School us on engines...

'13_ImpactBlue_GT · Dec 29, 2006

Bill

How much did your setup cost ya?

billfisher · Dec 29, 2006

i'm 41. andi'm through explaining myself.

he may... and i say may know something about heads. he may have seen or even does porting. but to understend laminar flow an dhow to achieve and maintain it is lost with hime. my post concerning the theory behind valve flow is dynamics 101. i dont have time for someone with no clue.

large ports with big valves is half assing power. that's what chevy does. they use a sledgehammer when a ball peen will do the job with more flexibility. they get no respect from me.

it's funnyin a sense. in 1969 the boss stang had 351c ports and huge valves. it was too much and chevy beat them at the track with torque. now i beat them with torque. and i have 30+ less cubes. what will 5.4 4v do to their useless approach.

like i said they get no respect from me. stupid chevy. they never will get it.

his LS-2 or 7 makes way less power than a 7 liter dart headed 427 windsor in my car club. 550hp. they will always lose in the market place. just like always. stupid chevy. i am through. -bill 41 years old 11/20/1965 22 years in major car mods. june 1984. stupid chevy. enjoy your fine automobiles.

when the boss 6.2l hits the street look for me to have one. and kick ls-2 asses but so what . they are just chevy's. who cares. no respect from me.

billfisher · Dec 29, 2006

this has cost me many thousands. mainly from trying things. call it R&D for the masses. power for you all when i get it right. 5.4 3v is accesable power. it certainly will exceed 4.6 3v. i already have the most modded 4.6 3v beat in torque. HP is next. i just need more R&D time.

01Steeda · Dec 30, 2006

here is the problem I see, Bill is refering to bone stock heads and the charts you posted are referring to ported heads, where is he wrong? please enlighten us?

billfisher said:
a bone stock ls-2 flow nowhere near 270 cfm. you are dreaming.

LaserRed01GT · Dec 30, 2006

billfisher said:
the elephant is referring to the 392 hemi of the 50's. get it right.

Everyone knows the Elephant was the 426" Hemi. And everyones know that today's fuel motors are derived from the Elephant motor. You are just a glutton for punishment aren't ya.

Straight from the Allpar(subsidiary of Mopar) website:
http://www.allpar.com/mopar.html

LaserRed01GT · Dec 30, 2006

01Steeda said:
here is the problem I see, Bill is refering to bone stock heads and the charts you posted are referring to ported heads, where is he wrong? please enlighten us?

How convenient of you you to magically exclude the info right above that very same post that you quoted me from:

LaserRed01GT said:
The below SF-1020 flow workup represents a set of LS2 heads we sent off last summer when we got a test 2005 GTO. These were bone stock off the car heads. I hadn't received my SF-600 yet. Keep in mind these were flowed on a Super Flow 1020 and these are known in the cylinder head business as being a bit "stingy":

Do you feel enlightned?

billfisher · Dec 30, 2006

i could care less what an encyclopedia says. you knoiw nothing about the elephant and the mouse that scared it.

that is referring to the 392 hemi that dominated drag racing inthe 50's, when vic edelbrock and others figure out how to get the small block chevy to rev 8000, they were able to beat the relatively fragile 392's and their massive weight and low revvs. for you to quote an encyclopedia that doesn'y know the answer, you are losing this argument. you don't know the real history. you are sad. just sad.

the small block chevy has never had a prayer against a full race 426. so that alone should enlighten you. but from your previous posts you will never know. sad.

billfisher · Dec 30, 2006

maybe they call the 426 the elephant also, but it isn't the elephant to me or others that know the original hemi.

Fast Eddie 41 · Dec 30, 2006

The original 426ci Hemi was the one and ONLY motor to ever be called the Elephant due to it's larger than the "norm" engine block dimensions.... bill it sounds like you have a lot to learn my friend...

Torinalth · Dec 30, 2006

figured i'd chime in here.... nothing special... but to ask bill, if he actually got the Boss intake.... and if so think ya can get another one? stil deciding on power polant and holding back on suspension till i figure what K i need.... again depending on turbo or block.... big bore block, GTheads, boss intake, at 11:1 with lioghtweight internals.... hmmm kinda daunting with a bigbore 5.4.... oh well.. figured i'd at least say hey bill.

