Factory Five Racing Forum banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
909 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I got this same topic going on 5 or 6 different messageboards I am on trying to get as much feed back as I can on it. So far a lot of what I get kind of goes against what I am wanting to do but I want to hear views on the matter to hopefully avoid a high dollar mistake.

The following is what I have so far desided on for my build.

Bore : 4.030"
Stroke : 3.25"
Rod Length : 5.40"
Piston : flat top w/ 5cc valve reliefs
Cam : 318*/320* Advertised Duration ; 251*/252* @ 0.050" Lift ; 0.528" Lift ; 107* LSA ; 102* ICL

The parts below are parts I am looking at but havent exactly desided on which ones I will go with.



Cylinder Heads

Edelbrock E-CNC 185
Air Flow Research 185
Air Flow Research 195

I am leaning towards the 195cc AFR heads since they have 58cc chambers like the 185 from AFR but they also have higher flow rates. I am unsure if the 195 would provide better power throughout the RPM range up to 7,000 or if the 185`s would be better choice. I already know smaller port volume results in higher velocities.



The intake I dont know. I am awaiting answer from Ingelse on their EFI Webber induction system. I was thinking about either going with that or a three deuce setup. I even thought about two side draft 4bbl carbs would look unique but I think either the EFI Webber or the three deuces would be more period correct for a early - mid 60`s race engine.



If anyone has any recomendations I would be glad to hear it. I know some will tell me that I could get up to 7k or 8k rpm out of more modern cams that are less aggressive but I think Ive tainted my view on this cause ever since I found that Howard cam and that it was a very close replica of the Ford LeMan`s cam I figured I just had to have it for the 332 stroker that I am trying to build to look like a 289 race engine. I even thought of ways I could incorporate more modern race engine technology and make it look vintage. But I am willing to listen to suggestions and open to recomendations. I am not wanting to go too crazy something that could be drove on the street but raced also. Also something that makes decent power. I dont need this to be an all out race engine since I will be passing it off as a 289, so if this combo would efficiently make me 400 HP or more I would be happy with it. Id even be happy with 350 HP.
 

·
Pro FFR Builder and Moderator
Joined
·
14,823 Posts
In todays terms that is a really small cam. Make sure you use a roller, flat tappets cams are to problematic with the changes in the hardening process in recent years. Also if you go to a 58CC chamber you will have around 11-1 compression. That would be marginal at best with todays pump fuel.
I can't say I am a fan of any of the heads you listed for various but it is your engine. I do understand wanting the weber look, I would use a stack EFI system as weber do a lot more work and far less reliable.
These are purely opinions based on what I have experienced over the years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
909 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
In todays terms that is a really small cam. Make sure you use a roller, flat tappets cams are to problematic with the changes in the hardening process in recent years. Also if you go to a 58CC chamber you will have around 11-1 compression. That would be marginal at best with todays pump fuel.
I can't say I am a fan of any of the heads you listed for various but it is your engine. I do understand wanting the weber look, I would use a stack EFI system as weber do a lot more work and far less reliable.
These are purely opinions based on what I have experienced over the years.
Static compression with 58cc heads is 10.097:1
Dynamic compression with 58cc heads is 8.196:1

Long as I keep dynamic under 8.5:1 I should be good on pump gas.

I was looking at the EFI stack system but considering the header design I am awaiting a response from Iglese on how their Ez EFI webber setup works. I dont know if their system could work off of reading just two cylinders.

Its nice though to hear from someone that the cam isnt too radical. Ive been hearing on the other posts that the cam is too large with too small of a lift and that on the street I would be running super rich at 2,000 RPM and have almost no power at low rpm.

I am not a fan of Edelbrock and never even messed with AFR before. My only problem is I cant get a definite answer on what intake port volume I should be looking at that would keep the air/fuel velocities high enough to improve low RPM cylinder filling and fuel atomization but also be large enough that winding the engine up to 7,000 - 8,000 rpm would not cause the engine have trouble breathing. I can always find another brand, maybe even one of World Product`s cylinder heads. Just unsure on whats too big or too small. Guy on a ford forum I visit said that 175cc is ideal for a small 302 based engine even for a 332 - 347 stroker.
 

