Tunnel Ram with single Carb vs Hi-rise single plane
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 14 of 15

Thread:
Tunnel Ram with single Carb vs Hi-rise single plane

  1. #1
    Resident Ford Nut Sleeper CP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Diego County
    Posts
    10,072

    Default Tunnel Ram with single Carb vs Hi-rise single plane

    This post is a work in progress. I got tired of not seeing anything here. I'll edit as I go. So to get started on the first post:

    In 2000 I decided to step the 565" Ford up a bit. It was a 780 HP pump gas engine at 6,200 rpm's( it was a nitrous engine) with 10.2:1 compression. The new combo included bumping the compression to 10.8:1 and revising the cam a bit. Dan Crower has done my custom cam's for years. CrowerPower.com ( He is Bruce Crower's son and an old friend) The spec's on the new cam were:
    Dur at .050 278/285 adv. dur 317/325 & lift of .750/.760 on a 112 lobe sep.

    I had some extra parts that I wanted to try out on the dyno that included a Single 4 carb tunnel ram so I decided to run that against the single SVO FordMotorsport intake manifold. Here is what the engine looked like:


    And the single Hi-rise looked like this:


    We ran the two manifold's back to back on the same day. When we were done this is what the numbers looked like:

    The. . . T/R made: .................Single Hi-Rise

    ----- ---- HP trq................HP.....Trq
    4500---- 538 628 .......... .. 537 627

    5000---- 657 690 . . . . . .. 670 703

    5500---- 746 712 . . . . . . . 740 707

    6000---- 806 705 . . . . . . . 802 702

    6500---- 825 667 . . . .. . .. 850 684

    6800---- 818 632 . . . . . . . 850 656

    The peak #'s were:

    T/R trq. 712 @ 5500 HP 832 @ 6200

    Hi-Rise 711 @ 5800 HP 856 @ 6600

    Your results may vary

    Sleeper CP
    Big Inch Ford Lover
    Last edited by Sleeper CP; 12-01-2008 at 04:33 PM.

    "Dark Sarcasm"
    Going fast is only half the fun ... what you make go
    fast is the other half.
    " A Government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have"

  2. Remove Advertisements
    PerformanceBoats.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    steelcomp was here
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    n/e TN
    Posts
    26,280

    Default

    Not surprising the difference. Which combination was the cam ground for? I don't see the significance of comparisons like this when you change the combination so drastically. It's really not a fair comparison of the two manifolds without optomizing each for it's potential ie: a cam change.
    If God is your co-pilot, change seats!
    Acts 2:38, the perfect answer to the perfect question.

  4. #3
    Resident Ford Nut Sleeper CP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Diego County
    Posts
    10,072

    Default

    BP had pointed out to me that there was a lot of potential left in that T/R with the plenum area it has and that running the two back to back without trying to do anything to optimize the T/R only showed that out of the box the single plane was better.

    I don't disagree with that or your statement entirely, but for sake of arguement how many "River Racer's" do you think would spend a day or two on the dyno trying to find the correct tuning aides to run with there single carb T/R. The answer as you well know is "Not Very "F"ing many". And that is kind of my point. That ported little single plane kicked that single carb T/R in the butt up to 6,800 rpm's. I'm not sure what kind of cam could be ground to help the T/R in that case Maybe something but I don't know what.

    Now with some internal diverters,turtels,cone's or some other divices the T/R could probably be made stronger, but for the cost and dyno time your typical ported Hi-rise single plane will out perform a typical single carb T/R for most Jet Boat application's; IMO.

    Sleeper CP
    Last edited by Sleeper CP; 12-26-2007 at 02:58 PM.

    "Dark Sarcasm"
    Going fast is only half the fun ... what you make go
    fast is the other half.
    " A Government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have"

  5. Remove Advertisements
    PerformanceBoats.com
    Advertisements
     

  6. #4
    Gone
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Sparks, Nevada
    Posts
    1,824

    Default

    I'd like some clarity on a couple things.

    The motor originally...ran nitrous...was 10.2 compression and made this 780 hp @6200.

    The motor now has...10.8 compression....a different camshaft and now makes 850 @ 6500?

    No nitrous now?

    If that is correct....then what were the specs of the original camshaft (roughly) of the camshaft that was used when the motor was nitrous?