Torinalth

Stan Weiss · Dec 30, 2006

Can we talk about push rod pinch (note Modular engine does not have this) min. CSA, SSR, bowl to valve size ratio, discharge coefficient, port velocity, we can talk about port volume and port centerline length, valve size to bore ratio etc. Now with all the terms it is sometime hard to compare the same heads let alone different heads.

LaserRed01GT · Dec 31, 2006

Stan Weiss said:
Can we talk about push rod pinch (note Modular engine does not have this) min. CSA, SSR, bowl to valve size ratio, discharge coefficient, port velocity, we can talk about port volume and port centerline length, valve size to bore ratio etc. Now with all the terms it is sometime hard to compare the same heads let alone different heads.

BBQ, a few coldies, and football are about to trump that discussion. But we can save that discussion until Tuesday after New Years!

billfisher · Dec 31, 2006

you are both wrong.

i'm telling you the elephant name was coined before the Rb BB hemi.

http://www.themotorbookstore.com/chrysler-engine-manual.html

The Chrysler FirePower Hemi was first introduced in 1951 as a 331 cubic inch V-8, weighing in at almost a thousand pounds dry, with a then unbelievable 180 horsepower at 4000 rpm. This behemoth came with a forged steel crank and big valves, a 1.81 intake and 1.5 exhaust, to give it unbeatable flow. Unusual to these first 331ci Hemis were the cast in the block bell housing flange, which was discontinued in 1954. This elephant was only the start with the cubes getting pushed up to 354, then the ultimate 392 Hemi, putting out up to 390 horsepower straight from the dealer. As “Big Daddy” Don Garlits explained, “I’ll never forget my first introduction to the Chrysler Hemi. My friend and I were driving down a street in Tampa, Florida, and we looked in the window of a Chrysler dealership. They had a big sign that read, ‘V-8, 180 horsepower.’ We thought it was a mistake, it should be 108 horsepower. But it was not a mistake.”

http://www.moparstyle.net/history/earlyhemimotor.htm

i can find plenty of articles that call the early hemi the original elephant.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/The-...nt-Poster_W0QQitemZ270061426793QQcmdZViewItem

P4876824 MP HEMI ENGINE MANUAL $ 32.95

The "elephant" motor has a home of its own, at last! This all hemi engine manual is packed with racing secrets, engine building and blueprinting, performance modifications and more. Read about Hemi heritage, from the "wake up the flathead boys" infamous 331 cis trailblazer, through the 354 and 392 cid versions that shook drag racings foundations, to the colossal 426. Details abound; all you need to know about carburetion, ignition systems, oiling, coolant requirements, trans recommendations, and more! (456 pgs)

http://www.jimsautoparts.com/literatu.htm

who says chrysler named it anyway. drag racers named it.

i can agree to disagree. but i can get just as much literature as anyone to sell my view.

they may call the 426 en elephant, but the original 426 wasn't even stinkin hemi, it was a wedge.

383,412,426,440

CanadaStang · Jan 1, 2007

Being that I own an engine rebuilding company [ we also do "in-house" porting and flow testing] I thought I'd step in and share some insight. LazerRed is indeed correct when he speaks of flow and cylinder heads.
As for "Ford being better than Chevy/Chrysler...." having worked on all of them for more years than I care to recount, one is no better than the other. Ford has some good idea's and some not so good, as does Chevy and Chrysler. Keep in mind that many of the people that have had input with Ford have also at one time or another have had input with Chevy or Chrysler [Lee Iacocca for example]
As far as the Elephant label, I have no idea when or who came up with the name as info varies from one source to another.

Mike97gt · Jan 1, 2007

CanadaStang said:
Being that I own an engine rebuilding company [ we also do "in-house" porting and flow testing] I thought I'd step in and share some insight. LazerRed is indeed correct when he speaks of flow and cylinder heads.
As for "Ford being better than Chevy/Chrysler...." having worked on all of them for more years than I care to recount, one is no better than the other. Ford has some good idea's and some not so good, as does Chevy and Chrysler. Keep in mind that many of the people that have had input with Ford have also at one time or another have had input with Chevy or Chrysler [Lee Iacocca for example]
As far as the Elephant label, I have no idea when or who came up with the name as info varies from one source to another.

I agree one hundred percent...

