Trick Flow Twisted Wedge Heads Cams and Intake NA Dyno Results
- Thread starter 007
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
Not as easy doesn't imply impossible as you would have many believe during the course of this thread. I've seen many DOHC examples pick up 100hp with CNC heads and a hot set of cams after other area's have been addressed. The same goes for a 302 OHV after the stock restrictive top end components have been shed. So why is it you think it’s so impossible a task to perform on a SOHC after addressing the rest of the inlet/outlet areas of the engine.
You've made it perfectly clear what you think of the Ford Modular’s in this and past posts, but do you dislike them so much that you refuse to recognize their ability to make any decent kind of power....even when an example is presented before you? I often wonder sometimes if you just argue for the sake of doing so?
lightblade
Member
- Aug 7, 2004
- 366
- 0
- 17
I think the point is people think they are going to make the max power a certain part made for a certain person at a particular time. Which is just not possible with so many different factors and other mods. Every mod is advertised like that. UDP for example most claim 10rwhp. In real life everyday cars people see 4-7rwhp gains. and the list of mods goes on and on where this is the case. Just beacuse a selct few made a 80-90rhwp gain from heads and cams i kow i will not see this. I would be happy with 50 rwhp and will probly see in the 40-60rwhp range with a good tune. Im going with stock heads custom port and polish angle job maybe over size vlaves. Stage 3 comp cam, springs, retainers, phasers. I know i wont see more than360-370rwhp with these mods and i think those are good numbers.
And I have full intake/exhuast mods to support the heads/cams. Im also going stock crank forged internals and theres no way im revving over 7,000 rpm especialy on the stock crank. Just because someone says they saw a head and cam swap make 90rwhp on car x doesn't mean i will see anywhere near those numbers just like every other mod you do. To think that is silly and trust me you will be disappointed. BTW i love the mod motor and I know Tank does too. We are just not blind to its drawbacks and realistic limitations. And we def take crazy allegations with a grain of salt its hard to believe for sure these kind of power claims when you work with and see these mod motor cars all the time and dont see anything near the claims. Done rambling lol.
And I have full intake/exhuast mods to support the heads/cams. Im also going stock crank forged internals and theres no way im revving over 7,000 rpm especialy on the stock crank. Just because someone says they saw a head and cam swap make 90rwhp on car x doesn't mean i will see anywhere near those numbers just like every other mod you do. To think that is silly and trust me you will be disappointed. BTW i love the mod motor and I know Tank does too. We are just not blind to its drawbacks and realistic limitations. And we def take crazy allegations with a grain of salt its hard to believe for sure these kind of power claims when you work with and see these mod motor cars all the time and dont see anything near the claims. Done rambling lol.
Stan Weiss
Member
With ported heads you will see peak HP at an even high RPM. Your limiting your RPM also limits the HP you can make.
Just another average guys 380 RWHP 348 RWTQ Stock Shortblock 3V SAE corrected. Would not be to hard to break 400 RWHP for him either.
YouTube - Dyno Pulls - Stage 3 Heads and Cams
The video shows STD correction factor @ 391 RWHP, 358 RWTQ.
WWW.S197FORUM.COM - View Single Post - New Heads and Cams Are In
His mods:
Steeda UDP's
C&L Street CAI
Shaker CAI
Livernios Stage 3 heads
Comp Cams XFI Stage 3 SPR Cams
American Racing Long Tube Headers (1.75" dia tubing)
American Racing Hi-Flo Catted X-Pipe
Spec Stage 3 Clutch
FRPP 4.56:1 R&P
Eaton TruTac LSD
This is marcspaz's car from S197Forum.com.
I am not blind to false claims. 4 years ago, I did not believe BBR made 406 RWHP with a stock shortblock 3V engine either. Today, with different shops doing it, average guys like the car above gettting close, yes it is definitely attainable.
Lightblade, I am well aware of different dyno's on different days. I don't need to be educated on dyno's versus racing either. Just because you are not seeing it at your shop does not mean it is not being done. You should know that since you are bringing up the dyno and racing thing.
YouTube - Dyno Pulls - Stage 3 Heads and Cams
The video shows STD correction factor @ 391 RWHP, 358 RWTQ.
WWW.S197FORUM.COM - View Single Post - New Heads and Cams Are In
His mods:
Steeda UDP's
C&L Street CAI
Shaker CAI
Livernios Stage 3 heads
Comp Cams XFI Stage 3 SPR Cams
American Racing Long Tube Headers (1.75" dia tubing)
American Racing Hi-Flo Catted X-Pipe
Spec Stage 3 Clutch
FRPP 4.56:1 R&P
Eaton TruTac LSD
This is marcspaz's car from S197Forum.com.
I am not blind to false claims. 4 years ago, I did not believe BBR made 406 RWHP with a stock shortblock 3V engine either. Today, with different shops doing it, average guys like the car above gettting close, yes it is definitely attainable.
Lightblade, I am well aware of different dyno's on different days. I don't need to be educated on dyno's versus racing either. Just because you are not seeing it at your shop does not mean it is not being done. You should know that since you are bringing up the dyno and racing thing.
lightblade
Member
- Aug 7, 2004
- 366
- 0
- 17
Revving over 7k with the stock crank causes wobble and egine harmonics which is bad and you will tear up your engine sooner or later no thanks
Really...
Balancing the rotating assembly properly, the stock crank will live at a higher RPM than 7K. Ken B( Owner of Modular Depot ) used to spin his stock crank over 8000 RPM with no issues in his N/A 2V engine. He is one of many that have done so with no issue. It seems to me that you need to find a different shop to deal with and get your info from...
lightblade
Member
- Aug 7, 2004
- 366
- 0
- 17
Lol. So he removed his stock crank to balance it and put it back in thats just retarded. 3V stock cast crank starts wobbling and vibrating good at 6800 rpm and up, blew the engine on an engine dyno testing it at different rpm. A FORGED balanced assembly will go to 8k and i WOULD NOT risk it on the cast crank at that rpm. And if u are pulling the rotating assembly and plan on running alot of power and rpm not upgrading to a forged assembly just doesn't make sense anyways. Just because a few guys got away with it (dont know why u would want to do that) doesn't mean, screw it, everyone keep the stock crank throw all kinds of power and ridiculous rpm at it, its cool. lol. Point is it still not a good idea and i would recommend a stronger crank, but to each his own.
It’s actually quite common to keep and rebalance the stock crank, when upgrading just the rods and pistons.
The stock nodular iron crank itself will take well into the 600hp range and isn't the weak link in the equation; it’s the spindly rods and glass like pistons that seem to give it up when the pressure is on.
nodular iron is stiffer and stronger than many steels. If it was so weak, how can it work in so many 4.6 engines for so many years? Pushing 400 hp at stock rpms is a lot harder on it than spinning 800 rpm faster, yet people feel free to stess the stock bottoms to the tune of 50 hp per cylinder with your basic Vortech plus bolt-ons.
The 2005+ 4.6 3V uses the same rods and crank, so obviously someone at Ford figured they could handle increased rpms. The Track Pack on the 2010 gives you a few hundred rpm over stock *from the dealer,* so I'm thinking it's safe to say that a balanced stock cast crank is fine. You know, considering these ar the guys footing the bill when new cars break.
But what I was thinking is that while many people are quick to mention the cost of these heads approaches the cost of a supercharger, what is the weight comparison? If you want to push the max power possible, you're gonna buy the heads anyway even if you go with a S/C, and at that point you've already decided cost is a non-issue once you get down to writing checks. As an either/or thing, the heads are cheaper for less power, obviously. But they don't hang 50 pounds off the front of your car, either.
The 2005+ 4.6 3V uses the same rods and crank, so obviously someone at Ford figured they could handle increased rpms. The Track Pack on the 2010 gives you a few hundred rpm over stock *from the dealer,* so I'm thinking it's safe to say that a balanced stock cast crank is fine. You know, considering these ar the guys footing the bill when new cars break.
But what I was thinking is that while many people are quick to mention the cost of these heads approaches the cost of a supercharger, what is the weight comparison? If you want to push the max power possible, you're gonna buy the heads anyway even if you go with a S/C, and at that point you've already decided cost is a non-issue once you get down to writing checks. As an either/or thing, the heads are cheaper for less power, obviously. But they don't hang 50 pounds off the front of your car, either.
Stan Weiss
Member
You do have an interesting view on crankshafts.
There is no reason a cast crankshaft if properly balanced can not be spin to 10,000 RPM safely. The limiting fact is not RPM but how much HP / torque that it can safely handle. 
99RioRedVert
New Member
I have a stock crank that has been machined/rebalanced, in a motor making 470 rwhp. I routinely rev it to 6,500 rpm and probably overrev it to 7k sometimes. I have had the motor apart many times and the crank has always been perfect. I couldn't imagine that thing breaking.
I would rev it to 7k or more if a.) I knew I could keep making power there b.) all the rest of my setup could handle it, namely the valvetrain.
I would rev it to 7k or more if a.) I knew I could keep making power there b.) all the rest of my setup could handle it, namely the valvetrain.
lightblade
Member
- Aug 7, 2004
- 366
- 0
- 17
It’s actually quite common to keep and rebalance the stock crank, when upgrading just the rods and pistons.
The stock nodular iron crank itself will take well into the 600hp range and isn't the weak link in the equation; it’s the spindly rods and glass like pistons that seem to give it up when the pressure is on.
I'm not talking about the power i know the stock cast crank has handled 600-800 hp in some cases im talking about RPM.
lightblade
Member
- Aug 7, 2004
- 366
- 0
- 17
to take the extreme case in the simplest form, the stress on the crank at 800 hp at 6000 rpms is much more than 350 hp at 7000 rpms. Not that anyone makes 800 hp on a stock bottom end at the factory rev limit
As a thought experiment: Mass times velocity equals the stress on the crank. Stock power for 99-04 engines is 260 @ 5250 rpms. That's obviously pretty damn close to 260 torque at 5250 rpms. Torque is the measure of the twisting force on the wheels, and so a measure of the twisting force on the crank as well. The twisting force on the crank is what we are concerned about.
If the stress on the rods and pistons (and therefore the crank) at stock power levels is = 1, then at 5250 rpms we have 1 x 5250 = 5250 for a "stress level." Increase the power to say, 400 torque/HP as it is widely accepted as the max "safe" level with a good tune on a supercharger, and we have a new stress level of ~1.5 x 5250 = 7875. Commonly considered safe and reliable with a "safe" tune - i.e. no detonation.
300 torque at 7000 rpms also gives you ~400 hp, and since we got there mostly by increasing rpms rather than greatly increasing cylinder pressures, we are not greatly increasing the stress on the rotating elements vs. supercharging. Going by our above math we get ~1.15 x 7000 = 8050. A marginal increase in stress over a supercharger. Given the much lower risk of detonation due to the high rpm, we actually *could* have a safer build.
Considering the fact that one isn't going to get 300 pound-feet of torque on an NA stock bottom-end 4.6 at a godly 7000 rpms, I think it's safe to say that as fast as you can spin it, the stock 2V bottom end is fine naturally aspirated. If you make 350 hp at 7000 rpms, you are only making ~260 torque at that rpm, and so we get 1 x 7000 = 7000, which is safer than making 400 hp with a supercharger and a stock rev limit. Strictly going by the numbers.
Considering that the 05+ 4.6's use the same crank and rods and the "Track pack" is a dealer-installed option that includes bumping the fuel cut-off up a few hundred rpm based on simple intake pipe/catback mods, I'd say that the engineers at Ford have tested the thing to expiration and are comfortable as you on your couch that the stock 4.6 2V/3V internals are stronger than they need to be.
But if it were me, I'd have the crank balanced when I replaced the rods and pistons so I wasn't relying on a factory external balancer to balance aftermarket guts - regardless of which crank I went with. But maybe that's just me.
In all this keep in mind that there is *theoretically* no difference between theory and practice
And I like doing the math and logic, but both may be wrong.
lightblade
Member
- Aug 7, 2004
- 366
- 0
- 17
I posted this because of the post of people going to 7k rpm and over, someone said they go to 8k on the stock crank, and someone else also said just balance it and it will go to 10k rpm no problem. These posts about the stock crank in the first place was that someone said to rev to 7500 and with full heads and cams and boltons and i will make 400rwhp, and i said i will not rev over 7k, in fact i will not go over 6800. My raptor comes on at 6400 and my rev limiter is at 6800.
lightblade
Member
- Aug 7, 2004
- 366
- 0
- 17
to take the extreme case in the simplest form, the stress on the crank at 800 hp at 6000 rpms is much more than 350 hp at 7000 rpms. Not that anyone makes 800 hp on a stock bottom end at the factory rev limit
As a thought experiment: Mass times velocity equals the stress on the crank. Stock power for 99-04 engines is 260 @ 5250 rpms. That's obviously pretty damn close to 260 torque at 5250 rpms. Torque is the measure of the twisting force on the wheels, and so a measure of the twisting force on the crank as well. The twisting force on the crank is what we are concerned about.
If the stress on the rods and pistons (and therefore the crank) at stock power levels is = 1, then at 5250 rpms we have 1 x 5250 = 5250 for a "stress level." Increase the power to say, 400 torque/HP as it is widely accepted as the max "safe" level with a good tune on a supercharger, and we have a new stress level of ~1.5 x 5250 = 7875. Commonly considered safe and reliable with a "safe" tune - i.e. no detonation.
300 torque at 7000 rpms also gives you ~400 hp, and since we got there mostly by increasing rpms rather than greatly increasing cylinder pressures, we are not greatly increasing the stress on the rotating elements vs. supercharging. Going by our above math we get ~1.15 x 7000 = 8050. A marginal increase in stress over a supercharger. Given the much lower risk of detonation due to the high rpm, we actually *could* have a safer build.
Considering the fact that one isn't going to get 300 pound-feet of torque on an NA stock bottom-end 4.6 at a godly 7000 rpms, I think it's safe to say that as fast as you can spin it, the stock 2V bottom end is fine naturally aspirated. If you make 350 hp at 7000 rpms, you are only making ~260 torque at that rpm, and so we get 1 x 7000 = 7000, which is safer than making 400 hp with a supercharger and a stock rev limit. Strictly going by the numbers.
Considering that the 05+ 4.6's use the same crank and rods and the "Track pack" is a dealer-installed option that includes bumping the fuel cut-off up a few hundred rpm based on simple intake pipe/catback mods, I'd say that the engineers at Ford have tested the thing to expiration and are comfortable as you on your couch that the stock 4.6 2V/3V internals are stronger than they need to be.
But if it were me, I'd have the crank balanced when I replaced the rods and pistons so I wasn't relying on a factory external balancer to balance aftermarket guts - regardless of which crank I went with. But maybe that's just me.
In all this keep in mind that there is *theoretically* no difference between theory and practice
Good theory. But it was tested to 7k naturally aspirated and at 7k the stock non counterweighted cast crank starts having problems, fact. from testing. You also start stressing the springs and valve float yadda yadda.
Stan Weiss
Member
What i said was
With a forged crank available and possibly cheaper than a properly balanced cast crank it might be the way to go.
The point being that a cast cranks strength is not determined by RPM but by load it has to handle. A stock engine with a 200 HP shot of nitrous will produce torque of over 700 @ 2500 RPM. How long do you think the cast crank will last.
lightblade
Member
- Aug 7, 2004
- 366
- 0
- 17
Yes rpm does effect its strength even something well blanced if u spin it fast it will wobble, vibrate and flex, which leads to stress cracks and breaking over time. I agree a bit bigger problem would be too much tq and power that causes problems too.
Similar threads
