Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth
Moderator: Team
-
- Guru
- Posts: 3279
- Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:46 pm
- Location: NC
Re: Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth
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!
Aluminum blocks and supporting components are just a tad better that their counterparts of the 70s!
Re: Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth
what kind of deburring stone. I wanna get one?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!
Re: Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth
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.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!
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
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
Custom Ford Windsor, Cleveland, and FE Street/Race Engines
-
- Guru
- Posts: 3279
- Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:46 pm
- Location: NC
Re: Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth
Could be, hard to say. But my statement is true none the less.blykins wrote: ↑Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:24 amMaybe 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.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!
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.
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
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1037
- Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 6:01 pm
- Location:
Re: Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth
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.
Re: Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth
Thanks for sharing Frankshaft. Nice to see real dyno data, not claims.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 3279
- Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:46 pm
- Location: NC
Re: Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth
Thanks for sharing your results!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.
Re: Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth
Appreciate the effort.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.
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
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
Custom Ford Windsor, Cleveland, and FE Street/Race Engines
Re: Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth
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 etcFrankshaft 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.
Re: Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth
awesome test FRANKSHAFT!
Thanks for your post. awesome results.
Thanks for your post. awesome results.
- Stan Weiss
- Vendor
- Posts: 4801
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:31 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
- Contact:
Re: Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth
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.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.
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
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
Re: Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth
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
631-816-4911
9:00am - 9:00pm EST
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1037
- Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 6:01 pm
- Location:
Re: Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth
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.Stan Weiss wrote: ↑Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:14 pmI 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.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.
Stan
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1037
- Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 6:01 pm
- Location:
Re: Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth
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.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 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.
Re: Iron to Aluminum block/Burr finish to smooth
Found those pics you posted a while ago. Thanks, CharlieFrankshaft wrote: ↑Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:34 pmI 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.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 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.
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
631-816-4911
9:00am - 9:00pm EST