originally Posted by jerzfabguy

My bad dude. For some reason I thought he did. I'm one of the few people that will admit when he's wrong. But why are you acting like you're 5 about it? Talking about "imaginations" etc... You gotta ****ing hard on for lynn or something?

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.

[RAIV-Z]

Originally Posted by jerzfabguy

allow me to join in the conversation if you will... i am "the indy cartel" and owner of the shop that has been building lynn's headers for about 2 years now. i would love to get on here and go "jersey shore" on this guy but im certain it will be used against me at some point so i am going to try and be as politically correct as possible.

Welcome Joey, all I ask is you keep it factual, professional and try to be specific, using generalities like “after reading all of his other outlandish posts”. If I posted something outlandish or incorrect I’d be happy to either clarify my point or correct it.

Originally Posted by jerzfabguy

the headers were built with the standard valve covers installed. not the fabricated ones he has now. ed had been sent pictures several times and i actually suggested that he bring his car out to us for us to do all the fab work on it as he had already had issues with his previous chassis shop. that didnt happen. the mockup car that was used has a stock front end on it such as a-arms etc... the headers were built to fit within those confines as thats all we were given to work with. as i stated above, he had been sent pictures and if there was any issue with the valve covers (after reading all of his other outlandish posts) dont you think he would have said something at some point? all i did was build him a set of headers and i would guess that i have 50-100+ emails from him with pictures and examples of other headers and intercooler placement and what not.

Per our phone conversation on 4/4/2012 and text message on 4/10/2012 you stated you didn’t have valve covers or even a head with the right bolt pattern. ALL of the mockup pictures you and Lynn sent of the headers being built at your shop are missing valve covers. You also stated you’d work with me to resolve the issue. I said I’d have my fab guy take a look to see what could be done once the engine was in the car and get back to you.
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.

Originally Posted by jerzfabguy

5-11-12 9:37 am; ed emailed me and asked if i could get him another flange as he was going to have his current shop rebuild the header to clear his new valve covers. weve been extremely busy in the shop and our mill has been covered up so i told him id have them cut at a laser shop just to get them out a little quicker. admittedly they did take a little longer to get done than i would have hoped but they were shipped out sometime around the middle of july and then came back with "insufficient address". we then shipped out another flange to him which he then posted pics on here awaring everyone that he received the flange.

The actual text message asking for a replacement flange was sent on 5/9. The address sent to you on 7/24@3:15pm was correct.
3 months to get a header flange…

Originally Posted by jerzfabguy

no mention was ever made about being to fit a box end wrench on the bolts. HOWEVER... i did mention numerous times that we should go to smaller diameter tubing for clearance issues with the bolts and usually with turbo apps you run smaller anyways. but... here again, i have an email from "tom vaught" that ed forwarded me where he even suggests 1-7/8" tubing for the normal reasons for running smaller primaries with a turbo app. but... ed being the keyboard crewchief that he is still insisted on 2". well, there isnt much room when you put a 2" primary into this flange. the bolt holes are where the bolt holes are.

Please make sure your facts are correct with regards to the primary tube diameter. I was told by Lynn that the exhaust ports were already opened up to 2”, Tony did not want to use a smaller tube.

Originally Posted by jerzfabguy

the headers had no problems bolting up to the heads that were in my shop that were used for mockup purposes and when lynn bolted them onto eds engine with eds heads (see pics a few posts below) but yet when they traveled up to NH they suddenly dont bolt up. maybe its a geographical thing?!?

You stated you didn’t have a head with the correct bolt spacing, how did you install all the header bolts? That picture Lynn posted with the headers on my engine might have had 2 or 3 bolts installed.

Originally Posted by jerzfabguy

all in all... look at the accomplishments of the handful of people that were involved in this build out here in the indiana area...

Cartel, LLC- (3) NHRA best engineered awards (1 of which was a snowmobile that beat out 2 brand new A/Hemi cars at last years dutch classic)

Lynn McCarty- several national records in SS

Tony Bischoff- national records, national event wins, class wins etc...

ill take myself out of the equation as im a little biased. but, how many of you really propose that you can have those kind of accomplishments if youre an asshole and do shotty work? not gonna happen.

