Close



Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 45 of 45
  1. #26

    Default

    I just caught up with some old episodes... this one is very interesting and they use a 351 (408/410). I think I am more and more happy with my 35-255-5 cam and gt-40 head choice.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1wU_8-JM

  2. #27
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    2,685

    Default

    See below

    Small 165 heads



    Power and torque at 5278 rpm about 480 hp


    Biggest gain was the 195 heads



    220 cc intake runner heads reached a point of diminishing returns on a 408/410 stroker with the same 513 thou lift, 218 intake /224 exhaust duration at 50 thou lift cam.


  3. #28
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    2,685

    Default

    Generally, on a 1985-1986 5.0, if your path is towards ending up having the custom cam, and the best heads, then TFS 190 11R's will get you closer with very little step by step work.

    Even on a stock 1985 to 1986 block, you can absolutely end up with well over twice the factory horsepower and alomost twice the torque with these heads and the right cam. At 3400 rpm, where the stock torque was a usual 265 lb-ft to 285 lb-ft, the usable torque will be over 50% of the stock 1985 value.

    Piston to valve clearance is something that has to be tested, but the IIR's normally fix that.


    Revist again post #27 12-14-2017, 12:03 AM my time

    http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...om-End-302-N-A

    The cam greats will help you avoid PTV contact, because it won't happen at peak lift, but on overlap. So there are many roads to Rome on this quest.

    The best plans of mice an men are to find a remote beautiful utopia where Engine Master tests allows us to approach Windsor 302 perfection.

    Bang, thud, reality.....


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1wU_8-JM

    A correct conclusion from the test, but the wrong major conclusion from that test.

    The 165 and 220 were inferior to the 195, but that wasn't the conclusion to the test.

    All the team were focused on what was the big head port verses little head conquest.

    The prevalent "broad picture" thing for me is how well the next size up 195 cc intake runner head grew hp at 5400 rpm, and torque at 3900 rpm.

    For the intermidate 195 head where the port area varies a massive 0.440 inches from the smallest 195 to the biggest 220 head:-

    Even at 5400 rpm, 477.4 hp, but 484.4 hp at 5500 rpm, and more torque everywhere with no loss in torque at any rpm point.

    The intermediate runner really showed all the goods.

    The focus on the peak power and torque numbers dilutes the specific amount of


    1. torque per cubic inch, and


    2. power for every revolution.

    3. Although cc varies 33%, the Pinch port area all three heads vary only 23% biggest to smallest.

    4. Port area at the gasket face is normally 2.02 sq inches for a 351W, but the big port heads for 351C's and 351W's can go on up to 2.67 sq inches, and there are certainly power gains with porting to be explored.

    The good old boys in the engine business always work on index testing, they look at the brake specfic power curve as well, but they don't focus on anything else but combinations that deliver goods.

    If you have three different power and torque curves, the right one is the one that gives the most specfic torque and power per engine revolution. Don't be conned by the mere words.

    The drill down after that is how many pounds of fuel per hour per horsepower, to check out that there isn't some other dynamic going on.

    Baqck in 2013 I think, Buddy Rawls told me that there were cams around like this for small blocks that created similar Aspirations Indexes right down to the 4700 to even 4100 level. As good as the best modern EFi engines.

    The Ed Curtis cam on that 372hp/349lb-ft chassis dynoed 1986 with 190 IIr's makes a corrected 4130 Aspirations Index. Its something you'd only find in the EMC.

    The Aspirations index, the idea of pulling the lowest amount of rrpm for the highest amount of horsepower, as espoused by Phil Irving, Larry Perkins and David Vizard, they aren't followed in the USA the way the Aussies do.

    In USA dyno work, its all about whatever makes the best power or baseline power. Down in Australia, most of the 4-bbl 302/304/308 and 350/351 racers follow the maximum horspower rule, but then like to tune camshafts on a cubic inches times revs basis, and the lower the divsor between that and the net horspowe out put, that is the tune they aim for.

