2 heads better than 1 - power porting E7TE iron.

[qikgts]

I really appreciate all the work put into this so far! I swear I do!

With all due respect though, couldn't you guys have at least scored a Ford Racing B cam or something off Craigslist for this when the specs became known?

If this data is whats going in the book, I don't understand how anyone will learn something other than how to mismatch heads with a cam.

[Carnut1]

Well, a miscommunication caused several issues and no more dyno tests will be done this trip. I do feel like I am leaving empty handed not running both sets of my 289 heads. DV is scheduled to return and do some more dyno tests with a 7000 rpm hydraulic roller cam. In the 90's I liked the X cam ran well to about 6800 rpm. I wish I had more. Thanks, Charlie

[GARY C]

My interpretation of this last test is simply that the cam isn’t big enough to exploit the bigger heads.

These heads are also showing more fuel flow, and no more power....... showing same fuel s/g @.741.

I’d be interested in hearing the reasoning behind using the really short cam timing for this series of tests.

I also see it’s lost 10psi of oil pressure at the same 145* oil temp compared to a few tests ago.

I have an issue with the short cam. I was told it would be a nasty hydraulic roller. It is not the cam he told me it was on the way up to Virginia. Intake manifold had a bit of a leak so we have gotten some water in the oil. Still issues with the 289 heads so I hope to test them tomorrow before I am forced to leave. Thanks, Charlie

I thought it was going to be an aggressive hydraulic roller cam also Charlie. The spring pressure on my heads are in the neighborhood of 160 seat and 4-425 @ .600 lift which is what I thought the cam was going to be around.

I would not have used those springs for this small cam

Following this thread I thought the idea was to show how much could be gained by head porting alone, there was mention of a (B303 cam?) I got the impression it would be close to stock size on the correct lsa to show the port work potential, the way it has been going here lately a bigger cam would have got the thread locked.

I think the results show the porting potential and good numbers with a cam that small.

There was also talk in the thread about a 347 and some eddy heads, it would be interesting to see the E7, GT40 against the unported eddy.

[GARY C]

Well, a miscommunication caused several issues and no more dyno tests will be done this trip. I do feel like I am leaving empty handed not running both sets of my 289 heads. DV is scheduled to return and do some more dyno tests with a 7000 rpm hydraulic roller cam. In the 90's I liked the X cam ran well to about 6800 rpm. I wish I had more. Thanks, Charlie

There never seems to be enough time, look on the bright side, no one can say your head porting has not been tested.

[Carnut1]

Thanks, DV stated that the setup as tested is a true street cam. No arguement. Any of the ported heads would make a nice street mill with mild gears. I would still be running a hydraulic roller even on a work truck but that is me. Thanks, Charlie

[PRH]

I guess I look at it like this.......

I can’t imagine anyone spending as much time on the head porting as was done to all three sets tested here....... if the intent for the application of the build was something where a 204@.050 cam was the right size.

Sure, the motor made nice power with having that little cam in it, but imo the small displacement and short cam timing, having the motor peak at a very conservative rpm, doesn’t allow the potential power increases that can come from “bigger” ports to be realized.

It’s like you maxed the cam out....... not the heads.

Everyone’s an expert I know........
But.......on a little motor like that, I woulda put a cam in it that could peak closer to 7k with good heads on it.

[Carnut1]

Just finished looking at torquemaster program with DV for 7000 rpm hydraulic roller cam. And the specs on the old X cam are only off a few degrees. Not bad for a 90's cam pic with limited grinds available back then. Gotta fly home. Thanks, Charlie

[Rick360]

I guess I look at it like this.......

I can’t imagine anyone spending as much time on the head porting as was done to all three sets tested here....... if the intent for the application of the build was something where a 204@.050 cam was the right size.

Sure, the motor made nice power with having that little cam in it, but imo the small displacement and short cam timing, having the motor peak at a very conservative rpm, doesn’t allow the potential power increases that can come from “bigger” ports to be realized.

It’s like you maxed the cam out....... not the heads.

Everyone’s an expert I know........
But.......on a little motor like that, I woulda put a cam in it that could peak closer to 7k with good heads on it.

I agree with that ^^^

Charlie, It's good that you finally got some dyno test time to help with your head development. You will always learn something on the dyno. Sometimes you learn what NOT to do. I think what you may have learned here is how important PLANNING a dyno session is before you have the engine bolted to the dyno.

Rick

[RAMM]

I guess I look at it like this.......

I can’t imagine anyone spending as much time on the head porting as was done to all three sets tested here....... if the intent for the application of the build was something where a 204@.050 cam was the right size.

Sure, the motor made nice power with having that little cam in it, but imo the small displacement and short cam timing, having the motor peak at a very conservative rpm, doesn’t allow the potential power increases that can come from “bigger” ports to be realized.

It’s like you maxed the cam out....... not the heads.

Everyone’s an expert I know........
But.......on a little motor like that, I woulda put a cam in it that could peak closer to 7k with good heads on it.

Totally agree with Dwayne in his assessment, between ST and Moparts I believe we would get along famously. J.Rob

[Carnut1]

I guess I look at it like this.......

I can’t imagine anyone spending as much time on the head porting as was done to all three sets tested here....... if the intent for the application of the build was something where a 204@.050 cam was the right size.

Sure, the motor made nice power with having that little cam in it, but imo the small displacement and short cam timing, having the motor peak at a very conservative rpm, doesn’t allow the potential power increases that can come from “bigger” ports to be realized.

It’s like you maxed the cam out....... not the heads.

Everyone’s an expert I know........
But.......on a little motor like that, I woulda put a cam in it that could peak closer to 7k with good heads on it.

I agree with that ^^^

Charlie, It's good that you finally got some dyno test time to help with your head development. You will always learn something on the dyno. Sometimes you learn what NOT to do. I think what you may have learned here is how important PLANNING a dyno session is before you have the engine bolted to the dyno.

Rick

No doubt Rick! Preparation goes a long way when time is $! Thanks, Charlie

[novadude]

Thanks, DV stated that the setup as tested is a true street cam. No arguement. Any of the ported heads would make a nice street mill with mild gears. I would still be running a hydraulic roller even on a work truck but that is me. Thanks, Charlie

On the bright side, this test DID show what is possible with a really small street cam. Some impressive hp numbers from a little engine with a cam that likely idles dead smooth and makes a ton of vacuum. This would be a really nice engine for an old pre-49 street rod with an OD automatic and A/C.

[qikgts]

On the bright side, this test DID show what is possible with a really small street cam. Some impressive hp numbers from a little engine with a cam that likely idles dead smooth and makes a ton of vacuum. This would be a really nice engine for an old pre-49 street rod with an OD automatic and A/C.

True that... lol

[gruntguru]

Thanks, DV stated that the setup as tested is a true street cam. No arguement. Any of the ported heads would make a nice street mill with mild gears. I would still be running a hydraulic roller even on a work truck but that is me. Thanks, Charlie

On the bright side, this test DID show what is possible with a really small street cam. Some impressive hp numbers from a little engine with a cam that likely idles dead smooth and makes a ton of vacuum. This would be a really nice engine for an old pre-49 street rod with an OD automatic and A/C.

100% agree. Stock idle, stock vacuum, better than stock torque at all rpm tested and a serious gain in peak torque and power. Would make a great mill in a city driven car or truck with manual transmission.

[David Vizard]

OK guys,

Time to throw in my ten cents worth as the background events will explain a lot of the why's and where-fores that are being asked.

Rick 331 - for once I agree with something you have said concerning being organized before going to the dyno. However much of the problems here stem from the fact that 4 days before my Nov 2,3 & 4 seminar I was rushed to the emergency room with impending congestive heart failure. I managed to wheedle my way out of hospital on wed. and get some vital seminar prep work done for the start of the seminar on Friday.
This is where having good friends pays off. I want to thank Charlie, Marvin, James and Mike ( a 4 time seminar attendee) for busting their b****s to get things ready for an on time start on Friday morning as well as filling in a few hours of the seminar for me when I ground to an almost standstill.


With all this going on Terry and Jack at Terry's Roanoke shop where putting the finishing touches to the 302 test engine. It was not a brand new engine but had only limited test time on it. With a single 4 barrel and a set of my super Dart heads paired with a hyd roller it whizzed by a streetable 500 hp mark but that was not where I wanted it for the start of the tests.

During the assembly of this engine Jack called me while I was in hospital and drugged up to the eye-balls in -- well whatever - and asked if the cam he was reading out the spec to me was the one I wanted. I told him I thought the one was a 274 FTH but was told there was no 274 FTH in my store room only this 260 by Mike Jones. Somewhere in the back of my drug laden mind I knew I had a short MJ cam to evaluate so concluded that must be it. My reasoning? It is not too difficult to open up some ports and find a little more airflow for a bigger cam to take advantage of. That is almost solely an air-flow situation. However if the heads show a much better output at rpm where airflow is not the main criteria it demonstrated the use of modifications which improve the combustion and scavenge process that don't necessarily show up on a flow bench. The short cam favored the stock head a little more than the modified head so any gains shown are due to and overall better package not just airflow.

Hopefully the graph I am about to post in my next entry will demonstrated that point.

DV

[David Vizard]

A few words on testing to pin-point accuracy. Under the circumstances prevailing for these tests the inclusion of any in-depth analysis of fuel consumption and brake specifics had to be very much relegated to a minor secondary consideration. Our time on the dyno had already been cut by two days due to my medical problems. That meant these tests had to be focused on getting meaningful output reading and cramming in all the tests I had on the list. Changing 8 sets of cylinder heads takes time and the clock is always ticking. Also, part of the test program hiccup was that there was a muddle up of valves and some got installed in the wrong heads. This meant I had to come back to Charlotte early to machine up another set for the principle heads for this test. That is, a look at the effectiveness of the Serveido/Vizard 289 vintage race heads.
Sorry if that does not set well with some of you but it is my dyno session and I am footing the bill so I get to prioritize what we look at and what we skip.

Before getting started on the subject of cylinder heads a few words on the Mike Jones cam used. Granted it was shorter than I had originally envisaged using but as it happens things worked out for the better. If I had started with the 274 I had in mind originally then I would not have gone back and tested a shorter cam. As things so happened I will now do some of the heads with a 274 FTH cam and maybe with the hyd roller of about 280 degrees that this short block originally had. So fella’s things may not be so bleak as you might have supposed in the cam duration area.
And still on the subject of MJ cams – thanks for grinding me yet another great cam Mike.
As I recall an engine in this spec with a stock Mustang cam only goes about 310 lbs-ft with the intake/carb/header combo we have when used with stock heads. Looks like your cam was worth at least 20 lbs-ft or so.

OK let’s look at before and after torque output of our test engine. With about the same CR in each instance (and we will deal with CR changes in detail later) we see that the E7TE heads Charlie and I did (Charlies ports – my chambers) showed an increase almost from the get go. At these low rpm increased output is only affected minorly by airflow. What does bump the output is more port energy for reduced reversion, more swirl, better mixture quality, better scavenging (making the most of late phase hyper-scavenging) more effective combustion from better in-cylinder fuel dispersion, etc.
Peak torque was up from 338 lbs-ft @ 3800 rpm to 367 lbs-ft @4500 rpm for almost a 30 lbs-ft increase. Torque at 5000 rpm went up by over 60 lbs-ft.
Next we will look at the horsepower increase seen with our modified iron.

DV