Bullnose Enthusiasts Forum

351 W Build Gone Wild

Classic

List

Threaded

128 messages Options

1234 ... 7

Bruno2

351 W Build Gone Wild

Some of you may know me from FTE. My name is Brandon and I live about 25 miles from Gary. He and I have become friends ever since I bought an oil pan from him many years ago.

I have a bullnose build that has been neglected for a couple years and I am just now starting to rekindle it.
I had all kinds of plans for a motor build for low end torque. This isnt a performance build. The truck I named Junior is a 82 half ton version of my 96 F250 I call Whitey which will become one of my work trucks for business. So the 82 is Whitey Jr.

I fought and battled with compression issues related to head choices. I finally gave up the fight and bought a set of aluminum heads:https://www.summitracing.com/parts/FMS-M-6049-X306/

Now, since the intake runners are taller than what I had planned for I had to switch from an Edelbrock Performer intake to a Performer RPM. I am going to lose some low end with this switch.http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive/mc/manifolds/ford/performer-rpm-289.shtml

Also, come to find out my 1406 carb that Gary and I rebuilt will not be enough to supply this intake and head set up. I had to buy an 1805 carb.

What a mess this has evolved into

Whitey: 1996 F 250 XL CCLB 4X4 7.3 DI ZF5 (The Work Horse) Lots of power mods
Whitey Jr: AKA Jr 1982 F 150 CCLB 4X4 351W C6 (Jr Work Horse) respectable power, but not over the top
The Bronco: 1987 Bronco XLT 351W C6 (needs work) Lots of off road mods and plenty of power mods
The Dodge: 2006 Ram 2500 CCSB 4X4 5.9 HO Cummins (The reliable ride that cant keep an AC in itself) (5th AC go around almost complete)

Gary Lewis

Re: 351 W Build Gone Wild

Administrator

Brandon - You are telling the Reader's Digest version.

The one I've heard is much longer and involves pistons and an Air-Valve Secondary carb. (Bill will 'splain that presently.) But, Jim has, or will have 750 CFM one of those for sale soon.

Anyway, we are signed on for the journey.

Gary, AKA "Gary fellow": Profile

Dad's: '81 F150 Ranger XLT 4x4: Down for restomod: Full-roller "stroked 351M" w/Trick Flow heads & intake, EEC-V SEFI/E4OD/3.50 gears w/Kevlar clutches
Blue: 2015 F150 Platinum 4x4 SuperCrew wearing Blue Jeans & sporting a 3.5L EB & Max Tow
Big Blue: 1985 F250HD 4x4: 460/ZF5/3.55's, D60 w/Ox locker & 10.25 Sterling/Trutrac, Blue Top & Borgeson, & EEC-V MAF/SEFI

Bruno2

Re: 351 W Build Gone Wild

I was trying to spare everybody the 3 yrs at the machine shop which ended when I said "pull my stuff I am taking it tomorrow!" . So then tomorrow came and all he had to do was all of the machine work I asked for 3 yrs ago...

Compression is still going to be 10-1/2 - 10-3/4 ish with the 0 deck height.The aluminum should work out though.

PetesPonies

Re: 351 W Build Gone Wild

A Performer is no different ( or very very little ) than a factory intake, only aluminum. The RPM is a step up. I seriously doubt you will notice much loss at low RPMs. I have run these with no problem at all on street cars. Down low torque, in my builds, has been tire smoking :) Your CR is high . .if true. I assume this is just going to be a fun driver? Running high octane for small stints, no big deal. You can help yourself with preignition or detonation with the cam choice. But that will have an effect on low torque. Still , all that is controlled or lessened, by the choice of gearing. You keep the engine where it wants to be, RPM wise, and all is fine. So what is the goal here? Having mixed up part/goals is a sure way to be distraught.

Pete's Ponies
Mustang RUSToration & Performance

1982 F100 Flareside
1983 Bronco

Bruno2

Re: 351 W Build Gone Wild

The goal is a work truck. Just some low end torque for a daily driver that can pull light trailers and haul material.

The cam is a comp cams XE256:https://www.summitracing.com/parts/cca-35-234-3/overview/make/ford

The gearing is 3:50ish

Gary Lewis

Re: 351 W Build Gone Wild

Administrator

That’s a good cam. I ran it in the ‘82 Explorer’s 351W with a 2bbl. From a stop on dry concrete it would spin the right rear. Plenty of low-end torque.

Gary, AKA "Gary fellow": Profile

Ford F834

Re: 351 W Build Gone Wild

Administrator

In reply to this post by Bruno2

Thanks for joining and sharing your project!

SHORT BED 4-DOOR DIESEL: 1986 F350 4x4 under construction-- 7.3 IDIT ZF5+GVOD

STRAIGHT SIX 4X4: 1981 F150 2wd to 4x4-- 300 I6 close ratio diesel T19, hydroboost brakes, Saginaw steering

BIG F: 1995 F-Superduty under construction— converting to 6.9L IDI diesel ZF5+DNE2

PetesPonies

Re: 351 W Build Gone Wild

In reply to this post by Bruno2

Yes , with 351 cubic inches, that cam is rather docile. In a 289, it would be more radical. Thats a good choice for a truck.

Pete's Ponies
Mustang RUSToration & Performance

1982 F100 Flareside
1983 Bronco

Bruno2

Re: 351 W Build Gone Wild

I just hope its still a good choice and match with the other components I have had to change.

Bruno2

Re: 351 W Build Gone Wild

I took the heads to the guy known as "The Professor" (Eric Weingartner of Weingartner Racing). He ran a flow test as well as a pressure test to see what they would do.

Here are the numbers the test produced:

I am glad I took them to Eric for a few different reasons:

1) I wasnt sure if the springs the heads came with would work well with my cam.
Turns out they are way too heavy to use with a flat tappet cam. Eric thought it would have wiped the lobes off. The kit I bought came with springs. So they will be used.

2) The valves are so long in these heads that they will need to be shimmed up considerably.
I had no clue as to go about setting up the installation height. So the parts needed are being ordered and installed in the near future.

3) The valve seals installed were of poor quality .
Eric is changing them as well. Also, the seals that came with the kit are of poor quality.

4) Eric uses a special valve cut that has something to do with the valves being "back cut".
The whole reason I took them there was to have the valves cut with his special cut that increases flow and brings up the volumetric efficiency. There will be an "after" flow test done as soon as they are complete to see what the difference is.

Gary Lewis

Re: 351 W Build Gone Wild

Administrator

Eric is the real deal.

Several years ago I took a pair of D8OE smog heads I had ported to him, as well as a stock head. His testing showed that all of my work improved the flow at the top of the valve's lift, but did very little for the low-lift conditions, which is where the valve spends most of its time So he grabbed a stock valve, put a back-cut on it, and showed how the stock head now out-flowed my ported head at all but max lift.

Anyway, I think you will be very happy with his work, and happy that you took the heads to him. At least you'll know that all the pieces will work together properly - which wasn't going to be the case w/o him.

Gary, AKA "Gary fellow": Profile

PetesPonies

Re: 351 W Build Gone Wild

In reply to this post by Bruno2

What heads are these?

Pete's Ponies
Mustang RUSToration & Performance

1982 F100 Flareside
1983 Bronco

Gary Lewis

Re: 351 W Build Gone Wild

Administrator

He told me they are Ford Racing heads, although I don't know if they have a number or other designation.

Gary, AKA "Gary fellow": Profile

Bruno2

Re: 351 W Build Gone Wild

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/FMS-M-6049-X306/

ArdWrknTrk

Re: 351 W Build Gone Wild

Administrator

In reply to this post by Bruno2

Subscribed, Brandon

At over 350# open it is a good thing you swapped springs with a 256 cam.
It probably wouldn't have made it through the 20 min break in with flat lifters.

Intake port volume seems a little large for your goal of a stump pulling small block.
Maybe you would have been better off sticking with the Performer and filling the roof with Devcon?
I'm sure your engine guy knows far more than I do, so I'll shut up now and enjoy the show.

The AVS I have on my truck now is a 650 1826.
It was gone through a few months ago.

Jim,
Lil'Red is a '87 F250 HD, 4.10's, 1356 4x4, Zf-5, 3G, PMGR, Saginaw PS, desmogged with a Holley 80508 and Performer intake.
Too much other stuff to mention.

Bruno2

Re: 351 W Build Gone Wild

ArdWrknTrk wrote

Subscribed, Brandon

At over 350# open it is a good thing you swapped springs with a 256 cam.
It probably wouldn't have made it through the 20 min break in with flat lifters.

Intake port volume seems a little large for your goal of a stump pulling small block.
Maybe you would have been better off sticking with the Performer and filling the roof with Devcon?
I'm sure your engine guy knows far more than I do, so I'll shut up now and enjoy the show.

The AVS I have on my truck now is a 650 1826.
It was gone through a few months ago.

Explain that to me please Jim.

I dont have an engine builder. I am winging it with tech support from the different manufacturers.

PetesPonies

Re: 351 W Build Gone Wild

Well they certainly are not flowing what they are advertised to do. However, different flow benches will show different flow levels. So the most important is what they are flowing going in and what they flow when you leave with them.

If you want low end grunt, you need intake velocity. This gives you great mixture, which makes an efficient burn. This is power. To have great velocity at lower RPMs, you typically need small runners, small chambers, things that aid with an intake charge moving quickly. On the other end, when you increase the size, where the charge is moving, you enable it to slow down and still offer the same filling. By slowing down, the mixture isn't as good. You don't help atomization , plus you offer opportunities for the mixture to fall out of suspension. It's al about matching your parts with your goal in mind.

Pete's Ponies
Mustang RUSToration & Performance

1982 F100 Flareside
1983 Bronco

ArdWrknTrk

Re: 351 W Build Gone Wild

Administrator

In reply to this post by Bruno2

Which part?

Too much spring pressure for flat tappets or reducing intake port volume to keep velocity up at low rpms?

Jim,
Lil'Red is a '87 F250 HD, 4.10's, 1356 4x4, Zf-5, 3G, PMGR, Saginaw PS, desmogged with a Holley 80508 and Performer intake.
Too much other stuff to mention.

Gary Lewis

Re: 351 W Build Gone Wild

Administrator

Pete - Well said. Too many people want large and/or short runners, but they will kill torque at low RPM.

A good example of that is the Cleveland engine, which was offered with both "2V" and "4V" heads and matching intake manifolds. The 2V's had reasonably-sized ports and the 4V's had huge ports. Engines with the 2V heads & manifolds had reasonable low-RPM torque, but engines with the 4V heads had little torque below 3000 RPM. However, from 3000 on up they rev'd like banshees.

Jim - Probably both as Brandon is fighting a problem on his Bronco that may be a mismatch of heads and intake. So, I'm sure he would appreciate info on both spring pressures as well as the port volume.

Gary, AKA "Gary fellow": Profile

ArdWrknTrk

Re: 351 W Build Gone Wild

Administrator

Well, you can see from the link that those heads are setup for rollers (and high rpm given the spring pressure)

I would think 185-215 at whatever lift he is going to get with his cam and rocker ratio.
Or on the low side if he is setting a low redline.

Devcon is a metal filled epoxy.

In his aluminum heads you'd use the aluminum version to reduce the port volume and keep velocity up.

Typically filling the floor gives you a better approach angle at the back of the valve.
But given that his ports are too high for the intake you would probably fill the top at the gasket and the floor of the port.
Careful to keep the cross section near the same.

Jim,
Lil'Red is a '87 F250 HD, 4.10's, 1356 4x4, Zf-5, 3G, PMGR, Saginaw PS, desmogged with a Holley 80508 and Performer intake.
Too much other stuff to mention.

1234 ... 7