    For a stock bore and stroke but modified 4-bbl Group A 1985 Mustang, 5.0 liters is 301.6 cubic inches.

    So 301.6 times 6500 rpm might give 390 hp net, which is what the best races got in 1986.

    Divide the product (301.6 cubic inches X 6500pm = 1960400) by the Net Horsepower numerator (390 horsepower frome the engines flywheel, not the back wheels), and the lowest number wins. 5026.7 is the factor in this case.

    If your aspirations index doesn't drop with each modification, your modification isn't really a valid improvement.

    This is how Lamborghinis Bob Wallace de-turned a 370 hp at 9000 rpm 3.5 liter V12 into a nice tame 270 hp at 6500 rpm engine.

    Giotto Bizzarrini tune, 5181. Bob Wallance tune, 5128. The power rating could be up or downscaled at the same rate.

    For the Ford 5.0, the factory 2001 Falcon 220 XR8 was 295 hp net at 5300 rpm, or 301.6 * 5300/295 or 5418.

    When stroked to 5.6 liters, the 2002 Falcon 342 cubic inch stock 4" bore T3 TE50 made 335 hp at 5250 rpm, for an aspirations index of 5390.

    The best naturally aspirated reading ever was the 2005 5.408 liter 330 cubic inch Quad Cam Modular V8, A 100% USA Ford V8.



    https://www.motoring.com.au/ford-djr-320-falcon-3294/

    429 hp DJR 320, Dick Johnson and Rob Herrods 2005 US import Modular V8 with 429 hp at 5500 rpm, an AI of 4230, never bettered for a production non turbo or naturally aspirated engine.

    The factor can drop below that, to as low as 4000 with the right mods. NASCAR engines do, F1 engines dont.


    371.5 rwhp at 6430 rpm is 469.6 hp net at 6430 rpm at the flywheel. Thats a 4130 Aspirations Index.


    Most of that is the heads, but the rest is the cam profile.

    Don't belive the Hype. Belive the Horsepower that great Heads and Cams produce....

  4. #29

    Default

    That dyno comparison test was not really fair to the size of the heads. If you verify AFRs flow numbers, all of those heads flow nearly the same at the lower valve lifts per the camshaft they were using. So the bigger heads really needed more lift to showcase the flow they were capable of. Its no wonder the hp levels were so close between the swaps. The same silly comparisons are made when you see dyno tests for 351 Cleveland 2V vs 4V head swaps back to back showing the 2V heads being better for the "street". If you cam the 4V head appropriately it will easily outshine the 2V in most of the rpm range making more average hp and tq. It's all in the combination and not a single component that makes an engine perform at its potential.

    I've done many head swaps over the years. TFS, Edelbrock, AFR, GT40. My head nod goes towards the AFRs purely based on quality of every component. The 165's work well using the stock cam. It just makes for a very good driving engine. Strong enough for my friend to break his 7.5" rear axle on the street.
    Last edited by Zap's 85 GT; 01-07-2018 at 09:56 AM.
    Black 1985 GT; 408w, in the 6's in the 1/8 mile
    Grabber Yellow 1973 Mustang Mach 1: 351c, toploader
    Black 2012 5.0 GT, 6-speed, Brembo brakes, 3.73's
    Wimbledon White 1966 F-100 Shortbed Styleside, 390, Tremec 3550, FiTech EFI

  5. #30

    Default

    Yeah, but the point was to look at the preconception that big ports means lost torq down low on any engine. I like this comparison because, as you say it is not a single component, and for a street driving machine that makes torque and Hp where it makes the street fun and you can actually drive it, too large of a head isn't a good choice (which means there is a better choice down low). We 'knew' that already but it is great to see just how well the small ports can actually do rather than just seat of the pants or arm-chair hypothesizing. As soon as you put the monster cam in it you are no longer looking at a street engine. I was really impressed by the numbers of such a mild build (but I may be easily impressed). edit: I believe the OP was going to keep the original HO cam.

