Build Thread 1978 Mercury Cyclone. The pig is in the pen.

[xecute]

Oh, choice three for another engine family, the SBF Stroker.


To make 420 net flywheel hp, you'll need great heads and a 4-bbl 347 and a 240/[email protected], .576/.576 with a 110 lobe cam
To make 390 net flywheel hp, you'll need great heads and a 4-bbl 347 and a 236/[email protected], .603/.588 108 lobe cam


A six will need a L-O-T more cam.


Those three choices, for the reasons stated


1. 6 pack Hemi,


2. Cyco_250 and


3. Stroker 347 4-BBL


Those three cam choices show that the right cam for you is most likely the old Tighe cam on a wider lobe center with no split duration.

About 256 degrees at 50 thou max, or maybee the 243 or so C.O.M.E. duration figures.

 

[General karthief]

So he needs more lift, less overlap?

 

[xecute]

Much more lift, as at 550 thou to 600 thou, CFM still grows, up to 221 to 239 cfm at 28" H20 in fact if the C2 head is done right. High porting can take it easily to 275 cfm. Overlap isn't a huge issue.Thats an easy 413 hp right there, or 359 hp with 239 cfm. .

The rpm peak is a factor of CFM at peak lift, which always verifies the actual cfm of the intake. So 5900 to about 6200 rpm is the peak rpm, depending on 550 or 600 thou cfm. Its hard to shift that up or down even if you play with overlap.

Its the over exhausting issues that need to be controlled, peggging it back to 69% of intake and keeping the valve lobes appart helps the light intake mix get two slugs by pulse tuning. Reducing over lap is fine at some points.

Despite the fact that I consider it immoral, bad wrong, and evil, the six ITB's could be coverd by a V10 Truck engines rocker cover, which on the 6.8 in a Fox 4 is just about right where Mike has placked his narly multiple UFO style flying saucers.

The dyno packages are off for ITB engines. There is more to learn with these cams and fine atomised fuel injection engines.

 

[General karthief]

You could have just said yes.
But your explanations are entertaining.

 

[xecute]

I'm Lab Technician. When somone offers you a free launch and the launch comes witha little bit of dog poo, then the whole dish is dog doo doo. Right has to be right in all circumstances, and proven so.

I don't think overlap is to be reduced. I think it can take more. But only if the lobes are spread more. So a yes just wouldn't have done. LOL.

When Jason added ITB EFi, his horspower on this Cortina went down, but his mph at the 1/4 mile went up.

How do ya figure that?

I figure it by what David Viard found in the early 80's withthe Alcon EFi on the siamesed port 1275 cc Bug Eye Sprint engines. it couldn't use the fine atomised fuel spray. On the Ford Six, I'm certain that the engine needs something different from a traditional Weber DCOE and 4-bbl cam to make power. The LPG program for EFi engines differs quite a lot from the gasoline and heavy fuel programs. Other stuff happens when fuel air fixing is done by blasting the crap out of gasoline into a very low speed envirnoment.


The guy who did the 2V 250 six in 1969 said that it and the X-flow 250 loved Webers becasue they could be pulse tuned, which means the jet gets a strange intake reversion pulse which can improve vacuum and peak power. If an ITB EFi looses power, something is different, and needs to be changed to win it back.


Dyno Programs are a first clue to what works, then a dyno tune to verify.

My guess is the Megasquirt will lap up this Tighe cam, a vertiable tractor cam when non turboed, and I think it will give some great results.

 

[95BlueStallion]

You could keep Steve from getting bored, and have him create a boxed tune, and an independent air filter tune. Change it up from time to time

That will also allow you to fabricate an interchangable mount for those those independent filters that will bolt them in place using the same two nuts as the box. We all know you will have a need to fabricate, even after you are done making this set up.

 

[CarMichael Angelo]

Who wants to know what I know?

........................................................................Anybody?

.........................

I see that nothing has changed.

I called Schneider to follow up my email correspondence with him, and ask him why he spec'd what he spec'd.

He couldn't remember anything. I told him that he had given me a quote for a cam regrind, that basically removed about .050 from the intake, and .080 from the exhaust, and I wanted to know why that was...

He said that he thought he'd quoted it based on a 1.5 rocker ratio...

"But,...at .315 cam lift, a 1.5 rocker ratio would make the lift at the valve .472.....you quoted .480"
"Maybe it was with a 1.6"...."No, then that'd be .504"....

He couldn't justify, and wouldn't look back at his notes to tell me why he recommended what he recommended.