·
Pro FFR Builder and Moderator
Joined
·
14,823 Posts
I am a dealer for Inglese and FAST and have used the EZ system a few times. It does work quite sell. You want to put the O2 bungs in the sidepipe collector and not on single tubes.
Most of the cams I use on small strokers are in the 500 range on lift and I find a 200CC head works best for the 331-347. If you want to turn the engine 7000-8000 revs you really need a solid roller.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
909 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 · (Edited)
I am a dealer for Inglese and FAST and have used the EZ system a few times. It does work quite sell. You want to put the O2 bungs in the sidepipe collector and not on single tubes.
Most of the cams I use on small strokers are in the 500 range on lift and I find a 200CC head works best for the 331-347. If you want to turn the engine 7000-8000 revs you really need a solid roller.
I would if I could, but the coupe headers don't merge into one unless I have custom headers/pipes made up. I sent a tech question to inglese, I thought maybe if I wired two 02 sensors in the computer count account for that.

So you don't think a solid flat tappet cam like that could handle 7,000-8,000 rpm? I could probably get comp cam to custom grind me a solid roller cam to those specs if need be.

The edelbrock 205 heads with 2.08/1.60 valves and 205 cc intake port would work well then? For the cost of the heads I'm looking at I want to end up with a ideal balance of velocity for lower rpm cylinder filling and high rpm breathing. Sounds like I would to wrong with the 195cc or 205cc heads then.
 

·
Pro FFR Builder and Moderator
Joined
·
14,823 Posts
You can do a solid flat tappet cam but a solid roller would be a better choice. This is mostly do to the hardening processes with flat tappet cams. The EPA has changed the allowed process for hardening and the quality just isn't there any more. You run a real risk of flattening a lobe unless you put in break in springs and them break in the cam properly them change out the springs to the correct tension springs for the cam. It's just a ton of extra work. We can also do things with a roller profile that you can't with a flat tappet.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
8,022 Posts
Rusty.

I wouldn't get too caught up in port volume but consider the head flow under .500" lift more. If you can find a smaller port head that flows the same as a larger port head then you will have a much better performing and responsive engine. Here is a pretty comprehensive list of head flow data Ford Head Flow Data and Specs now consider that this data was taken on a number of different flow benches by different people but nontheless it's a good comparative data set. The new AFR renegade series heads seem to have extremely good port flow numbers relative to the port volume.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
909 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Rusty.

I wouldn't get too caught up in port volume but consider the head flow under .500" lift more. If you can find a smaller port head that flows the same as a larger port head then you will have a much better performing and responsive engine. Here is a pretty comprehensive list of head flow data Ford Head Flow Data and Specs now consider that this data was taken on a number of different flow benches by different people but nontheless it's a good comparative data set. The new AFR renegade series heads seem to have extremely good port flow numbers relative to the port volume.
That's where the edelbrock CNC 185 heads come in. At 0.200 and 0.300 lift the heads flow better than the aff heads but the aff heads flow more at 0.500 lift. The better flow at 0.200 and 0.300 lift is only 4 to 7 cfm more than the aff ones. I do like the 58 cc chambers of the aff ones but 59 cc can be resolved going with thinner than 0.040 head gaskets.

Iv been looking at mid life flow rates but not finding anything better than the three above. But I am still looking.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
29,393 Posts
Have you looked at Brodix or Trick Flow heads?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,253 Posts
Individual runner intake systems like stack EFI and Webers are a very different animal than what you might be used to. Head and cam selection are very important, if you want it to run right.

The cam needs a much wider LSA than 107*. A tight LSA means the intake and exhaust are valves are open at the same time for a longer period than you would expect. That's fine with a common plenum. But with IR, you tend to get a lot of reversion. Not good for performance, and you get a little fuel fog over the intake. That much reversion really messes with downdraft carbs, not so much with EFI.

Look for a cam with something like 114-115* LSA. Comp Cams has some good ones off the shelf. Look at the Inglese web site for specific cams. If you want something bigger than that, you can look at the Comp Cams web site, and look under stroker cams for the 5.0.

The other issue is port velocity. If your intake valve is bigger than your carb/throttle body throat, you will lose all your low end power. The air moves through the small carb/TB area. There it gets compressed, and it speeds up. Then it enters valve area, which is bigger. Now the air slows down, and becomes turbulent. The fuel will fall out of suspension.

I use 52mm throttle bodies. The cam is huge, with 114* LSA. The heads are Dart Pro-1, ported by Gordon. The valves are 2.02". With a big stroker like mine, there's plenty of room for a bigger intake valve. So, I tried it, and installed a set of Brodix heads with 2.08" valves. Bad idea - didn't work well at all.



I might be able to pick up a little power but increasing valve size to 2.05". Maybe. But I can think of better uses for $1600'ish.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
909 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Have you looked at Brodix or Trick Flow heads?
I looked at Trick Flow heads but all the heads that I found on summit that was around 58 - 60 cc were all twisted wedge heads requiring the use of special pistons. That wouldnt matter so much if I was buying the pieces seperate but I planned on buying the Scat 332 stroker rotating kit that came with pistons.

I dont think I looked at Brodix, but I do know World offers a Windsor Jr head with 58cc chambers but I dont know if those are just castiron or aluminum. The Jr. didnt show up when I was looking up just aluminum heads.

I will how ever check out Brodix.

Individual runner intake systems like stack EFI and Webers are a very different animal than what you might be used to. Head and cam selection are very important, if you want it to run right.

The cam needs a much wider LSA than 107*. A tight LSA means the intake and exhaust are valves are open at the same time for a longer period than you would expect. That's fine with a common plenum. But with IR, you tend to get a lot of reversion. Not good for performance, and you get a little fuel fog over the intake. That much reversion really messes with downdraft carbs, not so much with EFI.

Look for a cam with something like 114-115* LSA. Comp Cams has some good ones off the shelf. Look at the Inglese web site for specific cams. If you want something bigger than that, you can look at the Comp Cams web site, and look under stroker cams for the 5.0.

The other issue is port velocity. If your intake valve is bigger than your carb/throttle body throat, you will lose all your low end power. The air moves through the small carb/TB area. There it gets compressed, and it speeds up. Then it enters valve area, which is bigger. Now the air slows down, and becomes turbulent. The fuel will fall out of suspension.

I use 52mm throttle bodies. The cam is huge, with 114* LSA. The heads are Dart Pro-1, ported by Gordon. The valves are 2.02". With a big stroker like mine, there's plenty of room for a bigger intake valve. So, I tried it, and installed a set of Brodix heads with 2.08" valves. Bad idea - didn't work well at all.



I might be able to pick up a little power but increasing valve size to 2.05". Maybe. But I can think of better uses for $1600'ish.
I was looking at the Webber cams on Inglese`s website, they worked with comp cams but comp cam`s store search doesnt bring them up so I dont exactly know what the operating range is, considering their hyd rollers I figure no more than 6,000.

If I went with the EFI webber style induction I was looking at this intake manifold that has a plenum.

Inglese: Intake Manifold, 289-302W, IDA, EFI (Plenum Version)

If I desided to go carbureted, I had a few ideas of how I could do it but after hearing that cam wouldnt be good with the Webber stack style induction I can change my ideas up alittle and go with the following setups.

Option 1
Edelbrock F-28 dual quad intake manifold
Dual TSD 45mm DCOE side draft carbs
Cost : $3,225.44

Option 2
Wieand X-CELerator single plane highrise
x1 TSD 45 mm DCOE side draft carb
Cost : $1,699.40

Option 3
Weiand Stealth dual plane highrise
x1 TSD 45 mm DCOE side draft carb
Cost : $1,665.40

Option 4
Edelbrock Performer three dueces
x3 Stromberg 97 2bbls
Cost : $2,165.92

I think option 1 would be good, high dollar but good. Option 4 would probably be my second choice for a vintage performance look with 2 and 3 tieing for third.

Honestly I dont think the three stromberg 97`s induction would be enough for up to 7,000 rpm. The two TSD 45mm DCOE side draft carbs I think would be enough but thats almost $3,000 for just two 4bbl carbs which I could just get two plain old 700 - 750 cfm holley`s for $600.

That also means that the EFI setup would probably be a better idea cost wise but I still havent heard from Inglese on other optional ways of doing the EFI while keeping the coupe`s dual header style exhaust system. Might have to take and just have custom headers made where they merge into one pipe with two hookups to maintain the dual sidepipe look I want.

I guess my only option is to just keep looking and check with comp cams to see if they could design me a custom designed cam that will sound and operate like the Howards cam`s version I found that they claim is close to the LeMans specs and see what they can come up with in a solid roller. Maybe can get a cam that has a tighter LSA and will allow me to run a non EFI webber stack induction. It would be more costly than the EFI but I can't complain since I got an idea for a look I am wanting to achieve. I just want to make sure I dont end up buying for instance $1,500 heads only to find out they are wrong and should have went with something else. I doubt I could turn around and sell used heads for the same amount I gave for them.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,253 Posts
You don't need special headers to use EFI. I just use standard FFR Roadster headers with mine. I'm guessing that you're thinking of the O2 sensor placement. You can place the sensor in a single tube, or in a 2 tube collector/merge. Or you could eliminate the sensor altogether, and run it open loop. Not as efficient as closed loop, but still better than a carb.

For the cam, you want a wider LSA for IR inductions, EFI or carb. If you want some special cam specs, you'll need to get a cam built for you.

You're right about the heads. If you buy the wrong heads, you'll never get your money back out of them.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top