    I also like the fact that the GT40 head sits right between the 165 and 195, at least in specs, and since I am popping them on a 302, not a 408, I anticipate it will do what I am shooting for, hopefully really well. There are probably many improvements (besides weight) that the AFRs have over the gt40 though.

    I do have the mild dual plane manifold, mild cam, mild heads, etc. Hopefully just shy of 10:1 compression.
    Last edited by emerygt350; 01-07-2018 at 12:19 PM.

  6. #31

    Default

    "Monster cam" is relative because with most cam companies, adding additional lift required for a specific head to flow its max potential numbers usually goes hand in hand with adding more duration. That is not always needed or desired. Hence the use of companies that design custom camshafts based on application.

    The camshaft used in engine masters dyno test was just best suited to the one head on that particular engine combo. It only had .513" lift which is really choking the bigger head's in flow potential. They even admit it's the single smallest camshaft they've ever installed, which stacks the deck right from the start. Not saying that bigger is better. This dyno video just didnt really explain things the way they should have and set a precedent that's not completely true. In the end, most people will never use a custom camshaft and rely on Off The Shelf camshafts. Those OTS camshafts are suited to a particular cid engine and head flow expectation equalling a specific intake CC size.

    There is an old Ford saying, use 302 parts on a 302 stroker or Windsor/stroker and you'll get 302 power out of it.

    Your best options are to pick a head that you want to run and order a custom camshaft to go with it to suit your combination, or use a combination from someone that you can copy if it suits your desires. Then you won't be leaving anything on the table wondering why the engine is not performing the way you hoped.
    Last edited by Zap's 85 GT; 01-07-2018 at 06:20 PM.
    Black 1985 GT; 408w, in the 6's in the 1/8 mile
    Grabber Yellow 1973 Mustang Mach 1: 351c, toploader
    Black 2012 5.0 GT, 6-speed, Brembo brakes, 3.73's
    Wimbledon White 1966 F-100 Shortbed Styleside, 390, Tremec 3550, FiTech EFI

  7. #32

    Default

    Well, this is a street application, if I were racing I would be of course ignoring mild cams and iron heads.

  8. #33
    FEP Member Mgino757's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    422

    Default

    I do intend to use the factory H.O. camshaft. Being that this car is completely street driven and not intended to be a race car by any stretch of the imagination, I think this is a good point to stay at for now. I intend to pop the cork, not necessarily shake the bottle while I'm at it.

    I've debated back and forth with myself on whether I should go with Trick Flow 170 or AFR 165 heads. AFR's are known for quality, yes. I also have no problem with Trick Flow's quality either. I saw no problems at all running their heads for 60,000 miles, starting in 2013 until 2016. Using stock cams, I saw a substantial increase in power, even if it was on a 4.6L. The Trick Flow 170's outflow the AFR's on the intake side, but trail on the exhaust side. I can get the AFR's in pedestal mount configuration, but the Trick Flows offer raised valve cover rails, an important thing for me since I want to use my factory "Powered By Ford" valve covers without much modification. Every one I know says Trick Flows, even my Ford master technician friend who runs AFR's on his 5.0 Thunderbird.

    I'm also wanting to retain my thermactor tubes for a stock-ish appearance. I want to bump up the compression out of the dinosaur, mid seventies, shag carpet, disco era numbers. lol I'll settle for greater than 9.0:1. I'd like enough power to remind me that I actually have 5.0L of push rod V8.
    1985 Mustang GT conv. modified 4180C, Weiand Street Warrior intake manifold, equal length headers, true dual exhaust, 3.55:1 8.8'' rear end, 180* thermostat, Ford Racing 10.5" clutch. Garage dweller.

    1998 Mustang GT auto. Stock and slow daily driver.

    1996 Thunderbird LX 4.6L V8. Wrecked, drag racing in heaven. RIP Oct 1995-March 24, 2016.

  9. #34
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    2,685

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by emerygt350 View Post
    Well, this is a street application, if I were racing I would be of course ignoring mild cams and iron heads.
    The machinical engineering of a 408 or 410 cubic inch stroker requires a much more radical cam lift than 513 thou and 218/224 at 50.