BTW thank you all for keeping this civil.. I just read all the posts and this thread did not devolve into a name calling match like the nitrous thread

LaserRed01GT · Jan 1, 2007

billfisher said:
i can agree to disagree. but i can get just as much literature as anyone to sell my view.

they may call the 426 en elephant, but the original 426 wasn't even stinkin hemi, it was a wedge.

It's interesting that you mentioned Don "Big Daddy" Garlits. I have visited his drag racing museum here in Ocala, twice. They have a neat part of the tour where they focus on the 426 Hemi Elephant as part of the tour. They have some very intriguing specifics as to why it got the name elephant. BTW the term "Hemi" refers to the hemispherical shape of the combusiton chamber.

But it doesn't matter, I have a feeling that we could tell you the sky was blue, and you would find a way to argue about it.

Chevy, Ford, and Dodge Rock!

billfisher · Jan 1, 2007

im sure glad you told me hemi was referring to the chamber. i thought it was referring to the transmission. that's how it goes. i get so many things wrong.

Mike97gt · Jan 1, 2007

ok lets get back on topic..

mogs01gt · Jan 2, 2007

LaserRed01GT said:
It's interesting that you mentioned Don "Big Daddy" Garlits. I have visited his drag racing museum here in Ocala, twice. They have a neat part of the tour where they focus on the 426 Hemi Elephant as part of the tour. They have some very intriguing specifics as to why it got the name elephant. BTW the term "Hemi" refers to the hemispherical shape of the combusiton chamber.

But it doesn't matter, I have a feeling that we could tell you the sky was blue, and you would find a way to argue about it.

Chevy, Ford, and Dodge Rock!

LOL I think you missed the point Bill was making. I always thought the term "elephant" derived from the late 50s and early 60s "Hemi" engines but was directly slapped on the 426 "Hemi's".

billfisher · Jan 2, 2007

how far ahead of it's time was the BOSS 351 head?

260cfm froom a heads designed in the 60's. too large of an exhaust port, but tongued headers fixed that.

i will not be the only on ecrushed if the hurricane/boss heads aren't up to par. i'm quite sure ford has learned it's lesson from the beating it has taken from GM and mopar.

the new GTO,camaro, and dodge challenger will wipe ford off of the map if it's substandard once again. even a 5.0l version of the MOD won't help us...

unless thay ferderalize the FR500 pieces.

i read some engine experts articles on the new hemi and it's high tech high velocity ports. they compared them to F1 in terms of velocity and efficiency. add cnated valves, and wellah. 6.1L 425hp. kinda smokes the other brands.

my wife wants a luxury car soon. we are looking at the ford500, the saturn aura, and the hemi charger. note that this isn't for me. i will wait for the `10 stang with the boss 5.8L.

i do like the HEMI efficiency and torque. obviously i won't modify it. it won't be my car. i feel like the NASCAR restrictor plate has helped all of the brand's products directly. i doubt port designs and chamber flame propagation/burn rates on street cars would have reached this level in 2V without it. 2V may or may not be back. but on OHC design it is pretty good.

note aftermarket LS-7 heads require a plug in the rocker area to access the head bolts. pushrods and rocker bosses do interfere with perfect design. OHC doesn't have those limitations. so SOHC 2v with killer ports and high burn rate chambers are the best direction. we will se if ford agrees.

the SOHC 427 may see the light of day again. just in 2008 trim. who is in line for one of those? i am for sure.

i just added a new project. 4bbl 4v intake. i have a new idea for splitting the plenum from front to back with a 750cfm holley. the primaries run to the secondary ports and the secondary plenum runs the primary port. mockup this summer. i didn't consider the 5.4 for this. it's just too high. no 6" cowl for me.

later.

School us on engines...

'13_ImpactBlue_GT

Angry Little Elf

billfisher

Active Member

billfisher

Active Member

01Steeda

New Member

LaserRed01GT

Banned

LaserRed01GT

Banned

billfisher

Active Member

billfisher

Active Member

Fast Eddie 41

New Member

Torinalth

Stan Weiss

Member

LaserRed01GT

Banned

billfisher

Active Member

CanadaStang

New Member

Mike97gt

it doe snot

LaserRed01GT

Banned

billfisher

Active Member

Mike97gt

it doe snot

mogs01gt

billfisher

Active Member

Similar threads

School us on engines...

Angry Little Elf

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

Banned

Banned

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

Member

Banned

Active Member

New Member

it doe snot

Banned

Active Member

it doe snot

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency