Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth

General engine tech -- Drag Racing to Circle Track

Moderator: Team

Warp Speed
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3264
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: NC

Re: Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth

Post by Warp Speed »

If the block is down the the suggested 40hp, the head work netted a 105hp gain, all else being equal.
Aluminum blocks and supporting components are just a tad better that their counterparts of the 70s!
Steve.k
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1562
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 10:41 am
Location:

Re: Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth

Post by Steve.k »

Warp Speed wrote: Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:12 am If the block is down the the suggested 40hp, the head work netted a 105hp gain, all else being equal.
Aluminum blocks and supporting components are just a tad better that their counterparts of the 70s!
:shock: what kind of deburring stone. I wanna get one?
blykins
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 9:59 pm
Location: Louisville, KY

Re: Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth

Post by blykins »

Warp Speed wrote: Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:12 am If the block is down the the suggested 40hp, the head work netted a 105hp gain, all else being equal.
Aluminum blocks and supporting components are just a tad better that their counterparts of the 70s!
Maybe we can ask Darin and Larry, along with David Reher, which blocks were giving them the 30-40 hp differences. Would be nice to know and I would assume that their data is not that old.

The blocks that I deal with that have shown the differences in hp between cast iron and aluminum have been Pond FE blocks. That's been within the past 2-3 years. Same thing for the Craft Racing boys.

I also think that midnightblue quoted some recent Australian drag racing rules that were only 3-4 years old, which favored the Dart Iron Eagle blocks because of horsepower discrepancies.
Lykins Motorsports
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
Custom Ford Windsor, Cleveland, and FE Street/Race Engines
Warp Speed
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3264
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: NC

Re: Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth

Post by Warp Speed »

blykins wrote: Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:24 am
Warp Speed wrote: Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:12 am If the block is down the the suggested 40hp, the head work netted a 105hp gain, all else being equal.
Aluminum blocks and supporting components are just a tad better that their counterparts of the 70s!
Maybe we can ask Darin and Larry, along with David Reher, which blocks were giving them the 30-40 hp differences. Would be nice to know and I would assume that their data is not that old.

The blocks that I deal with that have shown the differences in hp between cast iron and aluminum have been Pond FE blocks. That's been within the past 2-3 years. Same thing for the Craft Racing boys.

I also think that midnightblue quoted some recent Australian drag racing rules that were only 3-4 years old, which favored the Dart Iron Eagle blocks because of horsepower discrepancies.
Could be, hard to say. But my statement is true none the less.
How many have truly a-b-a the test?
What test conditions ect. Cell and dyno type?
We could go on all day, or like we have here, a week or two! Lol
Frankshaft
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 6:01 pm
Location:

Re: Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth

Post by Frankshaft »

Take it for what it's worth to you, believe it or don't. Doesn't bother me. I am not jumping through hoops so a couple of you take the test seriously. The test is about as accurate and back to back as 2 small shops, with limited resources, mainly time, can be. It's 100% honest, no bs, exaggerating, etc to prove my point​, the results are the results. It would have been nice to do the Burr/ smooth testing with no other variables, but again, the time factor. There isn't going to be any putting the parts back in the old Block, retesting, etc. Or making the ports rough again. I know the data is legit and accurate. Maybe not to a NASA level engineering testing protocol, but as accurate as you can expect for an internet forum. And for anyone interested, the car in question has been 5.47 in the 1/8rh in good spring air on a decent track at around 1500 ft. It has been 8.60's and .70's in the crap summer hot humid 3000+ ft garbage air at 154 and change. So, in good fall air it will be faster. Performance matches pretty well.
CGT
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2063
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 12:29 pm
Location:

Re: Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth

Post by CGT »

Thanks for sharing Frankshaft. Nice to see real dyno data, not claims.
Warp Speed
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3264
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: NC

Re: Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth

Post by Warp Speed »

Frankshaft wrote: Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:12 am Take it for what it's worth to you, believe it or don't. Doesn't bother me. I am not jumping through hoops so a couple of you take the test seriously. The test is about as accurate and back to back as 2 small shops, with limited resources, mainly time, can be. It's 100% honest, no bs, exaggerating, etc to prove my point​, the results are the results. It would have been nice to do the Burr/ smooth testing with no other variables, but again, the time factor. There isn't going to be any putting the parts back in the old Block, retesting, etc. Or making the ports rough again. I know the data is legit and accurate. Maybe not to a NASA level engineering testing protocol, but as accurate as you can expect for an internet forum. And for anyone interested, the car in question has been 5.47 in the 1/8rh in good spring air on a decent track at around 1500 ft. It has been 8.60's and .70's in the crap summer hot humid 3000+ ft garbage air at 154 and change. So, in good fall air it will be faster. Performance matches pretty well.
Thanks for sharing your results!
blykins
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 9:59 pm
Location: Louisville, KY

Re: Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth

Post by blykins »

Frankshaft wrote: Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:12 am Take it for what it's worth to you, believe it or don't. Doesn't bother me. I am not jumping through hoops so a couple of you take the test seriously. The test is about as accurate and back to back as 2 small shops, with limited resources, mainly time, can be. It's 100% honest, no bs, exaggerating, etc to prove my point​, the results are the results. It would have been nice to do the Burr/ smooth testing with no other variables, but again, the time factor. There isn't going to be any putting the parts back in the old Block, retesting, etc. Or making the ports rough again. I know the data is legit and accurate. Maybe not to a NASA level engineering testing protocol, but as accurate as you can expect for an internet forum. And for anyone interested, the car in question has been 5.47 in the 1/8rh in good spring air on a decent track at around 1500 ft. It has been 8.60's and .70's in the crap summer hot humid 3000+ ft garbage air at 154 and change. So, in good fall air it will be faster. Performance matches pretty well.
Appreciate the effort.

Would love to see more data if you are willing to post.
Lykins Motorsports
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
Custom Ford Windsor, Cleveland, and FE Street/Race Engines
Steve.k
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1562
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 10:41 am
Location:

Re: Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth

Post by Steve.k »

Frankshaft wrote: Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:12 am Take it for what it's worth to you, believe it or don't. Doesn't bother me. I am not jumping through hoops so a couple of you take the test seriously. The test is about as accurate and back to back as 2 small shops, with limited resources, mainly time, can be. It's 100% honest, no bs, exaggerating, etc to prove my point​, the results are the results. It would have been nice to do the Burr/ smooth testing with no other variables, but again, the time factor. There isn't going to be any putting the parts back in the old Block, retesting, etc. Or making the ports rough again. I know the data is legit and accurate. Maybe not to a NASA level engineering testing protocol, but as accurate as you can expect for an internet forum. And for anyone interested, the car in question has been 5.47 in the 1/8rh in good spring air on a decent track at around 1500 ft. It has been 8.60's and .70's in the crap summer hot humid 3000+ ft garbage air at 154 and change. So, in good fall air it will be faster. Performance matches pretty well.
Frankshaft those early blocks (alloy) were very beefy. Do you remember what weight difference would've been. I've always thought the cooler running nature of alloy was enough to pick up hp. Less residual heat migration into intakes etc
user-17438

Re: Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth

Post by user-17438 »

=D> =D> awesome test FRANKSHAFT!

Thanks for your post. awesome results.
User avatar
Stan Weiss
Vendor
Posts: 4795
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Re: Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth

Post by Stan Weiss »

Frankshaft wrote: Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:12 am Take it for what it's worth to you, believe it or don't. Doesn't bother me. I am not jumping through hoops so a couple of you take the test seriously. The test is about as accurate and back to back as 2 small shops, with limited resources, mainly time, can be. It's 100% honest, no bs, exaggerating, etc to prove my point​, the results are the results. It would have been nice to do the Burr/ smooth testing with no other variables, but again, the time factor. There isn't going to be any putting the parts back in the old Block, retesting, etc. Or making the ports rough again. I know the data is legit and accurate. Maybe not to a NASA level engineering testing protocol, but as accurate as you can expect for an internet forum. And for anyone interested, the car in question has been 5.47 in the 1/8rh in good spring air on a decent track at around 1500 ft. It has been 8.60's and .70's in the crap summer hot humid 3000+ ft garbage air at 154 and change. So, in good fall air it will be faster. Performance matches pretty well.
I am sure you are referring to me. I did not question your results. What I did question was your interpretation of the data that the block material did not matter.

Stan
Stan Weiss/World Wide Enterprises
Offering Performance Software Since 1987
http://www.magneticlynx.com/carfor/carfor.htm
David Vizard & Stan Weiss' IOP / Flow / Induction Optimization Software
http://www.magneticlynx.com/DV
Carnut1
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4657
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:32 pm
Location: Melbourne fl.

Re: Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth

Post by Carnut1 »

Shaft, nice job! Thanks for posting, I think the burr finish is worth considering on a more street oriented mill. Fuel prep from the mixers I think makes a huge difference here. If the fuel prep is good I don't think the burr finish would help. The question is you stated before that you did all burr finished work for years, after this test will it be all polish work? I would like to know if both ports and chambers were finished the same as well? Thanks, Charlie
Servedio Cylinder Head Development
631-816-4911
9:00am - 9:00pm EST
Frankshaft
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 6:01 pm
Location:

Re: Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth

Post by Frankshaft »

Stan Weiss wrote: Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:14 pm
Frankshaft wrote: Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:12 am Take it for what it's worth to you, believe it or don't. Doesn't bother me. I am not jumping through hoops so a couple of you take the test seriously. The test is about as accurate and back to back as 2 small shops, with limited resources, mainly time, can be. It's 100% honest, no bs, exaggerating, etc to prove my point​, the results are the results. It would have been nice to do the Burr/ smooth testing with no other variables, but again, the time factor. There isn't going to be any putting the parts back in the old Block, retesting, etc. Or making the ports rough again. I know the data is legit and accurate. Maybe not to a NASA level engineering testing protocol, but as accurate as you can expect for an internet forum. And for anyone interested, the car in question has been 5.47 in the 1/8rh in good spring air on a decent track at around 1500 ft. It has been 8.60's and .70's in the crap summer hot humid 3000+ ft garbage air at 154 and change. So, in good fall air it will be faster. Performance matches pretty well.
I am sure you are referring to me. I did not question your results. What I did question was your interpretation of the data that the block material did not matter.

Stan
No, not really, it was just a blanket statement covering any response that was in disagreement. In my mind, I don't think the Block material had anything to do with the gain, but, just showed it didn't hurt it either.
Frankshaft
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 6:01 pm
Location:

Re: Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth

Post by Frankshaft »

Carnut1 wrote: Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:20 pm Shaft, nice job! Thanks for posting, I think the burr finish is worth considering on a more street oriented mill. Fuel prep from the mixers I think makes a huge difference here. If the fuel prep is good I don't think the burr finish would help. The question is you stated before that you did all burr finished work for years, after this test will it be all polish work? I would like to know if both ports and chambers were finished the same as well? Thanks, Charlie
I have never been as aggressive as this was. In a lot of cases I do a "smooth" carbide finish. I actually spend time on it, after roughing it out, and it actually looks really nice. It is faster than a multi step sanding process, with no mess. Some guys still want the "traditional" sanded finish. I will continue to leave a lot of heads with the carbide finish.

I also agree with you that I think if you have a carb with poor signal, bad booster design, tuned wrong, etc, that some areas in the intake may be better rough. I personally think this engine before, hated the rough finish and it was causing a wet flow issue, doing the opposite of what is believed to be a benefit from the rough finish.
Carnut1
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4657
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:32 pm
Location: Melbourne fl.

Re: Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth

Post by Carnut1 »

Frankshaft wrote: Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:34 pm
Carnut1 wrote: Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:20 pm Shaft, nice job! Thanks for posting, I think the burr finish is worth considering on a more street oriented mill. Fuel prep from the mixers I think makes a huge difference here. If the fuel prep is good I don't think the burr finish would help. The question is you stated before that you did all burr finished work for years, after this test will it be all polish work? I would like to know if both ports and chambers were finished the same as well? Thanks, Charlie
I have never been as aggressive as this was. In a lot of cases I do a "smooth" carbide finish. I actually spend time on it, after roughing it out, and it actually looks really nice. It is faster than a multi step sanding process, with no mess. Some guys still want the "traditional" sanded finish. I will continue to leave a lot of heads with the carbide finish.

I also agree with you that I think if you have a carb with poor signal, bad booster design, tuned wrong, etc, that some areas in the intake may be better rough. I personally think this engine before, hated the rough finish and it was causing a wet flow issue, doing the opposite of what is believed to be a benefit from the rough finish.
shaft.jpg
shaft2.jpg
Found those pics you posted a while ago. Thanks, Charlie
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Servedio Cylinder Head Development
631-816-4911
9:00am - 9:00pm EST
Post Reply