    Its a tractor cam for an engine like that. The emissions guys could make a bigger cam still pass on an engine like that, and the Mechncial Engineering on USA cams has grown so much over the last 32 years in general, but the last 20 years specifcially.

    So its leaving a boat load of power on the table, and you'd not loose much low end with a more radical cam lift. It really needs some proper 1.7:1 lifters. Back to the little 302W.

    A bigger custom cam will gell better with your heads. The choices are yours, and your budgets, and we respect that 100%.


    But don't be afraid to aspire to more horspwer and torque, because its right there. 32 YEARS OF CAM DEVELOPMENT!

    You can get one of those 4130 Aspirations Indexes, and enjoy just pottering around in your convertable.

    Stock verses modfied, there is 60% more power for every rpm on the table between 3000 and 4600 rpm, and way more from 4600 to 6700 rpm.

    Stock 1985 5.0 ho 4bbl Aspirations Index is 301.6*4600 rpm/210 hp, or 6606.
    The 371.5 rwhp figure from rock4451's 1986 EFi intake is very restrictive, so the cam is designed around that fact, and 471.5 rwhp is 469.6 flywheel hp based on my information.


    That means the stats are 306.1*6430/469.6hp, or 4130, a Aspirations Index record for these engines.

    Even a modified side valve lawnmower can match those 6606 specs, but the 4130 number is special stuff. It was Ford and GMs basic 1984-1985 Roller cam development that quickly got spit polished by the aftermarket, with Dick Johnson in Australia in 1985 the first to "loft" the hydraulic roller cam in endurances races to make a 525 thou lift cam from a close to stock mandated 465 thou lift at the valve roller cam. That took a 260 hp engine to 350 hp net, and it then became greater than that for the last race in New Zealand in 1987. 390 hp is what I've seen quoted, and even that was still well below the GM H 304 flat tapped hyraulic cam engines, but they had another bunch of freedoms, and 462 hp at 6900 rpm.


    Unlike any other pushrod engine except the Franklin roller cammed VW Type 4 engine, the 5.0 can take radically bigger lift from start to 30 and 50 thou durations, much larger "at lash" peak lifts, and still have the same sub 3000 rpm 240 lb-ft torque and the same 210 hp but from 3000 rpm right on up to a safe 6500 rpm or so. No link bar lifters required. Most of the advance is the cam lift growth and how the cam profile suited a quite restrictive upper intake EFi engine. A 4-BBL, well, look no further than Zaps two rides. The March 1 351c and his 85 are standout carb cars.

    The state of proper US carb, cam, head and intake work yield tranquil strret engines that pop psychotic 400 plus horsepower sprints like a stepped on rattle snake.


    The table is at 350 to 390 hp, the same as an 85-86 Group 1 FISA race car. The thing is you can do that with just cam and head mods, and the forged pistons can take 6700 rpm, so can the roller cam. The forged pistons and Fords mass prodcuced process control means the E3 302 block can take a massive canning and still smell like a rose. The roller cam takes the stress out of the block, and suits the alloy heads.

    If ever there was a race engine for the road, the 85 5.0 roller cam engine is it.

    Amaroo Park 1986 - Johnson Mustang

    Video production by Domagoj Lovric

    Dick Johnson's Mustang V8 sound, extracted from 85/86 racecam footage. This is raw, unprocessed sound - albeit it was taken from analouge tv - vhs - divx... So it's not ideal source, but it has nice character to it. Track is Australias Amaroo Park 1996. It was closed in 1998, but was used in ATCC during the 80's. Cool little circuit. I did the sums, and its got a 3.55:1 axle ratio and the right Getrag 2.33, 1.68, 1.35, 1.15, and 1:1 gear ratios. Nice work.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTezv3Pzdls




  10. #35

    Default

    Very cool. Sounds like it is blown...