  7. #5
    Resident Ford Nut Sleeper CP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Diego County
    Posts
    10,072

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiat48 View Post
    I'd like some clarity on a couple things.

    The motor originally...ran nitrous...was 10.2 compression and made this 780 hp @6200.

    The motor now has...10.8 compression....a different camshaft and now makes 850 @ 6500?

    No nitrous now?

    If that is correct....then what were the specs of the original camshaft (roughly) of the camshaft that was used when the motor was nitrous?
    It made 780 no nitrous at 6,200. It was built for nitrous it had a 250-300 hp system on it.

    The cam for the engine at 780 hp(no nitrous) was:

    dur @ .050 was 270/278 adv dur 310/309 lift was .670/.633 it was a 112 lobe sep.

    Sorry for the confusion if I had a 565" (anything) that only made 780 hp on the juice I'd be to embarassed to tell anyone

    Anything else ?

    Sleeper CP
    Big Inch Ford Lover

    "Dark Sarcasm"
    Going fast is only half the fun ... what you make go
    fast is the other half.
    " A Government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have"

  8. #6
    Lurker
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    1,417

    Default

    At first glance, I always thought that with the single four adapter on the tunnel ram the plenum area is way too large for an engine running under 8000rpm's IMHO. It appears the adapter alone has more volume than the single manifold's plenum. Add to this the large plenum as cast of the TR and things are getting big (too big?) in a hurry.
    The dyno sheet showed spotty gains probably due to the more even runner length of the TR. I think that a combination of huge plenum volume and angled runners (taking the symetrical Ford ports and making them better suited for non-split dual four carbs) is hurting it also with the single four, especialy in the rpm range being ran.
    If this TR was more designed for single carb use, it would have the runners angled more toward the carb giving better cyl. to cyl. fuel distribution, shorter plenum (giving less volume) and more consistant signal throughout the rpm range.
    I am sure with some tuning work and combination changes (cam ect.) you could make it run pretty good. But with the above mentioned design (manifold built for optimal dual carbs) and monster plenum volume (more than needed at 4000-7000rpm's) you may never be able to take full advantage of the TR in this form.
    Good info anyway as always CP, just wanted to point out some things on the surface that may explain your results.
    I am a big tunnel ram fan, but the manifold needs to be designed (runner length and size/plenum volume) for engine size and rpm range to be effective. Once this is done, they can give a pretty good increase in tq/hp, along with way better cyl. to cyl. fuel distribution. Especialy in the part throttle cruise mode most jets see allot.
    At first glance I never thought this combo would run well due to what I mentioned above, but I have been wrong before! (more times than I care to admit!!).

    Warp Speed

  9. #7
    Resident Ford Nut Sleeper CP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Diego County
    Posts
    10,072

    Default

    Warp Speed,

    Well stated. I didn't want to right down everything that we examined before and after the dyno runs so there could be a little dialog here.

    I think the main point with the (this) T/R was lousy distribution. If someone where to get one where the outer cylinders have angled runners so that they don't get starved for Air and Fuel their results would more than likely be better. And yes the plenum area is not optimal on this application.

    Thanks for your input as always,

    Sleeper CP

    "Dark Sarcasm"
    Going fast is only half the fun ... what you make go
    fast is the other half.
    " A Government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have"

  10. #8
    Gone
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Sparks, Nevada
    Posts
    1,824

    Default

    May I also ask:
    What was the bore and stroke?

    Do you possibly have any head flow numbers and if so....Intake and exhaust port flow numbers at valve lifts of .500 and up.

    Rocker ratio (1.75?)

    Conditions and elevation dyno tests were done. So that I may calculate corrected altitude.

    Thanks.
    Last edited by Fiat48; 12-27-2007 at 09:48 AM.

  11. #9
    Resident Ford Nut Sleeper CP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Diego County
    Posts
    10,072

    Default

    Fiat48,

    What are you trying to calculate ? and why? And you may ask anything you would like. If I know the answer I'll give it to you.

    The easy part is 4.6x4.25 = 565 and 1.73 ratio rocker

    I'll post some head flow numbers for you later if I can locate them. If memory serves the max numbers were 418 cfm at .750 or .800 w/ 2.3 intake? I think. I'll find it later and I'll post the two dyno sheet's for you if you would like.?

    Sleeper CP
    Big Inch Ford Lover

    "Dark Sarcasm"
    Going fast is only half the fun ... what you make go
    fast is the other half.
    " A Government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have"

  12. #10
    Gone
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Sparks, Nevada
    Posts
    1,824

    Default

    I have a camshaft design program that also shows me %VE. It's served me well over the years and I wanted to run the numbers through it.

  13. #11
    Resident Ford Nut Sleeper CP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Diego County
    Posts
    10,072

    Default

    Fiat,

    Great I'll get you some more info. Then on my next dyno thread with my 935HP 565" engine that was run on a DTS dyno that doesn't calculate VE% you can let me know what your program tell's you. I'm guess more than 115%.

    I'll get something up for you. Hopefully I can do it before I leave the office today.

    Here are some flow numbers

    .400 int 288 ex 238 ex/in% 82
    .450 312 262 84%
    .500 336 285
    .550 359 300 84
    .600 374 310
    .650 385 319 83%
    .700 397 326
    .750 401 331 82%
    .800 402 336

    The 418cfm number's came from my second set of A-460's that now flow 450 ish

    If you want to run this in your program when I have a chance I'll post the flow number'sfrom the Brodix Oval Port heads that are on the 502 engine I posted.

    I got to get somewhere when I get a chance I'll post the dyno sheets for both combo's for you to see the numbers..OH dyno day Barometric pres 29.95 Vapor pressure .55 Air temp 76 degree's.

    Sleeper CP
    Last edited by Sleeper CP; 12-27-2007 at 02:24 PM.

    "Dark Sarcasm"
    Going fast is only half the fun ... what you make go
    fast is the other half.
    " A Government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have"

  14. #12
    Gone
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Sparks, Nevada
    Posts
    1,824

    Default

    I didn't do very good matching up.

    For the original camshaft and compression....I came up with 124% VE and the camshaft required was:
    268 @ .050 with .880 lift
    266 @ .050 with .835 lift
    110 L/S
    That was to make 780 HP at 6200 rpm. Using the flow numbers you had.


    For the new camshaft and compression.....I came up with 122% VE and the camshaft required was:
    276 @ .050 with .906 lift
    274 @ .050 with .862 lift
    110 L/S
    That was to make 850 HP at 6500 rpm. Using the same flow numbers.

    And that was at 29.92 no correction for air available.
    I'll mess with it some more.
    Last edited by Fiat48; 12-27-2007 at 03:50 PM.

  15. #13
    Resident Ford Nut Sleeper CP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Diego County
    Posts
    10,072

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiat48 View Post
    I
    For the new camshaft and compression.....I came up with 122% VE and the camshaft required was:
    276 @ .050 with .906 lift
    274 @ .050 with .862 lift
    110 L/S
    That was to make 850 HP at 6500 rpm. Using the same flow numbers.

    .
    What about observed vs corrected dyno number's. My scaner wouldnt scan worth a crap so here are a few of the corrected vs observed #'s:

    ..........Corrected #'s ..Observerd.......VE%........Airflow cfm
    ...5800....785............ 743 ...... 109 ............. 969
    ...6000....802... ....... 759 ...... 111% ........... 1018
    ...6200...828... ........ 783 ...... 113 ............. 1068
    ...6400...850........... 803 ...... 113% ..... .. 1093
    ...6600...856........... 808.......... 112............ 1134
    ...6800.... 850........... 801......... 110%........ 1146 cfm
    Last edited by Sleeper CP; 12-27-2007 at 07:08 PM.

    "Dark Sarcasm"
    Going fast is only half the fun ... what you make go
    fast is the other half.
    " A Government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have"

  16. #14
    steelcomp was here
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    n/e TN
    Posts
    26,280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sleeper CP View Post
    Fiat48,

    What are you trying to calculate ? and why? And you may ask anything you would like. If I know the answer I'll give it to you.

    The easy part is 4.6x4.25 = 565 and 1.73 ratio rocker

    I'll post some head flow numbers for you later if I can locate them. If memory serves the max numbers were 418 cfm at .750 or .800 w/ 2.3 intake? I think. I'll find it later and I'll post the two dyno sheet's for you if you would like.?

    Sleeper CP
    Big Inch Ford Lover
    What's the rod length on this engine? I want to do some calcs of my own.
    If God is your co-pilot, change seats!
    Acts 2:38, the perfect answer to the perfect question.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Tags for this Thread

Digg This Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95