He wanted me to send him my cam, and we'd revisit what he thinks I should do AFTER I spend the money to send my irreplaceable camshaft to him and he looks the thing over.

Now.....Do I still have to tell you what I know?

Fine....

I KNOW that I will not be sending my cam to him.

I called Clay Smith.

Night and day difference.

That guy talked to me. Told me that he thought it premature to put the skids on the current cam. That while he'd like to see the lobes closer together, the high lift, and mild duration numbers weren't so far off that I shouldn't at least try the thing first. He wants me to advance it pretty far though...wants it in at around 109-108.

That sir, is no problem. I can get 109.5 easy using the built in 4-6-8* key ways in the crank gear.

He went off on a ramble, talking about the 355's they use in NASCAR making almost 800 hp at 9000 RPM based on a really wide lobe split,and high lift blah-blah this, and faster opening rate blah-blah that. He came back to earth long enough to verify my weanie duration numbers and stated that excepting the too far 114 LC specs, he'd probably recommend a cam similar to what I currently have. And to make up for the laziness, just advance the hell out of it to get it in the power band earlier.

He wouldn't even speculate that he could even regrind my cam...depending on how hard it was. He thought I should just go with what I got., and deal with it if it needs to be dealt with.

I also KNOW that I'm taking his advice. And...it looks like ( while I can't be absolutely sure) I'm taking the Advice of our Kiwi lab tech.

Now you all know what I know.

 

[CarMichael Angelo]

You could keep Steve from getting bored, and have him create a boxed tune, and an independent air filter tune. Change it up from time to time

That will also allow you to fabricate an interchangable mount for those those independent filters that will bolt them in place using the same two nuts as the box. We all know you will have a need to fabricate, even after you are done making this set up.

There's no mount required for the individual filters....they come with these new-fangled deadly-bobbers called a "worm clamp".

 

[Noobz347]

I just wanted to leave these random thoughts here to see if anything came from them:

 

[General karthief]

Who wants to know what I know?

........................................................................Anybody?

.........................

I see that nothing has changed.

I called Schneider to follow up my email correspondence with him, and ask him why he spec'd what he spec'd.

He couldn't remember anything. I told him that he had given me a quote for a cam regrind, that basically removed about .050 from the intake, and .080 from the exhaust, and I wanted to know why that was...

He said that he thought he'd quoted it based on a 1.5 rocker ratio...

"But,...at .315 cam lift, a 1.5 rocker ratio would make the lift at the valve .472.....you quoted .480"
"Maybe it was with a 1.6"...."No, then that'd be .504"....

He couldn't justify, and wouldn't look back at his notes to tell me why he recommended what he recommended.

He wanted me to send him my cam, and we'd revisit what he thinks I should do AFTER I spend the money to send my irreplaceable camshaft to him and he looks the thing over.

Now.....Do I still have to tell you what I know?

Fine....

I KNOW that I will not be sending my cam to him.

I called Clay Smith.

Night and day difference.

That guy talked to me. Told me that he thought it premature to put the skids on the current cam. That while he'd like to see the lobes closer together, the high lift, and mild duration numbers weren't so far off that I shouldn't at least try the thing first. He wants me to advance it pretty far though...wants it in at around 109-108.

That sir, is no problem. I can get 109.5 easy using the built in 4-6-8* key ways in the crank gear.

He went off on a ramble, talking about the 355's they use in NASCAR making almost 800 hp at 9000 RPM based on a really wide lobe split,and high lift blah-blah this, and faster opening rate blah-blah that. He came back to earth long enough to verify my weanie duration numbers and stated that excepting the too far 114 LC specs, he'd probably recommend a cam similar to what I currently have. And to make up for the laziness, just advance the hell out of it to get it in the power band earlier.

He wouldn't even speculate that he could even regrind my cam...depending on how hard it was. He thought I should just go with what I got., and deal with it if it needs to be dealt with.

I also KNOW that I'm taking his advice. And...it looks like ( while I can't be absolutely sure) I'm taking the Advice of our Kiwi lab tech.

Now you all know what I know.

I knew that.

 

[Vettn71]

I don’t mind saying that I don’t understand everything I know, but @xecute, you definitely give me information overload. Great sytuff, but my head aches after reading some of your posts. Can you simplfy some of your concepts so the top of my head doesn’t pop off and splatter on the walls?

Mike, I love the air box. Nice craftsmanship, even though you say it looks like poo. Your coal would be my diamonds

Jim

 

[droopie85gt]

Wait...I said that the current cam was going be fine....like 3 days ago! I have a 900 number you can call for advice in the future!

But I'll give you the proceeds back to look at the fab work on the air box. Looks pretty dang good from Memphis. You sell your craftsmanship short. I know the feeling though. When I do something some people go wow that is awesome. I look at it and see every flaw no matter how minute.

 

[xecute]

I just wanted to leave these random thoughts here to see if anything came from them:

Yep, Darth Episode VI looking increasingly bad and sinister, Noobz. What should be ugly under der helmut, is actually amazingly lovely. Cover it all up with the external breathing apparatuus, CMA. Just like Vader's stack hat.

As for the Exploding head syndrome, sorry people. I really thought it'd be as easy as Y =MX+C.

To get a trendline, you gotta have the data....that lot on cams was the data, and the Clay Smith guru....all cam gurus, rabbit on about what a certain characteristic is like on another engine. It is "compare and contrast". You let the images form trends, and eliminate a bunch of other talk, because a picture speaks a thousand words. Or less. Depending on your opinion.

 

[Noobz347]

What should be ugly under der helmut, is actually amazingly lovely. Cover it all up with the external breathing apparatuus, CMA.

My thought process is to design an airbox that shields the carb inlets from engine bay air and seals from the top when the hood closes. This way, everything is visible/accessible with the hood open, from the top.... Leaving all those pretty 'bling' carbs visible allowing for awe and wonder. So... When the hood is opened, half of the "breathing apparatus" stays with the hood.

 

[CarMichael Angelo]

My thought process is to design an airbox that shields the carb inlets from engine bay air and seals from the top when the hood closes. This way, everything is visible/accessible with the hood open, from the top.... Leaving all those pretty 'bling' carbs visible allowing for awe and wonder. So... When the hood is opened, half of the "breathing apparatus" stays with the hood.

I thought about that, but talk about fab work.....I'm also not confident that one of the G nostrils will be sufficient for airflow, and trying to bridge the two together will cause an interferance issue with something engine related IIRC.

 

[Noobz347]

I thought about that, but talk about fab work.....I'm also not confident that one of the G nostrils will be sufficient for airflow, and trying to bridge the two together will cause an interferance issue with something engine related IIRC.

You could leave a gap between the fender skirt and the enclosure to ensure clean air. It's doesn't have to be totally sealed. It just needs to ensure 'hotwash' isn't scooped right into the bells.

 

[CarMichael Angelo]

And just like that, that idea is dead. The front corner of that airbox actually will sit in the recess under the hood that makes up the RF G nostril. It's a cool idea,...but no worky.

 

[95BlueStallion]

You could make it just how you are, and just leave to top side of the box attached to the hood with a rubber grommet seperating the lid from the box. So it will function as planned, but open up with the hood to expose the TBs. Slap some JB weld over your sloopy welds you meantioned earlier...

 

[xecute]

Space ships and Le Mans racers used stripped down processes to get weight reduction. The NACA duct also worked on both the Gemini Space capsul and the GT40.

The early tragic losses due to fire and destruction from the work on the pared down low weight frontier gave some almost 5.0 EFi GT40 looking intake covers on top of the old FE 427.

I like the concept of parallel development.

The ill fated 7 liter GT40's, the 300 pound lighter, 4 speed gearbox J vesion of the Mark IV were so formidable, the French banned them with a new brace of regulatory further. Over night, it was 5 liter engines, and it clipped Fords claws, but didn't stop the American onslaught for engineering.

I think these kind of close proximity top hats are what Australian Vee Eight Super Car Organisations AVESCO 5 liter OHV V8's 8 trumpet, slide throttle ITB used as a template. Is just that Holamn Moody and Shelby did it 25 years earlier than 1993.


And the Perspex version. Like Gary Busey's constant reference to Clowns in the Apprentice, enough to draw the MF-Ing Finga!

"http://i1215.photobucket.com/albums/cc501/xecute6/xecute6002/Mark_4_j2_gt40_427.jpg"

You could make a Bolt on bolt off version in plastic or whatever for the price of one V10 rocker cover

Or get two V8 4.6/5.4 SOHC covers and tig em together.

That would cover your pancakes or half doughnuts, and you could then do the snorkle thing the way you want.

 

[Noobz347]

I'm thinking that Mike would take some small satisfaction at popping the top off of a derivative of this to reveal six shiny reindeer. I would use clamps similar in design to the stock Fox airbox clamps.