  11. #36
    FEP Member Mgino757's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Now, I'm not saying it will never get a bigger camshaft. It will, in due time. When I do the heads, my plan is to disassemble as little as needed to get it done. Aside from wiring, the accessories will just be unbolted and moved out of the way. The carb and intake will stay mated to each other and removed as an assembly. Radiator kept in place along with the water pump and timing cover. Fan and shroud will have to come out so I can bar the engine over when checking PTV clearance and adjusting the rockers as needed.
    1985 Mustang GT conv. modified 4180C, Weiand Street Warrior intake manifold, equal length headers, true dual exhaust, 3.55:1 8.8'' rear end, 180* thermostat, Ford Racing 10.5" clutch. Garage dweller.

    1998 Mustang GT auto. Stock and slow daily driver.

    1996 Thunderbird LX 4.6L V8. Wrecked, drag racing in heaven. RIP Oct 1995-March 24, 2016.

  12. #37

    Default

    You won't have problems with 1.7's. Especially not on the exhaust side which is where the most benefit is.

  13. #38
    FEP Member Mgino757's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    422

    Default

    If I can get away with 1.7's, it'll make more power. I'm happy with that.
    1985 Mustang GT conv. modified 4180C, Weiand Street Warrior intake manifold, equal length headers, true dual exhaust, 3.55:1 8.8'' rear end, 180* thermostat, Ford Racing 10.5" clutch. Garage dweller.

    1998 Mustang GT auto. Stock and slow daily driver.

    1996 Thunderbird LX 4.6L V8. Wrecked, drag racing in heaven. RIP Oct 1995-March 24, 2016.

  14. #39
    FEP Super Member bwguardian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Houston (Clear Lake), Texas
    Posts
    4,332

    Default

    Utilizing the 1.7 rockers with the factory "Powered by Ford" valve covers, you may have to do something with the oil baffles on them with the stock cam...but you will definitely have to with an aftermarket cam.
    HAD
    '82 GT monochromatic (red)...black cloth

    HAVE
    '85 GT vert two tone (white on charcoal)...white leather
    '00 F350 two tone (white on silver)...gray cloth
    '00 Excursion Limited two tone (white on tan)...tan leather...wifes ride
    '08 Taurus Limited ice blue...tan leather...daughter ride
    '08 Edge Limited white sand tri-coat metallic...tan leather...other daughters ride

  15. #40
    FEP Member Mgino757's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bwguardian View Post
    Utilizing the 1.7 rockers with the factory "Powered by Ford" valve covers, you may have to do something with the oil baffles on them with the stock cam...but you will definitely have to with an aftermarket cam.
    It has also been recommended to me that I stay with 1.6 rockers. That'll just give me plenty of room for down the road.
    1985 Mustang GT conv. modified 4180C, Weiand Street Warrior intake manifold, equal length headers, true dual exhaust, 3.55:1 8.8'' rear end, 180* thermostat, Ford Racing 10.5" clutch. Garage dweller.

    1998 Mustang GT auto. Stock and slow daily driver.

    1996 Thunderbird LX 4.6L V8. Wrecked, drag racing in heaven. RIP Oct 1995-March 24, 2016.

  16. #41

    Default

    Don't forget to add a good intake and enough fuel.

    with my Typhoon EFI with 86MM throttlebody on my 86 with E6 heads it pulls past 6000 but gets dangerously lean when the timing is set where it should be. I added fuel via more fuel pressure which helped but wasn't the cure because it runs rich everywhere but 6000 now.

    I switched to MAF with an A9L as the tuners I've talked to only know aftermarket ECU or MAF ECU with tuning boards. It idles better and runs better but still not the answer entirely. A 93 cobra ECU and 24 lb injectors are waiting on the shelf whenever I get time.

    My point is whatever you do for heads and cam don't forget about induction and fuel delivery or it won't perform to its potential.

    The stock heads flow 155-160. Stock intakes are the first thing that chokes these engines. Both the EFI and carb intakes were terrible on front and rear cyl and bad on the rest.

    my son has a pretty stock 86 convertible with VM1 and advanced timing. My 86 is also turned up but tired. We've played with them before. They run neck and neck until I hit about 5000 then my tired old 86 rockets away to my 6100 shift point and keeps right on pulling in the next gear ..... that is unless I bog it out of the hole and give him 1.5 lengths and my shifter binds on the 2-3 at 6100 (87 mph) as im going around and then I miss 3rd. Lol. Then it's all over for the "old man's" 1/2 million mile beater. There is something way wrong with the shifting rods on my T5Z build. Darn thing goes into 3rd from 4th just fine but never from 2nd to 3rd without at least two tries.... grumble
    Last edited by erratic50; 01-12-2018 at 01:37 AM.

  17. #42
    FEP Member Mgino757's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Having a 600 cfm carburetor and a Weiand Street warrior, which is equivalent to an Edelbrock Performer, I think induction will be sufficient. Especially with a stock cam.

    I know this is a loaded question, but what roller rockers should I get? I want relatively quiet operation, reliability, and not space hogs.
    1985 Mustang GT conv. modified 4180C, Weiand Street Warrior intake manifold, equal length headers, true dual exhaust, 3.55:1 8.8'' rear end, 180* thermostat, Ford Racing 10.5" clutch. Garage dweller.

    1998 Mustang GT auto. Stock and slow daily driver.

    1996 Thunderbird LX 4.6L V8. Wrecked, drag racing in heaven. RIP Oct 1995-March 24, 2016.

  18. #43

    Default

    Just some data comparisons going up 0.1 on rocker ratio and playing with roller tip vs full roller vs steel. Tested on a 350 chevy with AFR heads and a bit of a cam. Ignore the numbers and focus on the resulting theory.

    - stabil geometry makes more power. Stuff leading up to the rocker matters!
    - roller tips don't do jack for power but will help reduce valve top and guide wear
    - full rollers with no added ratio add inertia at the valve spring so the may be more reliable but do not make more power
    - higher ratio full rollers work well if springs and heads and everything else around it tolerate it

    My thoughts

    Budget build held under 6250 stamped steel

    Performance build - 1.7:1 full roller rockers with valve cover spacers or taller covers

    If doing a cam swap I'd go 1.6 so I have room for more. If leaving cam stock it's 1.7's and shimmed hydrolic roller lifters or oil pressure jacked to the moon IMO

    good luck!
    Attached Images Attached Images   
    Last edited by erratic50; 01-14-2018 at 04:06 PM.

  19. #44

    Default

    BTW those were from engine masters on you tube.

    Ive seen data on lighter vs stronger pushrods backed up by dunno pulls before too. I can't find the article but sufficient to say I'll be ignoring mass because they are filled with oil and thinner walls end up with oil that weighs nearly as much as steel by volume.

    And even the slightest deflection in the pushrod results in massively reduced lift and loss of valve control.

    strong pushrods is money well spent. Especially with heads that allow a 302 to run some RPM.

    High power and torque across a broad RPM range is simply a blast to drive and does very well on road courses. Too much torque down low can make for a car that's hard to handle coming out of the corners or off the line too.

  20. #45
    FEP Member Mgino757's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    422

    Default

    The ratio will be a toss up, I suppose. I could probably get away with 1.7's with the twisted wedge configuration. I was more so looking for brand and model recommendations for the rockers. May as well ask the same for push rods. I know I will need hardened push rods since the heads use guide plates.
    1985 Mustang GT conv. modified 4180C, Weiand Street Warrior intake manifold, equal length headers, true dual exhaust, 3.55:1 8.8'' rear end, 180* thermostat, Ford Racing 10.5" clutch. Garage dweller.

    1998 Mustang GT auto. Stock and slow daily driver.

    1996 Thunderbird LX 4.6L V8. Wrecked, drag racing in heaven. RIP Oct 1995-March 24, 2016.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •