When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Pretty crazy that they made a plastic intake in 89. I can imagine the resentment the men of that era had for it back then. Composite intakes back then were a totally new idea and the OEMs weren’t even using them that I can remember. Even the Quad 4 4 bangers had an aluminum intake, as did most of the Generals V6’s. I don’t remember anyone talking about that intake back then and all our hotrods back then had carburetors. Even our family friends all had carbs, that was the only way to go.
Bringing back some good memories though! One of my dad’s friends had an 82 Z28 with a healthy small block, worked turbo 400, twin turbo hood, centerline champ 500’s and the fiberglass rear window conversion with a whale tail. 80’s Street Machine!
I’ll have to read that article when I get to feeling better. Day 3 of constant ruthlessness. Multiple stones in multiple places.
Ok - Im a lot better now. Still got one stone in my right kidney but im functioning. Gaskets are on the way. Runners are still in process. I would take ??? up on the offer for his runners but the runners at ASM are already paid for. I don't think itll be that much longer but I have to admit, I am really looking forward to some solid data from the flows with them. Speaking of flows... were at about 180cc's. Just for comparison....
Lift --- Intake --- Exhaust --------------------- AFR 180cc SBC Street
.100......81.9 ....51.7--------------------------------No flow given
.200 ....147.5....99.4.------------------------------138----- 110
.300.....205.1....157--------------------------------198---- 158
.400.... 241.1...185.8------------------------------240-----190
.500.....257.1...190.2----------------------------- 260------207
.600....260.......192.3----------------------------No flow given
.700... 257.2... 194.2----------------------------No flow given
Not a bad port job at all considering we are using a 1.94/1.50 and AFR is using a 2.02/1.60. We started at an average of like 238/138- ish. and we are trying to keep the port small for nice drivability and snappy throttle response. The best thing is I totally agree with Charlie on the effects of it not laying over at higher lifts. What this does is, as the engine reaches a higher depression, the flow will not be shut down and the SSR should keep the flow laminar. We test at 28" but a running engine can be 60-120" or more. The perfect flow bench is of much debate and I dont want to get into it but theres some things you just cant test for and that is why I am bringing this up. In the video he says that I want a bigger PRP and I still think I do. Right now its at a 1.750?"-ish and I know I could go bigger without hurting it. What I speculate is this, by having a little bit bigger PRP, the pressure drop from the valve, aka "the signal" is not blocked by having half a wall in the middle of the intake port, so as the signal moves upwards into the intake manifold and runners, it helps create a better harmonic wave and possibly have a bigger pull in the whole system, allowing more of an average port velocity and flow. In other words, this may equalize the whole intake port for more even flow from the runners to the SSR. I am thinking 1.90" all the way to 2.0" - I think 2.08 would be a little big, and I have not done any valve curtain area math to see what that would translate to, but right now it's just a thought. Keep in mind the AFR is using a 1.810" on the 180cc head and uses a 2.07" on their 190cc head, which has been used with TPI many times before. What are yalls thoughts on this?
Did Charlie spill the beans about a Jones cam spec?
Enquiring minds want to know!
Currently watching the latest from him and the Dart heads.
I reached out to Mike today and filled out the cam spec questionaire, to be honest I dont even know if he is interested in specing out such a mild deal as this. Good idle? Running AC? He's probably reading it and wondering what the hell is that??
For now, lets assume old TPI faithful, the LPE 219 is going to be the cam I use. It does pretty much everything I want... I just know the lobes are definitely lacking in the latest in ramp rates and it probably wouldnt hurt to have more exhaust duration. Funny enough though, it still tests good with all the engine programs. Its about the best so far. Maybe I will run a 1.6 rocker arm on it.
funny, totally different combo, but I had the original 219 cam to match the intake I bought form a guy that had a Lingenfelter crate motor in a 89 trans am long long time ago. I put the super ram on a 406 but said eh to the cam and went with a newer 280xfi. seemed like the new tech would be better. got me wondering if I should have left well enough along and ran the old 219 haha.
Glad to hear that you've gotten over the hard part with your stones! Never had 'em....never want to!
Originally Posted by MrIROBZ
Pretty crazy that they made a plastic intake in 89...... I don’t remember anyone talking about that intake back then and all our hotrods back then had carburetors. Even our family friends all had carbs, that was the only way to go.
Bringing back some good memories though!
It's funny/interesting when you really put your mind back to how things were and where we were all "at", back then. Like has been mentioned, none of us knew WTF we were doing with these "new" EFI deals, it was like a space ship landed on top of a SBC! I knew pretty quick that TPI was limited compared to Ford 5.0's but I didn't have any idea why, or what could be done about it. I'd have likely poo-poo'd a plastic intake and runners; "It'll never work!" Ha ha ha. THEN, there was this whole, foreign, unknown thing called "Tuning" the ECM. That seemed like an impossibility at the time (to me)....I remember when the Vortech FMU came out and I thought to myself; "This is it. This is what we're ALL going to have, going forward, to tune these things for mods. That's the way it's going to be. Soon, I'll have a FMU on my car.". I never did, but I thought the FMU was the answer/solution, at that point.
I also remember all the hoopla about mods that would "mess with the ECM", or "not work WITH the ECM". What did that mean? Would the car not run? Would it/could it damage the ECM some how? There were these "computer friendly" parts...were those our only answer? I didn't know. It all seemed so limiting and foreign at the time, when it actuality it was the dawn of opportunity.
I would think on a standard tpi that could definitely broaden the band, especially when you to big of a afr head. if you ended up with a net gain thou, no clue. my guess, which is by someone completely out of my league would be it would look OK on a dyno graph, but given enough traction the smaller cam would run a better drag strip time. of course this is only my experience with manual tranny tpi, a auto gear spread might change that. if you can row gears fast enough in a 5 speed car at 4200-4500ish, it runs OK for what it is. routinly ran better than auto 350 cars with a 305 back then.
oh the late night parking lot arguments with the 5.0 guys that refused to believe a 305 beat them when they also roll on the 350 cars. that's gotta be a 383. when of course I could bearly do a cam swap, let alone built a stroker haha. good memories.
I wish I knew more of the spec, I had the cam card for the longest time but I had a very mild slp 214/224 cam, they had one or 2 steps bigger than that. and tpis had a pretty large cam for it's time too. but I don't remember those specs at all. only that it was bigger than mine. I thought mine was the sweet spot between little faster, but no down sides in the days of not being able to tune and having a map car.
Glad to hear that you've gotten over the hard part with your stones! Never had 'em....never want to!
It's funny/interesting when you really put your mind back to how things were and where we were all "at", back then. Like has been mentioned, none of us knew WTF we were doing with these "new" EFI deals, it was like a space ship landed on top of a SBC! I knew pretty quick that TPI was limited compared to Ford 5.0's but I didn't have any idea why, or what could be done about it. I'd have likely poo-poo'd a plastic intake and runners; "It'll never work!" Ha ha ha. THEN, there was this whole, foreign, unknown thing called "Tuning" the ECM. That seemed like an impossibility at the time (to me)....I remember when the Vortech FMU came out and I thought to myself; "This is it. This is what we're ALL going to have, going forward, to tune these things for mods. That's the way it's going to be. Soon, I'll have a FMU on my car.". I never did, but I thought the FMU was the answer/solution, at that point.
I also remember all the hoopla about mods that would "mess with the ECM", or "not work WITH the ECM". What did that mean? Would the car not run? Would it/could it damage the ECM some how? There were these "computer friendly" parts...were those our only answer? I didn't know. It all seemed so limiting and foreign at the time, when it actuality it was the dawn of opportunity.
Ahhh....the memories!
Yep! One look at TPI and it was “I don’t think so!” - back then, guys wanted the 82-84’s because they were carbureted. I remember the “chip” days too. lol
Then there was the all revered “cop chip” or “police chip”… the one that added 100hp and had unlimited top end. 🙄
Younger guys have no idea how much of a pain those Fox body Mustangs were back then because they were by and large quicker. I know guys on here will argue and I agree that all the IROCs we had were 305’s but the sound that 5.0 Ford made along with their EEC 4 made it a sure bet it would run good and sound good too. I think this is why a lot of third gen guys had to use carbs back then. We weren’t helpless but it certainly made it harder for the F body guys to compete.
Thats probably why I am so gung ho on making a TPI car with Dart iron heads run. Will I discover anything? Nope. I doubt it. But maybe I can find a decent fox to run a few times using GT40’s and we can have a good old fashioned 12 second showdown. lol MANO A MANO!
Ford did one thing right back then.. put the same engine and tranny in everything. lx coupe or GT. same power just few 100 lbs less. very annoying.
if gm would have just put the 350tpi and a manual in everything. it would have been a whole different story. rs would have been the ticket. but 170hp was slow even then.
My boss just opened up his garage and asked me if I wanted this.
it’s a Donovan aluminum SBC with ported 113’s on it. lol
It’s not free but he said it’ll be a deal. I’m not going to get my hopes up but if I were to build a radical small block for an IROC, this would definitely make a killer start!
Ford did one thing right back then.. put the same engine and tranny in everything. lx coupe or GT. same power just few 100 lbs less. very annoying.
if gm would have just put the 350tpi and a manual in everything. it would have been a whole different story. rs would have been the ticket. but 170hp was slow even then.
Another interesting tid bit, back in the day guys still mostly wanted the GT while today it’s all about the Coupe. I thank DPS troopers for that one. Ford knew all along. Anyway, screw the Mustangs. The IROC still is the coolest thing to come out of the 80’s as far as I’m concerned. They look so damn good it’s impossible to deny!
I need to start thinking about what subframes I need.
If you don't want it, I might! I've been looking/thinking/looking for a light weight engine option for the Kart, that is light, makes over 300 hp, V8 and reliable. Haven't found that combo, yet. I keep eyeballing Buick/Rover V8's, but they aren't reliable and they don't make good power, either.
Originally Posted by MrIROBZ
But maybe I can find a decent fox to run a few times using GT40’s and we can have a good old fashioned 12 second showdown. lol MANO A MANO!
That would be worth some miles on a garage queen.
Heck yeah! One of my best friends has an '88 w/P heads, GT40 intake, Dynomax LT headers and exhaust...gears, under drives, TB, rockers....it's a very "period" car. That'd be a fun match! You'd beat him though.
Originally Posted by ???
Ford did one thing right back then.. put the same engine and tranny in everything. lx coupe or GT. same power just few 100 lbs less. very annoying.
if gm would have just put the 350tpi and a manual in everything. it would have been a whole different story. rs would have been the ticket. but 170hp was slow even then.
F'n A, man! That is the TRUTH. GM gave options and packages where you could totally ruin a good car with the option boxes*. "Z28's" w/a 305 TBI. LG4's in Trans Am's! 190 hp TPI's...and 220 hp TPI's! Which one YOU got? Well....most were the dog ****. And most were autos. Can't compete w/a 225 hp stick shift with that random junk. But yeah, if they were ALL the 220hp 5.0 or 5.7 w/a T5....then we'd have seen some racin'!
*To wit, I had an '83 loaded TA; 170hp CFI engine ("top of the line engine"...even though that was first year L69 which was 20 more hp), loaded everything, 3.23, 4 wheel disk brakes, handling package of the day, power everything, Turbine wheels etc....open differential. Open fricken differential! In a loaded, top of the line Trans AM!! Yep, GM made it super easy to f-up what could have been great cars. Ford, made it super easy to order the Bad assed 'Stang; if you got a V8 and a stick, you had the best engine, best suspension, best brakes, best rear gear....you couldn't f-it up!
If you don't want it, I might! I've been looking/thinking/looking for a light weight engine option for the Kart, that is light, makes over 300 hp, V8 and reliable. Haven't found that combo, yet. I keep eyeballing Buick/Rover V8's, but they aren't reliable and they don't make good power, either.
Heck yeah! One of my best friends has an '88 w/P heads, GT40 intake, Dynomax LT headers and exhaust...gears, under drives, TB, rockers....it's a very "period" car. That'd be a fun match! You'd beat him though.
F'n A, man! That is the TRUTH. GM gave options and packages where you could totally ruin a good car with the option boxes*. "Z28's" w/a 305 TBI. LG4's in Trans Am's! 190 hp TPI's...and 220 hp TPI's! Which one YOU got? Well....most were the dog ****. And most were autos. Can't compete w/a 225 hp stick shift with that random junk. But yeah, if they were ALL the 220hp 5.0 or 5.7 w/a T5....then we'd have seen some racin'!
*To wit, I had an '83 loaded TA; 170hp CFI engine ("top of the line engine"...even though that was first year L69 which was 20 more hp), loaded everything, 3.23, 4 wheel disk brakes, handling package of the day, power everything, Turbine wheels etc....open differential. Open fricken differential! In a loaded, top of the line Trans AM!! Yep, GM made it super easy to f-up what could have been great cars. Ford, made it super easy to order the Bad assed 'Stang; if you got a V8 and a stick, you had the best engine, best suspension, best brakes, best rear gear....you couldn't f-it up!
truer words have never been posted. the one that got me. was a performance axle option, came with a engine oil cooler but delete the fog lights, like man. those made the front end. blah. I had no idea, just bought the used blue one out front that I really liked but didn't sell for like 2 months, just sitting up in the elevated display in front of the dealership as I drove by it like 3 times a day haha. turns out it was a trade in just out of warranty with a bad drive shaft vibration no one would fix for the owner. could not reproduce because it didn't happen till 60mph and the speed limit was only 45 haha.
Just got lucky, or honestly I had so many Ford friends I'd have ended up with one myself. as it was I was already rebuilding their trannys haha.
the irocs and the 91/92 z will away be a special looking car from that time.(funny that I only have formula now haha) I could legit park my 91z in the middle of 4 fox bodies and everyone would be looking at it because they never saw them.
aluminum small block. that's a hard one to pass up. it's almost like you need a 2nd 3rd Gen build at this point haha.
which would be better the 113 heads ported up because of the 58cc or the darts?
If you don't want it, I might! I've been looking/thinking/looking for a light weight engine option for the Kart, that is light, makes over 300 hp, V8 and reliable. Haven't found that combo, yet. I keep eyeballing Buick/Rover V8's, but they aren't reliable and they don't make good power, either.
Heck yeah! One of my best friends has an '88 w/P heads, GT40 intake, Dynomax LT headers and exhaust...gears, under drives, TB, rockers....it's a very "period" car. That'd be a fun match! You'd beat him though.
F'n A, man! That is the TRUTH. GM gave options and packages where you could totally ruin a good car with the option boxes*. "Z28's" w/a 305 TBI. LG4's in Trans Am's! 190 hp TPI's...and 220 hp TPI's! Which one YOU got? Well....most were the dog ****. And most were autos. Can't compete w/a 225 hp stick shift with that random junk. But yeah, if they were ALL the 220hp 5.0 or 5.7 w/a T5....then we'd have seen some racin'!
*To wit, I had an '83 loaded TA; 170hp CFI engine ("top of the line engine"...even though that was first year L69 which was 20 more hp), loaded everything, 3.23, 4 wheel disk brakes, handling package of the day, power everything, Turbine wheels etc....open differential. Open fricken differential! In a loaded, top of the line Trans AM!! Yep, GM made it super easy to f-up what could have been great cars. Ford, made it super easy to order the Bad assed 'Stang; if you got a V8 and a stick, you had the best engine, best suspension, best brakes, best rear gear....you couldn't f-it up!
Psh! Open diff on a Trans Am....How are we supposed to jam Eruption with only one wheel peel? its hopeless! I assume they did that for safety so chicks smoking Virginia Slimms in the rain went nice and straight. But it could be something else like GM simply ran out. lol You never know. FWIW I had an 83 L69 car too, it was the gray 2 tone Z28 with a 5 speed and the LS blue Camaro interior, t tops, 4 wheel discs, perfect interior... paint was nice... It was a great car and it did have the limited slip. Believe it or not, I sold that car for dirt cheap back in the day. They werent really worth much then. (I just realized we are the new Boomers, sorry fellow Xers).
Yeah, my car is way too clean for all that so I will let you know on the block when he lets me know. Theres also a 383 sitting back there still in the crate, which is a Duttweiler old school deal that never got used. He's a 240/260Z guy and likes them with a SBC here and there (hence the aluminum block).
Originally Posted by ???
truer words have never been posted. the one that got me. was a performance axle option, came with a engine oil cooler but delete the fog lights, like man. those made the front end. blah. I had no idea, just bought the used blue one out front that I really liked but didn't sell for like 2 months, just sitting up in the elevated display in front of the dealership as I drove by it like 3 times a day haha. turns out it was a trade in just out of warranty with a bad drive shaft vibration no one would fix for the owner. could not reproduce because it didn't happen till 60mph and the speed limit was only 45 haha.
Just got lucky, or honestly I had so many Ford friends I'd have ended up with one myself. as it was I was already rebuilding their trannys haha.
the irocs and the 91/92 z will away be a special looking car from that time.(funny that I only have formula now haha) I could legit park my 91z in the middle of 4 fox bodies and everyone would be looking at it because they never saw them.
aluminum small block. that's a hard one to pass up. it's almost like you need a 2nd 3rd Gen build at this point haha.
which would be better the 113 heads ported up because of the 58cc or the darts?
T5 transmissions had to have been factored in the selling price of fox body Mustangs. I don't see any other way around that. Ford was like: Base price $13,495 + 1.5 T5 Transmissions = $13,995. I never blew any of mine up but I bought a bunch already hurting. I did destroy a few 3rd gear synchros though. As far as the better head thats a tough question. Personally I think the iron issue gets overplayed as a BUNCH of circle track guys make tons of power with them. Ultimately, I think its a wash...the 113's have the advantage of being aluminum with a tighter chamber, but they also go 250-260cfm ported but I do know the Dart casting is probably thicker and I know they can go more than what I have on the flows. The newer style chamber I would also consider a wash because its 67cc's, so it's 6 in one hand, half dozen in the other. It's probably going to boil down to application and goals. These Darts arent a bad head at all. These and Vortecs are the last iron men standing.
I used South Side Machine....30+ years ago. They were good, beefy, welded in like you're saying and connected to the rear trailing arm mount.
IDK if anyone on these forums uses or even knows about SSM anymore?
I bought the whole lift bar kit and only installed the subframe connectors. Still have them on the car, best ones ive ever installed.
actually have a set at the machine shop being copied now
SSM was a good company back in the day, I used to run some of their lift bars on my 5.0’s but I don’t see anything in their catalog.
I’ll ask the goons on FB. Right now I like these because they look like they triangulate off the front subframe support and tie into the back lower control arm mounts. Says you can use them as a jacking rail which could come in useful when I drop the engine out.
if you're going to run the cats in the stock location, I don't think those will work at all. they run right thru the middle of the cat.
the ones I have, have the optional little over the cat bar. i ran it on mine and it made getting 2 pipes of the dyno dons thru there without rubbing or showing hard. it doesn't have side ground effects thou like a z2 but I'd skip that tie in on a car I cared about.
Big exhaust split to carry the RPM and help it breathe. 110 LSA for a good compromise between power and drivability with AC and all that. 220 intake duration to keep it civil but I bet makes awesome average power. Just what I want really. If the 219 can do the same in a 383, a 220 in a 350 with a big exhaust duration has to feel a little bit bigger. Probably will sound nicer as 110 cams with 220 duration usually sound healthy but not racy. This is kind of a TPIS Lil Chubs that trades some midrange TQ for more power up top. I need to look at it in detail but I think it’s better than the 219. I’m going to do it.
if you're going to run the cats in the stock location, I don't think those will work at all. they run right thru the middle of the cat.
the ones I have, have the optional little over the cat bar. i ran it on mine and it made getting 2 pipes of the dyno dons thru there without rubbing or showing hard. it doesn't have side ground effects thou like a z2 but I'd skip that tie in on a car I cared about.
Yep! You’re right on. Thats a problem with these cars, not much room under there. I really need to ask around and see some pics.
If you don't want it, I might! I've been looking/thinking/looking for a light weight engine option for the Kart, that is light, makes over 300 hp, V8 and reliable. Haven't found that combo, yet. I keep eyeballing Buick/Rover V8's, but they aren't reliable and they don't make good power, either.
there's some guys doing actual interesting stuff with the northstar, only took 20 years but being about to use variable cam timing with boost and e85 has showed people that it's a worth while engine to fix the issue on.
back on topic. this isn't my car, just pic I had collected when trying to build my exhaust.
I don't know what sub frames those are, they seem to be round. someone else might know. looks like they do have a top bar over the cats.
SSM was a good company back in the day, I used to run some of their lift bars on my 5.0’s but I don’t see anything in their catalog.
Weird, I looked 'em up before I posted b/c it's been SOOOO long since I bought mine, and so many others have come to market....I thought they may have faded away. But, I found this right off...
Spohn. I have them on my coupe.
The forward part of the passenger side bar has a an offset and reduced diameter to clear the exhaust.
They're stitch welded along the length of the rocker pinch as well as tying into the rear control arm mount. The front of the bars on each side meet where the floor and firewall intersect and then there are lateral tie bars that connect to the front subframe.
Stiff as hell. I can lift the entire side of the car from the rear jack point (at the LCA mount).
Mike tends not to list the seat to seat timing as he said to me (in conversation and at ST) that "most guys" aren't interested in that number. He went on to say that he considers it very important and will provide it if asked. Take into account trapped VE or DCR and that number is vital. It'll also provide the IVC point too. I had to ask what my seat timing was. Then going into his lobe catalogue you'll see that he takes something out of that catalogue and tunes it to your spec.
Your lobes out of his listings:
He's spec'd a little off of the .050" numbers. It would be interesting to know if he kept the advertised/.006" numbers the same or trimmed those a well.
He's also picked from his selection of less aggressive lobes. Makes for a friendlier valvetrain environment.
For the record, COMP's XFI profiles often ventures into the .360" lobe lift territory as do Jones' more intense profiles such as what he spec'd for my drag racing engine.
Stiff as hell. I can lift the entire side of the car from the rear jack point (at the LCA mount).
I'm sure they're good, but I mean, you can do that w/a stock car, too. The (stock) flex is not in the realm of where you couldn't jack it because it's twisting and bending to that extent.
I'm sure they're good, but I mean, you can do that w/a stock car, too. The (stock) flex is not in the realm of where you couldn't jack it because it's twisting and bending to that extent.
If you jack these cars at the rear jack point you'll find some deflection in the unibody. Some T-top versions will even bind the door. Remember that the closed door comprises a portion of the frame stiffening.
If the frame is rigid enough to not twist while putting it under the load of raising it off the ground then what's the point of SFC's in the first place?
YMMV.
my 91 by the end of you opened the door while it was only on front jackstands it wouldn't close right without rubbing on the lock pin.
long hard life haha. that was without connectors thou
I've got notes on the engineering somewhere but IIRC, the top hinge is loaded across the door to a plate located on the B-pillar. It gets progressively worse as the hinge wears out.
Just goes to show how flimsy these cars are right out of the box. From what I've read the manufacturing processes improved over time with respect to the unibody construction providing greater rigidity.
EDIT: It could be the bottom hinge that's loaded diagonally across the door. Not sure.
there's a thread somewhere on this site forever ago about a guy that built a targa top from a t top car. when he cut the T out, the whole car snagged an inch or so in the middle. along the run from 82 to 92 they got better, but I've read it was mainly because they used better and more body sealer glue stuff haha.
I read in some book back in 93 that the 4th Gen was much better stiffer, and to think of a unibody as an egg, the smaller the holes you cut in the side for doors, the strongest the egg shell stays. I'm sure that's over simple, but it was easy to remember.
If you jack these cars at the rear jack point you'll find some deflection in the unibody. Some T-top versions will even bind the door. Remember that the closed door comprises a portion of the frame stiffening.
If the frame is rigid enough to not twist while putting it under the load of raising it off the ground then what's the point of SFC's in the first place?
YMMV.
Yep, I completely agree that SFC's help and help a LOT. However, note that I didn't say that the frame is rigid enough to not twist while putting it under the load of raising it off the ground. it definitely will twist...albeit, a very very small amount*
I said that:
"The (stock) flex is not in the realm of where you couldn't jack it because it's twisting and bending to that extent." -the point being, the flex is so small that it won't affect being able to jack a car one way or another. The jacking measure, is not a measure; you could jack the car either way, in the location that you mentioned. The doors not closing/opening right, that IS a measure -although there is no scale attached to it.
Anyway, I've always hated the "floor jack claim" b/c even the floppiest car is still only flexing a degree or a few when being jacked. "I can jack my car and both wheels come off the ground!" Big deal. That's a suspension travel thing, not a body flexing thing.
*A car like the 3rd gen -even w/T-tops has a torsional stiffness of something like 2000-3500 ft-lb/degree of twist. So even w/o subframes, how much twist are you getting, jacking 1/2 the car (which weighs ~3300 lbs)? 1 degree? 3 degrees? Very, very little. Not enough to make a diff in how you jack it.
it could very well be a placebo effect because now you have a nice sfc for a jack point and it's more middle of the car, instead of towards the front or rear. since you can't really jack these cars from a pinch rail without folding them over you gotta get on something hard under there.
I a sware the first time I jacked my car up after to swap back wheels, I didn't even notice the front tire was off the ground too, like wow. never did that before. again could have been a jacking point.
op, any news on the runners? I'm dying for a video update.
Just a quick comment on the SFC's.
I don't jack on the SFC's. Always the LCA mount on the frame. That coincidentally is where the SFC ties in however I don't put my jack on the SFC itself.
From a pre and post installation experience, the amount needed to jack the rear and have the front lift was remarkably different. Not suspension related but the plane of the rocker moving up with each stroke of the jack. That's what caught my attention and made it noteworthy.
For a more lengthy comment, there was a crack starting to propagate at the intersection of the b-pillar and the roof. I noticed it when I bought it with a blown engine (V6). That crack isn't uncommon. This was a moderate mileage hardtop as well. Since installing the SFC's and beating on the car in ways most can't imagine, that crack is still as it was pre-install. That alone says a lot.
But now, back to your regularly scheduled program. I'd interested in the OP's update myself. Especially his take on the cam spec.
I totaled an 84 TA when I was 18 doing 30 miles an hour. Long story short, it wasn’t a bad wreck but the t top unibody was so flimsy it twisted the car so hard it broke the rear glass, shattered a t top and you couldn’t shut the doors.
All I did was fishtail into a driveway drainage culvert like 2’ deep when it was raining. The back right tire caught the curb and it spun the car into the other side of the culvert. That was it. I was astonished it hurt the car as bad as it did. Ever since, subframes are a MUST! No question.
Got another update as far as the heads and base are concerned.
Heads are flowing!
263.3@.500" intake and 188.8@.500" exhaust
The PRP was opened up to a 1.90" CSA and the speeds there went down to about 332fps but the SSR picked up to about 405.3fps because its not choking on the PRP anymore. It also has a localized velocity of 427fps which I am being told is very high and 375fps is pretty much the max you want to see anywhere in the port for a typical 6500rpm deal. We are not going to pull that much RPM but I feel we still need to widen it or do some slight shape work in the port to slow it down some.
Looking at PipeMax, Charlie is spot on with the measuring
Intake Intake Average Minimum Intake Port Flow @28 inches = 263.3000 CFM at 0.510000 Valve Lift
Velocity Cross-Sectional Intake Port 5400 RPM ( RPM Range = 3400 to 5900 RPM )
FPS Area sq.inch Volume CC's ----- Description --------------------------------
350 1.80549 CSA 162.0 Port has Pumping-Choke with HP Loss ( too fast FPS • HP Loss ) 330 1.91491 CSA 171.8 Port may have Pumping-Choke with HP Loss ( too fast FPS ) <--- Where we are at the PRP localized 311 2.03190 CSA 182.3 Highest useable Port velocity ( good TQ + HP • possible HP loss ) <--- Where we almost are as an average (about 180-182cc)
300 2.10640 CSA 189.0 Smallest Port CSA ( Hi Velocity FPS • very good TQ and HP )
285 2.21726 CSA 198.9 Recommended Port CSA ( very good TQ and HP combination )
260 2.43046 CSA 218.1 Recommended average Intake Port CSA (very good TQ and HP)
250 2.52768 CSA 226.8 Largest recommended average Intake Port CSA ( good HP )
240 2.63300 CSA 236.2 Largest recommended average Intake Port CSA (less Peak TQ)
235 2.68902 CSA 241.3 Largest recommended Intake Port Gasket Entry area CSA
225 2.80853 CSA 252.0 Largest Intake Port Gasket Entry CSA ( Slow FPS )
215 2.93916 CSA 263.7 Possible Torque Loss with Reversion ( Slow FPS )
210 3.00914 CSA 270.0 Torque Loss + Reversion possibility ( too slow FPS )
200 3.15960 CSA 283.5 Torque Loss + Reversion possibility ( too slow FPS )
I would be good to get a total measurement of everything to come up with a plan going forward. I know Charlie wants the ASM runners and so do I but we are just going to have to wait. I know he took the ridge out of the TPIS BM... which was driving us both nuts (the back side of the finished face where the runners bolt on has a sharp edge there) and I know that doesnt help flow leave the runner.
Flowing the port he massaged some, it picked up to 230.3cfm (Remember, this is bolted to the head, not flowed individually where it would be much higher) so we are certainly moving in the right direction and not done yet. 230 is what I would like to see all said and done. Can it be done?
interested in seeing what the ported stocker would do on those heads now, bc from his old vid its still beating the current slightly ported BM at low lifts even with the then worse flowing head😲😲😲
interested in seeing what the ported stocker would do on those heads now, bc from his old vid its still beating the current slightly ported BM at low lifts even with the then worse flowing head😲😲😲
I know! Pretty crazy but we both agree at this point the ported stocker is all you need if your staying long tube runner. I just don’t see the point in porting a TPIS out if you’re still stuck with ASM runners at best. But we’ll see. Maybe the tubes will pull more cfm than we think… maybe. Yeah probably not.
interesting stuff. I don't pretend to understand it all but nice seeing it being shared. my first time seeing air speed and stuff talked about.
how long of a wait for the runners?
lol
It’s not hard to grasp.
We’re aiming to port the intake and head for the proper airspeeds that promote max power and efficiency. We’re kind of in a box because the ASM runners are limiting us on port size.
I get the general concept, but never seen stuff talked about like the air speed in the port. how is that even measured? and at what air speed is to much, and how bench speed translates to air speed at what rpm in the engine.
I also never knew you wanted the smallest part of the port near the valve, so it all tapers a bit as it goes. makes sense, but not once have I seen or heard it talked about. but I'm also not that deep in it. I'm more buy head, bolt on head. drive car lol.
I get the general concept, but never seen stuff talked about like the air speed in the port. how is that even measured? and at what air speed is to much, and how bench speed translates to air speed at what rpm in the engine.
I also never knew you wanted the smallest part of the port near the valve, so it all tapers a bit as it goes. makes sense, but not once have I seen or heard it talked about. but I'm also not that deep in it. I'm more buy head, bolt on head. drive car lol.
Watch the Darin Morgan video posted a page back, it’s PRICELESS for anybody who’s into performance engines. Then come back and look at this
As you’ll see, too high, the port will choke. Too low, you leave power on the table and the car won’t perform. This is why you can’t strap the biggest ports on your engine and make it work right and also why the stock ports wont cut it for performance. It’s not just about the cfm.
We measure airspeeds with a pitot tube. It’s a hollow tube that when air flows in it, it’s creates a pressure that we can see on a fixture that gives us a correlating pressure that you convert to an associated airspeed.
It’s pretty interesting and shows how much more we can do with the internal combustion engine when you think about it.
Update... Talked to Jim at ASM, he's saying about a week left on the runners. After we flow them theres going to be some decisions to make... lol Its all in fun.
04-30-2024, 05:04 PM
I knew pretty quick that TPI was limited compared to Ford 5.0's but I didn't have any idea why, or what could be done about it. I'd have likely poo-poo'd a plastic intake and runners; "It'll never work!" Ha ha ha. THEN, there was this whole, foreign, unknown thing called "Tuning" the ECM. That seemed like an impossibility at the time (to me)....I remember when the Vortech FMU came out and I thought to myself; "This is it. This is what we're ALL going to have, going forward, to tune these things for mods. That's the way it's going to be. Soon, I'll have a FMU on my car.". I never did, but I thought the FMU was the answer/solution, at that point.
Pro. 3rd gens need sub frames. 
