Fordnatics List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Fontana Peter" <(email redacted)>

OK - let's postulate a 351W with mildly worked aftermarket aluminum heads,
some attention paid to bottom end strength, and a GT-40 induction system
(with appro. sized MAF, TB, injectors, pumps, etc). Assume I want to run a
peak in the 6200-6400 range, with no fear of slipping into the high 6's by
mistake. For a variety of technical and non-technical issues, I'm thinking
of running a solid flat tappet cam. I've gotten some specs from Wolverine
(from their Camshaft Quick Reference Guide):

Ford 221-302 (351W with changed firing order):
(all the below cams are solid flat tappet design)
part # range .050 dur adv dur valvelift lobe ctr
(?) I/E I/E I/E I/E
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
WG-5040 B 218/228 266/278 487/511 108/116
WG-5041 C 222/222 269/269 497/497 106/104
WG-1038 C 228/228 310/310 477/477 108/120 GT-350 cam: C30Z-6250C
WG-1039 D 238/248 289/308 512/536 107/117
WG-1086 D 248/258 310/320 536/560 103/113
WG-976 E 251/252 318/320 528/528 102/112
WG-1069 E 254/254 314/314 571/571 102/110

The context is a street car ('69 stang convertible), 5-speed Tremec, full
street suspension mods. No regular drag or road work, but maybe an
occasional visit to the track. This is a 3-season driver, and it can be a
little eccentric, 'cause I am. I can't overheat, and I'm hoping the EEC-IV
can negotiate it into idling "OK". Rear gear ratio undecided. Full tube
headers (1.5" primaries?).

Pick your favorite topic and chuck out an opinion:
- Pick a cam
- Pick a head, and outline what work should go into it.
- will the GT-40 intake artificially cut the top of my peak?
- someone has said an extrude-honed stock (maybe from a 93 van?) intake will
work better - ?

I don't have anything except the car (still unmodified). I don't plan to buy
anything until at least the summer (sorry Dave - maybe you wife can upgrade
to a monster laundry rack then).

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Dave Williams)


-> For a variety of technical and non-technical issues, I'm
-> thinking of running a solid flat tappet cam.

I like the solids a *lot*, "for various technical and non-technical"
reasons. <grin>


-> WG-1039 D 238/248 289/308 512/536 107/117

Looks like a nice one for a non-smog, manual trans application. I hate
goobers who can't just say it's a 112 degree cam ground advanced,
instead of this split center caca.

Duration @.050 figures for solid cams generally look 4 or 5 degrees
longer than those for equivalent hydraulic cams. It's a result of how
the take-up ramps are ground.

This would still be a healthy cam, but it should be very streetable.


-> - Pick a head, and outline what work should go into it.

Dart Windsors. The bang-for-the-buck ratio is just too damned good to
waste your time messing with anything else. By the time you locate a
set of early-type Windsor heads, have them fitted with oversize valves,
and pocket ported, you'd have as much in them as a set of Darts, and
they wouldn't be near as good.

Second alternative: 351C-2V heads and B&A intake, using DFI injector
mounts pressed in at the ends of the runners and the throttle body
mounted where the carb goes.


-> (sorry Dave - maybe you wife can upgrade to a monster laundry rack
-> then).

<grin> BTW, I have some odds and ends for sale at the moment:

373 Windsor crank: freshly ground 351W core, 3.618 stroke with
Chrysler rod bearing size, designed to work with narrowed 360 Chrysler
rods and stock 360 Chrysler pistons. $225. It doesn't get any easier
than this! Simply drop it in, no clearancing required.

427 Windsor crank: fresh standard/standard 400 crank, offset ground to
4.125 stroke and Ford 300-6 rod size, OD reduced, oil flinger cut down,
snout modified to fit in 351W block. Designed to work with 300-6 rods
and KB-112 Chevy pistons. $475. (.060 over gives you 427 cubes)


I gotta clear some of this junk out so I can start working on the fat
block stroker...

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Dan Jones <(email redacted)>

Peter,

Here's my attempt to build an optimum, aluminum headed, GT-40 intaked,
6000+ rpm, 351W for your 1969 Mustang. I'll start at the intake and work
my way through the engine, out the tail pipes.

First up is the GT-40 fuely intake manifold. The GT-40 intake was designed
to extend the rpm range on 5.0HO engines without sacrificing low end response.
To this end, long runners with larger than stock diameters are employed.
For a 351W turning 6400 rpm, this intake manifold will have runners that
are too long and/or too small in diameter and will probably be the limiting
factor (power-wise) in this exercise. Alternatively, you might consider one
of the short runner bread-box manifolds (Hartman, CarTech, etc.) meant for
high rpm or supercharged 5.0's. In theory, they should pose less of a
restriction to your modified 351W. Also, extrude honing a Cobra or Edelbrock
intake might be an option. In any event, for best overall response, the
engine should be matched to the intake manifold of your choice. I'll skip the
specifics of fuel pump flow/pressure, injector size, MAF, etc. until you've
settled on the rest of the engine.

Next up are the heads. These days, there are several in-line valve aluminum
heads to choose from including:

- GT-40's
- J-302's
- Windsors (by World Products, aka Dart II's)
- Edelbrock RPM's
- TFS Steet Heats

The aluminum version of the GT-40 heads have just come out. They will
immediately replace the SVO J-302's (which have been dropped from the SVO
catalog but may still be available from their manufacturer, Alan Root). The
aluminum GT-40's are destined to be one of the least expensive aluminum Ford
heads on the market (approximately $1000 assembled) and are supposed to be
an improvement over the cast iron versions, with a bigger intake valve and
larger ports. Valves are 1.94"/1.54" with 178cc/63cc ports and 65cc chambers.
They also offer bolt one architecture, with near stock port and valve location.
While these sound good as a 5.0 head, they are still a bit small for a healthy
351W. The same goes for the J-302's. More to my liking are the Dart II's which
offer 2.02/1.60 valves and more generous 190cc intake ports. Chambers come in
at 64cc and the valve centerlines have been moved to allow room for the larger
valves. Pistons may need a bit of notching for valve clearance, but that
applies in general to this build-up. These sound better suited for the 351W.
I'd stay away from assembled Dart heads as they are rumored to come with plain
Chevy valves and weak springs. If you like the Darts, buy them bare and
install quality components. The Edelbrock RPM's seem to compare with the
Dart's (2.02"/1.60" valve sizes and such). Other than that, I don't know much
about them. The TFS Street Heat heads come with 1.94"/1.60" inch valves but
can accept up to 2.08"/1.65" valves. Their 3/4" raised exhaust port may cause
header clearance problems, though. The TFS heads are thought to offer the
greatest flow potential, but they are also the most expensive in-line valve
heads around. Incidentally, TFS has brought out a low cost ($795 assembled
from Summit Racing) aluminum head for Chevys and is supposed to do the same
for Fords. For this build-up, I'd opt for one of the 2.02"/1.60" heads and
make sure the components are compatible with my cam kit and rocker arms. Also,
with the valve lifts we're considering, I'd opt for roller rockers and bronze
valve guides for decent valve guide life.

Next up are the engine internals, the cam and the pistons. I mention these
together because the amount of overlap provided by the cam plays a role in the
maximum compression ratio you can run. With aluminum heads and some overlap,
you should be able to get away with 10:1 compression on 93 octane pump gas.
I run 10.25:1 in my iron headed 351C (108 degree lobe centers, 224 degrees
duration, 0.550" lift, flat tappets). Since the GT-40 intake is going to limit
upper rpm power, I'd concentrate on pumping up the mid-range. I'd guess 220
to 230 degrees duration and 110 degree lobe centers will work well. Stick with
the lower duration or widen the lobe centers, if you want better idle quality.
If you port the heads to yield 75-80% (of intake) exhaust flow, a single
pattern cam will suffice. Otherwise, a dual pattern cam with more exhaust
duration/lift will probably work better. As a data point, the previously
mentioned 351C cam has a lumpy idle at 1000 rpm but pulls strongly to 6500 rpm.
I'm afraid to spin it any faster, as I have heavy 2.19"/1.71" diameter valves
and 1.73:1 ratio rockers. Whatever cam you pick, match the compression to
the overlap or you'll risk bleeding too much compression out the exhaust.

Personally, I like hydraulic roller cams. They cost more, but they make more
power (or have better fuel economy and idle characteristics) than a comparable
flat tappet cam, solid or hydraulic. Crane Cams makes a roller retrofit kit
and a series of cams for the 351W. If you're restricting yourself to the solid
lifter Wolverine cams listed, remember a solid lifter cam typically specs out
with a few more degrees duration than a hydraulic lifter cam. See my comments
on the Wolverine cams at the end of this note.

Finally, we come to the exhaust. 1.5" diameter primary pipes are too small.
1 5/8" should be considered the minimum for this engine. 1 3/4" will probably
make maximum power, especially if you can find a set of anti-reversionary (AR)
headers. Manufactured by the Cyclone and Blackjack header companies, the AR
header uses a cone internal to the primary pipe, located at the header flange,
to restrict flow from reverting back into the cylinder. This allows a larger
primary pipe diameter to be used for maximum horsepower, while retaining good
low speed operation. These headers require a cross-over and work best when
combined with a narrow lobe center camshaft (108 or 110 degrees for a standard
V8). I've always wanted to try a set but they don't make them for my combo.
For further information, see "How to Make Horsepower" by David Vizard (SA
Design Books). A set of the new merge 4-into-2 collectors might be an
alternative. Round out the exhaust with a set of 2 1/2 pipes and free
flow mufflers. I tried a set of Flowmasters on my car but they didn't quite
fit so I swapped them for a set of Walker Dynomax's.

Cooling should be easy in your case. A radiator for a 1969 428CJ Mustang
should fit and provide the required capacity. Wrapping the headers always
helps. As far as overspeed protection, install an MSD-6AL with built-in rev
limiter. As a bonus, if your cam has substantial overlap, the MSD will ease
starting and improve idle quality and low speed driveability.

Now if you want to be different, a long rod but stock displacement engine can
be built. A while back, several articles written by Pete Saueracker made the
car magazine rounds extolling the virtues of longer rods. The articles claim
all kinds of goodness for long rods: more power/torque, better idle, better
fuel efficiency, and lower octane required for a given compression ratio.
Pertinent to this build up, under restricted airflow conditions, long rod
engines work much better than short rod engines of equal displacement. As you
increase rod length, the piston dwells longer near top dead center for a
greater number of crankshaft degrees, extracting more power from the power
stroke. The 351W is a natural for the long rod treatment, because its tall
deck allows a meaningful increase in rod length. Custom JE pistons and
modified 351M/400 rods are the key to the build up. Wayne's Engines sell the
pistons and rods for 302 and 351W engines. Dubbed ZAP rods, they go for $249
to $349 per set of eight, including ARP rod bolts.

The test motor and results are summarized below:

Holley 650 carb (out of the box)
Weiand Stealth dual plane intake manifold
Crane Fireball heads (mildly ported Dart Windsors with 2.02"/1.60" valves)
Crane Cams hydraulic roller cam:
212/220 degrees duration @ 0.050 lift, 110 lobe centers,
0.531" lift with 1.6:1 ratio rockers
9:1 compression JE pistons
Modified 400 rods with ARP bolts
1 1/2" diameter headers
87 octane fuel
32 degrees total spark advance
17" vacuum at 850 rpm
Conservative dyno method

RPM Torque HP
(lbs-ft)

2000 349 133
2250 340 146
2500 350 166
2750 381 199
3000 404 231
3250 411 255
3500 417 278
3750 418 298
4000 428 326
4250 424 343
4500 410 352
4750 403 365
5000 396 377
5250 380 380
5500 363 380
5750 343 376

While the increased displacement strokers can make more power, what's really
intriguing about this motor is its efficiency. Over 400 lbs-ft of torque
from 3000-5000 rpm on cheap gas (and weenie 1.5" headers) with excellent idle
quality is impressive. Also the engine is not maxed out. One of the articles
estimates there is an easy 100 hp more to be had with more carb/cam/headers.
FYI, I've summarized the articles that I know of which concern long rod Ford
engines. As far as I can tell, the 351W in 2, 4, and 5 is the same test.
However, each article leaves out a few of the details. To get the full story,
you need to read each one. I believe 5 and 6 are compilations of articles
from Hot Rod and Car Craft magazines. I picked them up at the grocery store.

1. Super Ford, November 1994. "The Perfect Cleveland".
A (sort of) long rod 351C.

2. Super Ford, April 1994. "Rod Length Revisted".
302 and 351W engine tests. A bit short on 351W specifics but a decent
overview.

3. Popular Hot Rodding, March 1994. "Wild Horses".
Long rod 302 test.

4. Popular Hot Rodding, May 1993. "Super Ford: How to Build an Affordable
Long Rod 351W".
Has all the the 351W data and dyno sheets. Includes a comparison with
a similarly built (but stock rod) 350 Chevy, which it beats by 34 hp.

5. Engines (Peterson Publishing), 1994. "Windsor Combos: Extra Strength".
Decent long rod 351W article including dyno sheets.

6. Engines (Peterson Publishing), 1991. "The Truth about Rod Lengths".
An excellent technical article which explains the theory and then
demonstrates it with a dyno comparison of identical engines of differing
rod length. Restricted and unrestricted airflow cases were tested.
Over 250 dyno pulls were made! Highly reccomended, even if a small block
Chevy engine was used.


O.K, I know I avoided directly answering your cam question so here are my
comments on your cam examples.

part # range .050 dur adv dur valvelift lobe ctr
(?) I/E I/E I/E I/E
------------------------------------------------------------------
1. WG-5040 B 218/228 266/278 487/511 108/116
2. WG-5041 C 222/222 269/269 497/497 106/104
3. WG-1038 C 228/228 310/310 477/477 108/120 GT-350 cam: C30Z-6250C
4. WG-1039 D 238/248 289/308 512/536 107/117
5. WG-1086 D 248/258 310/320 536/560 103/113
6. WG-976 E 251/252 318/320 528/528 102/112
7. WG-1069 E 254/254 314/314 571/571 102/110

1. Too mild (duration-wise) for this application.
2. Very narrow (105 degrees average) lobe center causes short duration to be
required for acceptable idle. This is a strange looking cam. Could this
cam be meant for people with old high compression motors (e.g. 289 hipo)?
Extremely narrow lobe centers might bleed off enough compression to allow
use of pump gas. Or maybe this is a cheater spec cam?
3. An outdated profile (long duration with low lift).
4. Probably the best profile. My pick if I'm forced to pick from this bunch.
5. More of a mild race cam with narrow lobe centers (108 degrees average)
and long duration. Probably the edge of streetability. Would have a lumpy
idle but make great upper rpm power, given enough compression.
6. Strictly a race cam. Narrow lobe centers and lots of duration make it
unsuited for the street. Extremely lumpy idle.
7. Same comments as 6.


My ideal engine would take the previously described long rod motor, bump the
compression to 10:1, increase duration and lift a bit (5 to 10 degrees), add a
windage tray and 1 3/4" AR headers, and use synthetic oil. It would be really
interesting to run this through a computer simulation like Alan Lockheed's
Engine Expert or the equivalent. Maybe one of the mailing list members has
access to a copy? I'm not sure if any of this helps you out, but it was a fun
exercise any way.

Cheers,
Dan Jones

P.S. You mentioned suspension modifications for your Mustang. I've got some
ideas on those, too. Currently, I'm running a Global West Negative Roll front
suspension and Granada 11" disc brakes and spindles. Let me know if you want
to exchange ideas.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Fontana Peter" <(email redacted)>

Hey Dan - thanks for the excellent reply. Most of what you said jives with
what I've been hearing from others, but if you don't mind spending a few more
minutes, you've touched on some areas where I haven't heard much about your
some of the product you mentioned. Also, I'd like you to explain some cases
where you've recommended a path against what I've heard was "conventional
wisdom"


> First up is the GT-40 fuely intake manifold. The GT-40 intake was designed

> to extend the rpm range on 5.0HO engines without sacrificing low end
response.
> To this end, long runners with larger than stock diameters are employed.
> For a 351W turning 6400 rpm, this intake manifold will have runners that
> are too long and/or too small in diameter and will probably be the limiting
> factor (power-wise) in this exercise. Alternatively, you might consider
one
> of the short runner bread-box manifolds (Hartman, CarTech, etc.) meant for
> high rpm or supercharged 5.0's. In theory, they should pose less of a
> restriction to your modified 351W. Also, extrude honing a Cobra or
Edelbrock
> intake might be an option.

OK - given the cost and apparent mismatch at the upper rpm range, I won't
consider the GT-40 setup further. What's the upper limit on an extrude
honed Cobra manifold - weren't the factory resonance goals still short of
where I'm trying to go? I understand extrude honing ups my flow capability,
aren't the Cobra runners the same length at the GT-40's? What's a good box
intake? Do they run with EEC-IV?

What about the aftermarket computers - since I don't have any of there parts
yet, should I try to get a base setup (harnesses, injector plumbing,
distributor, stock EEC-IV, MAF, throttle body, etc) from the boneyard, or
would I replace enough of this to make the boneyard run a waste?


> If you like the Darts, buy them bare and
> install quality components.

I thought the aluminum Darts for the Windsor are still not available - are
you assuming they'll be introduced before I need them, or are these something
else?




> Personally, I like hydraulic roller cams. They cost more, but they make
more
> power (or have better fuel economy and idle characteristics) than a
comparable
> flat tappet cam, solid or hydraulic.
How is this? Everything I've heard on this is running a mechanical cam will
give you a few HP over an "identical" hydraulic due to the upper RPM limits
on hydraulics (bleed off, etc). Also, I've also heard pretty much universal
agreement that rollers are significantly heavier than flats, and this costs
additional valve spring pressure, or limits RPM.


> Crane Cams makes a roller retrofit kit
> and a series of cams for the 351W.

I'm not sold on rollers, or hydraulic at this point, but it is too early to
be "stuck" on anything.



> If you're restricting yourself to the solid
> lifter Wolverine cams listed, remember a solid lifter cam typically specs
out
> with a few more degrees duration than a hydraulic lifter cam.

Noted. I'm not stuck with Wolverine - they just offered the most extensive
information in my initial round of calls to the cam vendors.



> Now if you want to be different, a long rod but stock displacement engine
can
> be built. A while back, several articles written by Pete Saueracker made
the
> car magazine rounds extolling the virtues of longer rods. The articles
claim
> all kinds of goodness for long rods <description of goodness deleted>

I've heard the rags ring the long rod gong, but has anyone felt a difference
on the street?


> While the increased displacement strokers can make more power, what's
really
> intriguing about this motor is its efficiency. Over 400 lbs-ft of torque
> from 3000-5000 rpm on cheap gas (and weenie 1.5" headers)

Yeah - that is an awesome torque curve.


> 4. WG-1039 D 238/248 289/308 512/536 107/117
> 4. Probably the best profile. My pick if I'm forced to pick from this
bunch.

My pick, too.


> P.S. You mentioned suspension modifications for your Mustang. I've got
some
> ideas on those, too. Currently, I'm running a Global West Negative Roll
front
> suspension and Granada 11" disc brakes and spindles. Let me know if you
want
> to exchange ideas.

Sounds good - what are you running yourself? Give me your chassis wish list.

I had a '67 big block convertible that I hade done the Granada spindle swap
to, and the Versailles rear swap, too. My '69 convertible has front discs
already (I'm pretty sure they're 11" too), but the back's are drums now. I
won't do the Versailles thing out back again - it's heavier than a drum-based
9" with an aftermarket disc conversion, and it's too narrow for the wheels I
want - Halibrand Vintage 45 : 16x8 with 4.5" backspace.

My target suspension is:
- progressive rate springs in front
- 200 in-lb springs in the back
- Koni reds all around
- 1" front bar
- 5/8" adjustible rear bar
- panhard arm
- polygraphite bushings all around
- lower upper a-arms 1" (accomidate ball joint geom. change)
- export/monte setup bracing
- lower shock tower bracing
- rear discs and proportioning valve
- subframe connectors
- inner rocker bracing
- rear shock tower bracing (maybe - I've just heard of this)
- 16x8 wheels with 245/45-16 fronts and 255/50-16 rears