2004 - 2008 F-150
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by: Real Truck

Rafa26, Project Becoming A Reality .

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Oct 31, 2006 | 07:10 AM
  #76  
rafa26's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
20 Year Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,388
Likes: 0
From: hatboro-pa
Originally Posted by 05RoushMarkLT
rafa, looking good! Can't wait to hear the results once you put your foot into it. Do you have an expected completion date?
2-3 weeks i hope.
 
Reply
Old Oct 31, 2006 | 07:25 AM
  #77  
rafa26's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
20 Year Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,388
Likes: 0
From: hatboro-pa
Originally Posted by Josiah
Just another admiring your work rafa. I still don't understand how there are pro's to the 3v vs 4v. I'm aware DOHC's have an abundance of top end, and I'm assuming the low end is nothing to complain about either. More air/fuel mixture, better flow, etc. Someone smart, chime in and explain.
Josiah you asked for "Someone smart, chime in and explain" why 3V instead or 4V.

Learn on post #12 and #72.
 
Reply
Old Nov 1, 2006 | 09:50 PM
  #78  
assasinator's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
From: clarksville tn
one last small detail about 3v.

tumble port 4v has the intake charge targeted at the back of the valves. they have flat port floors where the charge overshots the front side of the valves to an extent. they still out flow, but at a price.

3v ports are superior in that manner.

achieving laminar flow with high port velocity produces excellent filling at low rpms. never forget max lift flow numbers are the same for "B" heads and "C" tumble port heads achieve completely different results for torque. 'b' heads have very little in a usable band and 'c' do. intake port CC's and resulting velocity are the culprit. low intake charge velocity and reduced charge filling take it's toll.

3v heads afford low intake port CC's and still have reasonable HP and max lift flow.

notice aluminum gt-40 pushrod heads flow 240 intake / 177 exhaust and i have witnessed 400hp in a 302 with box stockers. that's about the same as ours stock. add 28 cu.in. and ~40cfm and wellah, big power.

4v>3v>2v

don't under appreciate the effect of VCT in this equation. broad torque no 4v can match without it.

3v makes 295lb-ft at 1500 if i remember right. 300+ at 5100 compare that to a navi. top end and low end. VCT.
 
Reply
Old Nov 2, 2006 | 11:39 AM
  #79  
madferraristi's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,002
Likes: 1
From: Newark,CA
I can vouch for the low torque with the 4V heads.

With 620.51 HP (at 6000) I only have 606.74 torque (3700). In reality it's above 600 lbs from 3000 to 5000.

Bummer!
 

Last edited by madferraristi; Nov 2, 2006 at 11:51 AM.
Reply
Old Nov 2, 2006 | 12:14 PM
  #80  
a n t h o n y's Avatar
Banned
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
From: Central California
Seems kind of funny you are using JDM to build your engine and Factory Tech for your tranny. Did you look into VT Engines ?
 
Reply
Old Nov 2, 2006 | 04:49 PM
  #81  
rafa26's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
20 Year Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,388
Likes: 0
From: hatboro-pa
Originally Posted by a n t h o n y
Seems kind of funny you are using JDM to build your engine and Factory Tech for your tranny. Did you look into VT Engines ?
I think you have no idea what you are talking about .
 
Reply
Old Nov 2, 2006 | 07:55 PM
  #82  
assasinator's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
From: clarksville tn
edit: deleted
 

Last edited by assasinator; Nov 2, 2006 at 08:19 PM.
Reply
Old Nov 3, 2006 | 08:01 PM
  #83  
assasinator's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
From: clarksville tn
Originally Posted by madferraristi
I can vouch for the low torque with the 4V heads.

With 620.51 HP (at 6000) I only have 606.74 torque (3700). In reality it's above 600 lbs from 3000 to 5000.

Bummer!

i had to leave suddenly without finishing my point.

i looked at your dyno, and i need more info to illustrate my point.

it appears you have essentially a boosted navi. i have a few questions.

1. what cams are you using?
2. head work done?
3. what intake?
4. why keep the rpm so low, it wastes HP 4v navi's are capable of? ie 1355hp procharged on race gas.(mild)

more soon.....
 
Reply
Old Nov 4, 2006 | 09:04 AM
  #84  
assasinator's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
From: clarksville tn
ok, more. remember that your truck is killer, but...

stock lightnings make 505fwtq. you make 720fwtq.
johnny lightnings make ~600rwhp on pump you make 600 rwhp.

it seems you kept it mild and tuned it for low end. even an F1 engine can be tuned for 1000 rpm idle and low end, but is it the strong suit? not really, an F1 likes to idle at 9000 !!!!! that's really the point here, not whether a 4v can be DEtuned for low end. a 3v with vct makes both even when tuned for high rpm HP. VCT. nuff said....
 
Reply
Old Nov 4, 2006 | 03:57 PM
  #85  
weazel's Avatar
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,000
Likes: 0
Raffa,
you have to much money to spend.....but if your into spending money i will gladly help you......lol
 
Reply
Old Nov 5, 2006 | 08:33 PM
  #86  
FX4F150FX4's Avatar
Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
From: Brandon, FL
Is this going in your Lincoln?? If so what are you doing with your whipple??? If it is going to be for sale I have someone who is very interested... Thanks.
 
Reply
Old Nov 7, 2006 | 09:45 PM
  #87  
rafa26's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
20 Year Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,388
Likes: 0
From: hatboro-pa
Originally Posted by FX4F150FX4
Is this going in your Lincoln?? If so what are you doing with your whipple??? If it is going to be for sale I have someone who is very interested... Thanks.
Yes that's for the Lincoln. I will sell the Whipple 2.3 when they release the 3.3. I let you guys know when is available for sale.
 
Reply
Old Nov 11, 2006 | 11:21 AM
  #88  
rafa26's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
20 Year Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,388
Likes: 0
From: hatboro-pa
Meziere electric water pump.


 
Reply
Old Nov 11, 2006 | 11:46 AM
  #89  
rms8's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,316
Likes: 2
From: Northern Illinois
Just 3 words for ya Rafa26, tasteful bad-azz! Looks very sharp. I bet you don’t still live with your folks either.
 
Reply
Old Nov 11, 2006 | 12:43 PM
  #90  
assasinator's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
From: clarksville tn
what i like about this project is that....

in spite of the power the basic motor will make, nothing is left out. too many times a blower is bolted on, and that's it. loads of power are left on the table. for example...

windage tray= 30hp
electric water pump = 15hp
killer exhaust = ~20hp
low weight oil = 5hp
polished (and i mean really polished) rear end gears = ~ 3 percent driveline losses
vacuum pumping crankcase = 15hp
true matching headers (1 7/8") = ~20-40hp
knife edged counterweights on crank = ~ 5hp
cool running = 2 - 5hp per ten degrees

etc.etc.etc

these are the kind of thing that i call FREE power. they cost a little but add up.
 
Reply



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:01 PM.