You might want to re-read the last few pages and pay particular attention the pictures.

[Tom Vaught]

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

[pontiacjeff]

Boy-o-boy... jump from page 4 to page 23 and you miss ALOT!!!! (Sheeeesh)

[RAIV-Z]

Originally Posted by mysticmissle

what were the original design/build specifications for horsepower? if turbo headers were commissioned obviously the NA hp was just the tip of the iceberg as far as power potential? No doubt the prior reputations of all parties involved was stellar, now it appears there is a lot of mud in the waters. this was/is a high end, money is no object build. If Ed was told he needed a titanium balancer bolt, from tony, lynn or anyone else consulted in this build he would have bought it. If the engine 'builder'(s) missed their price point at quote time its on them. the customer should get what he paid for. Ed should/could have an 1100 hp NA street motor at this price level.

1600HP Pump Gas... NA expectations were north of 750HP. NA Dyno results 660.

[pastry_chef]

Originally Posted by RAIV-Z

1600HP Pump Gas... NA expectations were north of 750HP. NA Dyno results 660.

Your statement about expectations is right on. (In fact it says "way more" down here.)

Originally Posted by NHRASuperStock455SD

This is a street engine with street valve train. It is designed to make 2200HP of a base engine that produces 751HP normally aspirated I fully expect to make way more horsepower base which should translate into an easier target with boost and a better number with pump gas. If we make the engine very efficient, then the higher numbers with pump gas can be achieved.

http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/....php?p=4455984


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.

Originally Posted by RAIV-Z

~13K, Yes, I was very surprised as well.

I have asked both Lynn and Tony for detailed invoices. Tony said I was not his customer and I should talk to Lynn. I asked Lynn for them long ago, havent seen them yet.

Below is some of the information I received from Lynn. There were specific $ charges for each line item. You’ll note that some of individual line items are also duplicated under item 16. Item 15 was also charged at the wrong hourly rate. This engine build was started before BES increased their hourly rates in August 2011 “from $65 to $74”. I was told the $65 rate would be honored. Not sure why line item 15 was charged at $79 per hour, this was work that was done well before August 2011.

1. CNC RA-V Head Porting
2. Intake Porting

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.

[Tom Vaught]

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.

[RAIV-Z]

Ported intake pictures...

[pastry_chef]

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

[Tom Vaught]

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

[pastry_chef]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

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?

Tom Vaught

When one takes into consideration Engine Size, required RPM, piston demand and target power
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..

[Tom Vaught]

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

[RAIV-Z]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

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.
Tom Vaught

Any theories as to why my 535cid RA-V engine isn’t making the expected NA power ?

This information would be invaluable in helping me determine next steps.

[Tom Vaught]

Can you send me the actual cam card for the engine Ed?
Posting it is fine too.

Tom Vaught

[RAIV-Z]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

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

Pump-Gas 1600HP.... The heads flow 367@.700... Gross lift with 1.65 rockers is .701 -.020 lash...
I wasn't at either of the BES NA dyno sessions, I do have a few pictures though.

[pastry_chef]

Originally Posted by RAIV-Z

Any theories as to why my 535cid RA-V engine isn’t making the expected NA power ?

http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3396

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...

Originally Posted by NHRASuperStock455SD

My engine in High Performance Pontiac has the same springs as yours. My engine will make way more horsepower with more spring too. We estimate close to 900HP, but then it would no longer be a street engine.

http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/....php?p=4605820

Someone needs to start getting it done and STOP making excuses!

[Tom Vaught]

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

[RAIV-Z]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

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.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

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?

Flow at .600 is 349cfm, I don’t have .650 flow numbers.

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

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.

I have no flow numbers for the intake\head combination. I did suggest we upgrade to a tunnel ram.

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

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

Keep in mind, the CNC port was supposed to flow much more.
Does anyone know what the as-cast flow numbers are for these heads?