One of the most underrated automotive shows on TH-cam today. If not the most. He literally should be working at Koenigsegg. He does so much testing, knows a lot about aerodynamics and top speed runs and it's a high value car comes high R&D budgets. I would love to see him tuning a 1000 plus hyper car motor and finding it's boundaries. Thank you for all the advice and all the content Richard it's greatly appreciated 🙏🏼🇺🇲
You got that right! Richard is a treasure trove of dyno information, especially in the Ford 5.0 HO world. His Ford 5.0 dyno tests book is some of the best reading a car guy can get 👌👍🏻
Remember those old predator carburetors? I had a friend that had one back in the day, When he showed it to me I said. What the heck is that? a jack in the box.
love this channel. like how u just get right into it, and you're trying to dyno everything with different combos. not a Ford guy but i do respect the 302, its a good lil engine. it better be for the number of years Fords been messing with it.
It would be neat to cut a slot into the stock manifold's plenum on the left side of the engine and attach the oval radiused entry to it. That way you keep the long runners without it being a foot taller.
One thing I always wanted to try on one of these old 5.0 motors.....put on a twin carb Offenhouser intake, but put 2 throttle bodies adapted to the carb bolt spacing....basically have the throttle bodies pointing straight up
I would like to see an Offenhauser dual port manifold tested. These were the manifolds to have back in the 70s and 80s. I had one on a 460 Ford that worked great with lots of low-end torque and good gas milage. They are not race manifolds but work great on the street.
I had one on a 1971 Torino coupe, 351 Cleveland, 4 speed, 3.00 gear. The dual port didn't care if there were a 4 hole spacer, open spacer, front half/ back half spacer, the mileage remained the same, 20-22 at 70mph. With a 'cobra jet' cam, higher lift, slight overlap, Rhoads lifters, headers and different carbs, stock Motorcraft, Holley 600 vacuum secondaries, 750 Holley also vacuum, it would rev to 7,000 in first, 6,000 in second, 5,000 in third, then I chickened out (way past 120 mph). I never considered fuel starvation until Years later. Some idiot never thought to put a new harmonic balancer on, breaking the crank just in front of the second main. ):
Need to see what the 5.0 truck intake manifold would do. My brother had a dealer installed GT40 crate motor in his 89 F150 4x4, 5 speed with 3.55 gears, Cobra R injectors,and a MAF conversion. That truck went 14.89 at 92 mph.
The problem with the dual intake is that the runners from the throttle plates were not port matched to the runners on the intake--that is they should narrow down and become circular by the time they get to the actual port. The wort thing you can do to intake gas is to have a flat step down into a circular port.
I bought a 95 Mustang and like you say...it ran well to just past 4000 then pretty much was done. Replaced the rockers with Ford Racing (made by Crane) 1.7's and threw the stock heavy spring retainers (that had rotator's in them) and wimpy springs away for some Comp Cams lightweight retainers and springs. Along with some relieving of the airbox and a little ignition timing bump it would run strong to the 6250 rev limiter and absolutely crush a stock HO. That was a fun little car back in the day.
Richard On the topic of 302s and boost, the other day I thought of a test you could use to demonstrate long runners and boost. I saw an Edelbrock 3821 manifold that had long runners similar to a stock HO manifold but the plenum had a plate on it. You could fab up a Super Richie plate with a blower mount for that plenum cap and plate the original NA throttle body hole. Now you'd have a long runner positive displacement manifold that you could adapt a Kenne Bell to mount to.
we've already many, many runner length tests with boost-it does the same as na but a blower mounted on the end of the manifold like you described would be cool
I guess that throttle body must have at least 1,000 CFM, but the factory heads and camshaft become the funnel that restricts flow. I'm already looking forward to the test with better heads and a bigger camshaft (a solid one with rollers 1.7 would be great).
*Mill out an adapter plate and bolt on a vintage Autolite **_"CROSS-BOSS"_** Inline 4-bbl. Dont know if it would turn the numbers but bet it'd turn some heads.*
It would be Interesting to see if someone would make a custom cam grind for a Miller Cycle LS engine. Something like a Delayed IVC setup, Theoretically it will make more torque down low and improve your fuel economy.
Cool 2 barrel. Make thinner throttle plates and smaller diameter shafts, or mill the shaft, parallel to the plate. The top down shot really shows the "flat plate area" of the butterfly/shaft assembly. I would guess 20% of the total area of the venturi. Heck, just use Bondo and streamline the shaft/plate junction, flush cut the screws. I bet you will see the difference on the dyno. Also, aren't these short intake runner setups more for quicker reving engines?
The motor doesn't need more flow-it is restricted by the stock lower intake, heads and cam timing. None of the changes you suggested would do anything when those things limit power.
@@richardholdener1727 I was saying that the total flow is restricted by the flat plat area of the the shafts and plates. You are saying the absolute flow from the intake, the cam timings, are the restriction? I am saying that at partial throttle settings, restriction can be lost by increasing flow around the plates. It would just respond quicker. I raced motorcycles, were you seldom can ride wide open for long. "Responsiveness", can you measure that as rpm/time? I think this goes along with port matching and casting flash removal. For wide open power it might be a small benefit and so not worth doing? It is probably just mental, but I think they run smoother and rev faster with all the "little" gains. Thanks for the come back.
Those thick blades need some knife edging, that would be an interesting test. The drivabliity is awful because the CFM/% opening is not linear. Basically wil 10/20% opening they just towards the 100% cfm. Its needs a non linear opening mech so it does not gulp air on a low throttle and loose air speed/TQ.
The rockers look like Yellaterra. According to Dave Bennet the owner of the company at the time, they made a deal with Ford USA to provide them. I think they were the only company that made "bolt on" rockers at the time. We had them fitted to our 5litre Windsors that were fitted into 2000 AU Falcons, they also used GT40P heads. There was also a 5.6litre stroked version. It used locally made crank, pistons (ACL) and rods. they were rated at 250kW. This rating is net.
If you haven't tryed it yet I'd like to see you or somebody turbo a V-6 or a V-8 with the turbo being spooled up by one bank of pistons only. The other bank goes straight out the headers thru the tailpipe to atmosphere. I would like to see if this would work and what the heck that would sound like. It would make a awesome you tube video. Indycars useto do this. Saab made a V-6 This way. So eather this will work and make more power (less back pressure?) or grenade in the process. Eather way I've been waiting years for a engine builder to try this.
I've already tried it once on a BBC with less than stellar results. It is possible (Saab did it but I was never aware of Indy motors doing it.) It will be less responsive (Saab used a very small turbo) and doubtful it would add any power
I think it would work better if you would make an a transitional spacer with radius is that was set on top of the old intake and then put that wide open throttle body sing a dare on top of that, even when you're flowing heads, you make a clay radius on the intake port so you. Don't have the arrow screwed app going into that port. I think it would work better if you did the same thing with a spacer plate.
Hi Richard, your "home ported LS heads" I've searched your homepage but can't find the video, is that a part of another video? Can you point me in the right direction, thank you.
@@buzzwaldron6195 It was far simpler than that with my 1st generation Titan. I swapped a PDQ90 manifold on it. The PDQ90 was an Infiniti M45 manifold with spacers and ported for a 90mm LS throttle body. The M45 manifold had dual length runners. It worked fantastically well matched up with the variable intake valve timing on the Titans 5.6L. Best of both worlds, stump pulling low-midrange torque and I had the RPM window switch set to where it would open the short runner path up at about 4,600 rpm and scream to the top end. Took about 30 dyno pulls to optimize the runner switch rpm point and play around with VVT on the intake cams to smooth out that torque dip during the switch but once it was right it was a very seamless and smooth curve.
@@chrisreynolds6520 - That doesn't sound simple... I was just suggesting something for the Ford... maybe mount the upper on a hinge and swing it up at 4400... LOL!
Timing light. I've noticed in this and other vids that the timing light does not shut off. Is this on purpose to monitor ignition during a run? If not, this is wearing out the flash tube. It might even cause a flash delay making timing look to be lower than it really is.
The torque ain't coming back that way. Those long runners resonate at the lower rpm and via inertial supercharging force more air into the cylinder at the lower rpm, that will not come back by making a bigger plenum.
Hey Richard this is off topic but 5.3 lt w diablo trinity tuner truck won't start tuner says DTT is not communicating w the ecm now I'm clueless any ideals?
Okay, is it just me or does that resemble the old Scott slot fuel injection, made famous from it's air scoop used on Mad Max Interceptor. Maybe recreate a real functional version
This is what I was thinking it needed, the port entry holes into the lower manifold should have had a nice radius on them. I think if they combined a billet spacer plate say 1" thick with nice radius port entries it would have been better. Also I'd like to see what effect thinner throttle plates and with flats on the spindles, or those shaftless type bodies. Finally it would be nice to see what a 2-1 collector joining the headers and a longer exhaust system do to the performance on the dyno.
I autocross a Boss 302 in 78/79… My machinist had a single carb Cross Boss for $275. Like an idiot I offered 225…. Geeez. In 87/88 I auto crossed a 5.0 LX for which I wanted to build an eight butterfly version of that Accufab Maybe I’ll do it for the old Bronco with long tubes leading to filters…. Hmmm …sleepless in Texas…
that ford 5.0L made 258hp 318lb-ft(430nm) a bmw 2.5 m52tu 192hp 250nm a psa 2.0L ew10 140hp 200nm a psa tu3 (two valve rally) 1.3 liter carburates from 80s made 103hp and 118nm. so underpower that 5.0
Dear Mr Holdener, I have a 2005 magnum rt with the stock 5.7. Over the years I've collected the entire top end of a 6.1 hemi. the only parts I need are an adjustable timing set, and gaskets. The last part I purchased was the heads, funny the fella is sending your book with those. For research I've read a million forum posts. (Worst info resource ever) Up until 2014 the post read that the 6.1 hemi head is only good for 25hp. Which makes zero sense to me. Doesn't a head breathe until it stalls? Also, weren't there Eagle heads by 2014? are they not a evolution of the 6.1 head? Seems the published numbers for the 6.1 are less flow on the intake than an Eagle, and a little more on the exhaust. And with the 6.1 open chamber and a small street cam as came in the srt8's until 2009, the piston to valve clearance issue, if any, would be a little safer than a Eagle's closed chamber head. Eh, maybe. I've been told that Isky could regrind a cam from the old srt8 I have to make it more suitable for the 345 CID, and it would be half the price of a new cam, but I have yet to talk to them to prove that out. I just want to build a magnum that's a cool hot rod. Previously, I purchased a new stock 2007 5.7 that had the older comp XFI273, and springs (current at the time) and no other modes, and it worked out fine in a Duster. I think the 6.1 cam is even smaller. ??? Am I totally in left field in my thoughts, or is this a pretty easy to build set up. I'd like to read your ideas. Thanks.
@@richardholdener1727 I can see why, you don't understand my question. It's all over the place.Sorry. I guess a simpler way to put this would be. I'd like to write a thread on a Mopar forum, and the subject would be, "Revisiting swapping the 6.1 top end onto a stock 2005 5.7 short block 20 yrs later." Back than, (and the post still exist) there was a bunch of talk about the 6.1 heads being way too much for the 345 CID. Yet if you go forward in time, the Eagle motors sort of argues against that as being true. Sure the VVT really smooths stuff out for a broader power band, but once you starting installing cams that are similar to the original SRT8 specs, don't you need to start limiting the VVT function? I'm wondering if the issue back than with using the factory parts to swap onto the 5.7 and end up with okay results had more to do with people Hen pecking parts. IE: Installing the cam alone, or the cam and intake with the 05 heads. Not installing all the pieces as a recipe. Also, the notion that hand held tuning devices being readily available, ( for GM guys a predator was no new thing) were a cure all. That people were more naive and just install a canned tune. "Joe went to the swap meet, and purchased a 6.1 cam, some springs, and rods, installed them, and his hand held canned tune worked, because their were no codes." I don't understand how people back than were saying the swap was a total failure, it only netted 20-25hp, and it was time consuming and expensive. ($$$ I do understand) I'd like to install the cam at 113 LSA and data log, I'd also like to take advantage of the correct head gasket, and a reasonable boost in compression. Than, see if today's email tuning guys will net better results. ( I have zero expectations that I get anything near the results you get in your book, "since the heads, and your book have yet to arrive, I've only been able to preview what google books will show me.' due to a lot of factors.) All I'm saying is, if you don't have a combo, in which parts match together, maybe the backyard mechanic is inevitably bond to a coin toss, maybe, maybe not. (As will I be, since no success stories from than exist today on the internet, or the Wayback machine,)
@@richardholdener1727 -So what I ended up with is 6.1 heads/ with 8 bent intake valves. The story is, there's an offset dowel, and a run of those have been bad, to epidemic proportion. The engine was cranked, popped and that was the end. The heads look new, clean. The intake valves look bent but not the stems. (wishful thinking.) So I'll probably need valve guides. While waiting on the valve spring tool. I filled the exhaust ports with ATF for half, and hour, and there were no leaks. When the tool arrives I'll pop the locks, and have the head inspected. The damage around the combustion chamber looks like scratches that lead to the head gasket mating surface. I've seen worse on Iron from people storing them in basements. At worst, the 74CC chambers will get a slight taper, and the heads will get a minimal milling. I'll cc them, and ask for advice on gaskets. Once a valve is bent over, and left like that, I don't know if the compressed springs lose there memory. So as a precaution, I don't think I'd reused the springs. I think your book nailed it. While I've had a off the assembly in 5.7 and installed the XFI273, and put 50K miles on it, that wasn't with 6.1 heads. The comp HRT 260H-14, is probably better than the 6.1s stock cam adv 4 degree, due to milling, and chamber work, I could end up in left field with a hand grenade. Maybe if I cam find a cheap gasket, I could test the V to P clearance with some clay, but for time constant purposes, it's a no go. NEXT>
(Hope I didn't just reply in the wrong box, oops.) Years ago, before XV had come and gone, they sold me a used trophy truck engine. Back than nothing was offered for gen III hemi's. The story was: In order to get a forged assembly, they turned down the crank to used chevy rods, and it was more cost effective. I just read a similar story recently about using a 392 truck crank, in a pre-eagle engine by turning down the snout .065, and the journals for chevy rod, and the result was 400+ cubes, on the cheap. I don't know whether that is opening a can of carnivorous brain eating worms, or if it's genius . I think I'll leave that alone.
Not related to this video at all. But what you state is for the most part true. If you build a NA engine as powerfull as possible and then just add Boost I see a few problems. If your going to build a NA engine as powerful as possible than the Compression is going to be 11.1- 11.5-1 or more. Not Ideal for a Boosted engine.. JUST SAYING.. Now keeping Compression @(9.5-10-1) then yes this can possibly work. but if you're building an all out race/street engine NA you will want 10:1 or 11:1 compression or even higher. Not a good idea to add high Boost to a a High Compression Engine... Just Sayin but i know what your saying and you know what I'm saying.... please keep the videos coming!!!! Comparing different Superchargers and Forced Induction comparisons very informative... Great Stuff
One of the most underrated automotive shows on TH-cam today. If not the most. He literally should be working at Koenigsegg. He does so much testing, knows a lot about aerodynamics and top speed runs and it's a high value car comes high R&D budgets. I would love to see him tuning a 1000 plus hyper car motor and finding it's boundaries. Thank you for all the advice and all the content Richard it's greatly appreciated 🙏🏼🇺🇲
You got that right! Richard is a treasure trove of dyno information, especially in the Ford 5.0 HO world. His Ford 5.0 dyno tests book is some of the best reading a car guy can get 👌👍🏻
@@robertwest3093love his books! Bought the Honda one, when I started building up my B18C swap engine for eg civic.
I definitely want to see that in-line throttlebody on a 347 with a hot cam and good heads.
Love the windsor content...still running a roller 302 with an E-cam and 76 mm turbo...
looks like a inline four-barrel ford carb from back in the day
The Autolite inline 4 barrels.
Cross Boss
No not even close.
@@knutbjornlarsen4435 well ‘it reminds ME of one’ work for you? No?
If that Accufab works AT ALL, it'll only be at the top end...where the heads will stop the party.
Remember those old predator carburetors? I had a friend that had one back in the day, When he showed it to me I said. What the heck is that? a jack in the box.
Love old school parts. Thinking outside the box just awesome. Thanks as always
Finally didn't have zoom after zoom, thank you!!! 👏 👏 👏
that accufab intake is badass. if mihovitz made more of them, id buy one for my 302!
love this channel. like how u just get right into it, and you're trying to dyno everything with different combos. not a Ford guy but i do respect the 302, its a good lil engine. it better be for the number of years Fords been messing with it.
It would be neat to cut a slot into the stock manifold's plenum on the left side of the engine and attach the oval radiused entry to it. That way you keep the long runners without it being a foot taller.
This is insane, I have thought about this idea for mine for long. Wish this was in production
I wanna see the kenne bell now , thanks for the content . Love the content
Cant wait for the kenne bell episode. I have been wanting one of them for decades. You might just push me over the edge with the dyno numbers.
That Accufab unit looks really cool!
Wow that dual oval blade intake reminded me of Ford's rare Part number DOZX 9510-A inline four barrel carburetor.
Autolite Cross Boss
@@richardholdener1727 Have you ever had your hands on one?
@richardholdener1727
You too can own one @ $10k a you get a penny back.
Buyer beware, it's used parts.
One thing I always wanted to try on one of these old 5.0 motors.....put on a twin carb Offenhouser intake, but put 2 throttle bodies adapted to the carb bolt spacing....basically have the throttle bodies pointing straight up
I would like to see an Offenhauser dual port manifold tested. These were the manifolds to have back in the 70s and 80s. I had one on a 460 Ford that worked great with lots of low-end torque and good gas milage. They are not race manifolds but work great on the street.
I had one on a 1971 Torino coupe, 351 Cleveland, 4 speed, 3.00 gear. The dual port didn't care if there were a 4 hole spacer, open spacer, front half/ back half spacer, the mileage remained the same, 20-22 at 70mph. With a 'cobra jet' cam, higher lift, slight overlap, Rhoads lifters, headers and different carbs, stock Motorcraft, Holley 600 vacuum secondaries, 750 Holley also vacuum, it would rev to 7,000 in first, 6,000 in second, 5,000 in third, then I chickened out (way past 120 mph). I never considered fuel starvation until Years later. Some idiot never thought to put a new harmonic balancer on, breaking the crank just in front of the second main. ):
Need to see what the 5.0 truck intake manifold would do. My brother had a dealer installed GT40 crate motor in his 89 F150 4x4, 5 speed with 3.55 gears, Cobra R injectors,and a MAF conversion. That truck went 14.89 at 92 mph.
That’s impressive for sure!
That is one sweet old school intake
The problem with the dual intake is that the runners from the throttle plates were not port matched to the runners on the intake--that is they should narrow down and become circular by the time they get to the actual port. The wort thing you can do to intake gas is to have a flat step down into a circular port.
Awesome, great for high rpm applications let it rip beyond 7k!
Stock HO5.0's are chunky torque producers, 2400 to 4400 RPM is 300 ft-lbs of twist, almost the whole time.
I bought a 95 Mustang and like you say...it ran well to just past 4000 then pretty much was done. Replaced the rockers with Ford Racing (made by Crane) 1.7's and threw the stock heavy spring retainers (that had rotator's in them) and wimpy springs away for some Comp Cams lightweight retainers and springs. Along with some relieving of the airbox and a little ignition timing bump it would run strong to the 6250 rev limiter and absolutely crush a stock HO. That was a fun little car back in the day.
They don't even produce any torque. But they sound good
@@Christdeliverme it was pretty good, for the time.....
Road race engine!
I had a 94 351W Bronco that ran just fine. Had plenty of low-end torque and just what you need in a 4X4 with an E4OD.
Richard On the topic of 302s and boost, the other day I thought of a test you could use to demonstrate long runners and boost. I saw an Edelbrock 3821 manifold that had long runners similar to a stock HO manifold but the plenum had a plate on it. You could fab up a Super Richie plate with a blower mount for that plenum cap and plate the original NA throttle body hole. Now you'd have a long runner positive displacement manifold that you could adapt a Kenne Bell to mount to.
we've already many, many runner length tests with boost-it does the same as na but a blower mounted on the end of the manifold like you described would be cool
Now do a test adding a couple feet long runner extending between the factory upper and lower
I’ve always wondered….
Never in my 52 years on this planet have I seen that or ever heard of it😮
That reminds me of the motor craft in-line 4 barrel for all the trans am 302’s
YEP
I guess that throttle body must have at least 1,000 CFM, but the factory heads and camshaft become the funnel that restricts flow. I'm already looking forward to the test with better heads and a bigger camshaft (a solid one with rollers 1.7 would be great).
Now ya gotta fab up a cover for the top of that intake that goes to a turbo.
Not going to lie, it looks cool.
Nice find, Richard
Very cool test thanks for sharing
I gotta admit…. I was expecting the low end torque to drop a lot more than 20 lb/ft. 👀
Really wish the modern 5.0L Coyotes sounded like that. Absolutely love the platform, but the sound is just not there compared to LS or Windsor motors.
*Mill out an adapter plate and bolt on a vintage Autolite **_"CROSS-BOSS"_** Inline 4-bbl. Dont know if it would turn the numbers but bet it'd turn some heads.*
those R hard to find and expensive
@@richardholdener1727 *Yeah, So?...hahaha LOL Good Video KUTGW*
It would be Interesting to see if someone would make a custom cam grind for a Miller Cycle LS engine. Something like a Delayed IVC setup, Theoretically it will make more torque down low and improve your fuel economy.
Cool 2 barrel. Make thinner throttle plates and smaller diameter shafts, or mill the shaft, parallel to the plate. The top down shot really shows the "flat plate area" of the butterfly/shaft assembly. I would guess 20% of the total area of the venturi. Heck, just use Bondo and streamline the shaft/plate junction, flush cut the screws. I bet you will see the difference on the dyno. Also, aren't these short intake runner setups more for quicker reving engines?
The motor doesn't need more flow-it is restricted by the stock lower intake, heads and cam timing. None of the changes you suggested would do anything when those things limit power.
@@richardholdener1727 I was saying that the total flow is restricted by the flat plat area of the the shafts and plates. You are saying the absolute flow from the intake, the cam timings, are the restriction? I am saying that at partial throttle settings, restriction can be lost by increasing flow around the plates. It would just respond quicker. I raced motorcycles, were you seldom can ride wide open for long. "Responsiveness", can you measure that as rpm/time? I think this goes along with port matching and casting flash removal. For wide open power it might be a small benefit and so not worth doing? It is probably just mental, but I think they run smoother and rev faster with all the "little" gains. Thanks for the come back.
Those thick blades need some knife edging, that would be an interesting test. The drivabliity is awful because the CFM/% opening is not linear. Basically wil 10/20% opening they just towards the 100% cfm. Its needs a non linear opening mech so it does not gulp air on a low throttle and loose air speed/TQ.
rising rate throttle opening is beneficial as it an altered bore shape that reduces low-throttle angle flow, but this was not that
The rockers look like Yellaterra. According to Dave Bennet the owner of the company at the time, they made a deal with Ford USA to provide them. I think they were the only company that made "bolt on" rockers at the time. We had them fitted to our 5litre Windsors that were fitted into 2000 AU Falcons, they also used GT40P heads. There was also a 5.6litre stroked version. It used locally made crank, pistons (ACL) and rods. they were rated at 250kW. This rating is net.
I was very surprised the torque didn’t drop off as bad as I thought it would. Very flat curve too. I think with a cam it might do ok
Ive always thought it would be cool to adapt two, dual t.b.s from the 88-94 302-351w truck engines onto a built mustang 302.
It would be even cooler with some Super Richie runner extensions
It's definitely a wide open throttle setup!
please do a comparison test between floater timing gears and double roller chain
the thickness of those throttle blades and the non-cut shafts leaves a LOT to be desired on that dual TB setup.
If you haven't tryed it yet I'd like to see you or somebody turbo a V-6 or a V-8 with the turbo being spooled up by one bank of pistons only. The other bank goes straight out the headers thru the tailpipe to atmosphere.
I would like to see if this would work and what the heck that would sound like. It would make a awesome you tube video. Indycars useto do this.
Saab made a V-6 This way. So eather this will work and make more power (less back pressure?) or grenade in the process. Eather way I've been waiting years for a engine builder to try this.
I've already tried it once on a BBC with less than stellar results. It is possible (Saab did it but I was never aware of Indy motors doing it.) It will be less responsive (Saab used a very small turbo) and doubtful it would add any power
Richard please measure balance shaft drag
4.3 V6 with and without balance shaft
Please please please )
Awesome footage
Please test TSP mad maxx cam in a 5.3! Apparently it’s got more gains than stage 4 cams
Best content out there
Very cool setup
What the Haystack!
plan on making any more gen 3 hemi videos?
yes
I think it would work better if you would make an a transitional spacer with radius is that was set on top of the old intake and then put that wide open throttle body sing a dare on top of that, even when you're flowing heads, you make a clay radius on the intake port so you. Don't have the arrow screwed app going into that port. I think it would work better if you did the same thing with a spacer plate.
Rich, have you done a video testing the iron GT-40P (Explorer) heads?
yes-see the big head test video number 1
Looks like the “WAH! WAH!” 5000!
Hi Richard, your "home ported LS heads" I've searched your homepage but can't find the video, is that a part of another video? Can you point me in the right direction, thank you.
You could add spacers to get runner length. 347? Stroked 351W?
you could stack plenolic spacers
That throttle body is basically a poor mans ITB setup. Cool!
Run the upper up to 4400 RPMs, then lift off the upper above 4400 RPMs...
@@buzzwaldron6195 It was far simpler than that with my 1st generation Titan. I swapped a PDQ90 manifold on it. The PDQ90 was an Infiniti M45 manifold with spacers and ported for a 90mm LS throttle body. The M45 manifold had dual length runners. It worked fantastically well matched up with the variable intake valve timing on the Titans 5.6L. Best of both worlds, stump pulling low-midrange torque and I had the RPM window switch set to where it would open the short runner path up at about 4,600 rpm and scream to the top end. Took about 30 dyno pulls to optimize the runner switch rpm point and play around with VVT on the intake cams to smooth out that torque dip during the switch but once it was right it was a very seamless and smooth curve.
@@chrisreynolds6520 - That doesn't sound simple... I was just suggesting something for the Ford... maybe mount the upper on a hinge and swing it up at 4400... LOL!
Completely unrelated question....
But.... Since a tunnel ram has long runners....why is it a high RPM intake?
Tunnel Rams are not long compared to the stock HO or GT40 etc...
Whatever happened to that manifold? Was it one-off?
it is the only one ever made
I'm guessing being it wasn't mass produced that it had minimal gains, if any. Richard is about to let us know.
Very interesting. Look forward to more testing.
Please ask to test it on the 393w
What does the top part look like? What air cleaner goes on that?
THAT IS THE TOP PART-NO AIR CLEANER (IT WAS A 1 OFF RACE PIECE)
Yaahhhhh love the goofy old stuff
Any chance that this twin throttle accufab manifold might be available for purchase after all tests are completed?
you would have to ask Accufab
They said truck intake did better but no hood clearance
That plenum would work better if the front and back 4 ports had shared vacuum.
They share at WOT
Have you run a stick truck 5.0 intake? Would like to see it compared to the explorer intake
me too
Timing light.
I've noticed in this and other vids that the timing light does not shut off. Is this on purpose to monitor ignition during a run? If not, this is wearing out the flash tube. It might even cause a flash delay making timing look to be lower than it really is.
it was on during the two runs selected for video-usually not
I've been trying to get Accufab to make me a custom tb for my 3800 GenV M90. I haven't heard back from them
Try adding a 3 inch spacer under this dual blade upper intake and see what happens, might get back the torque and keep the upper rpm
The torque ain't coming back that way. Those long runners resonate at the lower rpm and via inertial supercharging force more air into the cylinder at the lower rpm, that will not come back by making a bigger plenum.
you could add spacers with runners in them-but then you lose top end
@@richardholdener1727Maybe Wilson could whip up a TAPERED 8-hole spacer.
at small throttle openings they gulp air and loose charge speed, it needs a progressive throttle opeing mech.
Well that's certainly different!
What fuel line size do I need on a 06 Chevy for 800 horsepower?
-6 IS FINE
So would porting the stock manifold with updated Tb be the best of both worlds ?
a better intake would be the best (like a dual plane carb intake)
Comments coming up in white can’t hardly read , did you do ho intake and a truck intake ?
no truck
Hey Richard this is off topic but 5.3 lt w diablo trinity tuner truck won't start tuner says DTT is not communicating w the ecm now I'm clueless any ideals?
I don't tune stock ECUs-good luck
Unique design, predictable outcome 😁
Every engine needs more airflow.
Made the same power numbers as the 5.0 GT brochure
Have you ever played with a Kendig, aka Predator carb?
I have not
What brand is your blue toolbox?
Wow love the content
Please do your power increases also in % as 5hp+ means much differant things on a 100hp to a 1000hp engine.
easy math for you with the provided data
@@richardholdener1727 even easier if you just put in on the screen next to to the HP gain.
Okay, is it just me or does that resemble the old Scott slot fuel injection, made famous from it's air scoop used on Mad Max Interceptor.
Maybe recreate a real functional version
Custom upper on top of the throttle bodies and feed it boost. Compare that to the factory manifold.
they do the same thing under boost
Hey richard what's your thoughts on those sbf hemi heads?
what do you mean by thoughts
Cool!!
I bet I'd that system had radiused entries at the bottom it would make even more power when it's allowed to rofl.
radiused entries (exits) at the bottom will hurt flow into the non-radiused lower manifold
This is what I was thinking it needed, the port entry holes into the lower manifold should have had a nice radius on them. I think if they combined a billet spacer plate say 1" thick with nice radius port entries it would have been better. Also I'd like to see what effect thinner throttle plates and with flats on the spindles, or those shaftless type bodies. Finally it would be nice to see what a 2-1 collector joining the headers and a longer exhaust system do to the performance on the dyno.
Cross Boss-esque
agreed
I autocross a Boss 302 in 78/79…
My machinist had a single carb Cross Boss for $275. Like an idiot I offered 225…. Geeez.
In 87/88 I auto crossed a 5.0 LX for which I wanted to build an eight butterfly version of that Accufab
Maybe I’ll do it for the old Bronco with long tubes leading to filters…. Hmmm …sleepless in Texas…
Dyno Sheet makes the choice of LS/LT engine for swaps logical for cost , fit , efficiency, & power potential reasons
that ford 5.0L made 258hp 318lb-ft(430nm)
a bmw 2.5 m52tu 192hp 250nm
a psa 2.0L ew10 140hp 200nm
a psa tu3 (two valve rally) 1.3 liter carburates from 80s made 103hp and 118nm.
so underpower that 5.0
But they rave on about a 5.0, don't they
@@mikes.1882 maybe 5.0 is fuel eficint for the power is has?. but is heavy.
i dont know the 0-60 from that cars
@danyan7 the 5.0 windsor is quite light for an all cast iron v8. And it gets much lighter with bolt on aluminum parts.
Very cool.
How can I buy one?
there is only 1
Why are the ports bigger on a truck and still low hp
runner length
@@richardholdener1727 ??
Dear Mr Holdener,
I have a 2005 magnum rt with the stock 5.7. Over the years I've collected the entire top end of a 6.1 hemi. the only parts I need are an adjustable timing set, and gaskets. The last part I purchased was the heads, funny the fella is sending your book with those.
For research I've read a million forum posts. (Worst info resource ever)
Up until 2014 the post read that the 6.1 hemi head is only good for 25hp. Which makes zero sense to me. Doesn't a head breathe until it stalls? Also, weren't there Eagle heads by 2014? are they not a evolution of the 6.1 head? Seems the published numbers for the 6.1 are less flow on the intake than an Eagle, and a little more on the exhaust. And with the 6.1 open chamber and a small street cam as came in the srt8's until 2009, the piston to valve clearance issue, if any, would be a little safer than a Eagle's closed chamber head. Eh, maybe. I've been told that Isky could regrind a cam from the old srt8 I have to make it more suitable for the 345 CID, and it would be half the price of a new cam, but I have yet to talk to them to prove that out. I just want to build a magnum that's a cool hot rod. Previously, I purchased a new stock 2007 5.7 that had the older comp XFI273, and springs (current at the time) and no other modes, and it worked out fine in a Duster. I think the 6.1 cam is even smaller. ???
Am I totally in left field in my thoughts, or is this a pretty easy to build set up. I'd like to read your ideas. Thanks.
I don't know what your question is
@@richardholdener1727 I can see why, you don't understand my question. It's all over the place.Sorry. I guess a simpler way to put this would be. I'd like to write a thread on a Mopar forum, and the subject would be, "Revisiting swapping the 6.1 top end onto a stock 2005 5.7 short block 20 yrs later." Back than, (and the post still exist) there was a bunch of talk about the 6.1 heads being way too much for the 345 CID. Yet if you go forward in time, the Eagle motors sort of argues against that as being true. Sure the VVT really smooths stuff out for a broader power band, but once you starting installing cams that are similar to the original SRT8 specs, don't you need to start limiting the VVT function? I'm wondering if the issue back than with using the factory parts to swap onto the 5.7 and end up with okay results had more to do with people Hen pecking parts. IE: Installing the cam alone, or the cam and intake with the 05 heads. Not installing all the pieces as a recipe. Also, the notion that hand held tuning devices being readily available, ( for GM guys a predator was no new thing) were a cure all. That people were more naive and just install a canned tune.
"Joe went to the swap meet, and purchased a 6.1 cam, some springs, and rods, installed them, and his hand held canned tune worked, because their were no codes."
I don't understand how people back than were saying the swap was a total failure, it only netted 20-25hp, and it was time consuming and expensive. ($$$ I do understand)
I'd like to install the cam at 113 LSA and data log, I'd also like to take advantage of the correct head gasket, and a reasonable boost in compression. Than, see if today's email tuning guys will net better results. ( I have zero expectations that I get anything near the results you get in your book, "since the heads, and your book have yet to arrive, I've only been able to preview what google books will show me.' due to a lot of factors.) All I'm saying is, if you don't have a combo, in which parts match together, maybe the backyard mechanic is inevitably bond to a coin toss, maybe, maybe not. (As will I be, since no success stories from than exist today on the internet, or the Wayback machine,)
How did Indian Jones say it? "I'm make things up as I go along."
@@richardholdener1727 -So what I ended up with is 6.1 heads/ with 8 bent intake valves. The story is, there's an offset dowel, and a run of those have been bad, to epidemic proportion. The engine was cranked, popped and that was the end. The heads look new, clean. The intake valves look bent but not the stems. (wishful thinking.) So I'll probably need valve guides. While waiting on the valve spring tool. I filled the exhaust ports with ATF for half, and hour, and there were no leaks. When the tool arrives I'll pop the locks, and have the head inspected. The damage around the combustion chamber looks like scratches that lead to the head gasket mating surface. I've seen worse on Iron from people storing them in basements. At worst, the 74CC chambers will get a slight taper, and the heads will get a minimal milling. I'll cc them, and ask for advice on gaskets. Once a valve is bent over, and left like that, I don't know if the compressed springs lose there memory. So as a precaution, I don't think I'd reused the springs.
I think your book nailed it. While I've had a off the assembly in 5.7 and installed the XFI273, and put 50K miles on it, that wasn't with 6.1 heads. The comp HRT 260H-14, is probably better than the 6.1s stock cam adv 4 degree, due to milling, and chamber work, I could end up in left field with a hand grenade. Maybe if I cam find a cheap gasket, I could test the V to P clearance with some clay, but for time constant purposes, it's a no go. NEXT>
(Hope I didn't just reply in the wrong box, oops.) Years ago, before XV had come and gone, they sold me a used trophy truck engine. Back than nothing was offered for gen III hemi's. The story was: In order to get a forged assembly, they turned down the crank to used chevy rods, and it was more cost effective. I just read a similar story recently about using a 392 truck crank, in a pre-eagle engine by turning down the snout .065, and the journals for chevy rod, and the result was 400+ cubes, on the cheap. I don't know whether that is opening a can of carnivorous brain eating worms, or if it's genius . I think I'll leave that alone.
I clicked so fast that I sprained my thumb and possibly sharted!
noice
Add spacers
AEW in the house! How much extra power is Mark worth on a 5.0?
Not related to this video at all. But what you state is for the most part true. If you build a NA engine as powerfull as possible and then just add Boost I see a few problems.
If your going to build a NA engine as powerful as possible than the Compression is going to be 11.1- 11.5-1 or more. Not Ideal for a Boosted engine..
JUST SAYING..
Now keeping Compression @(9.5-10-1) then yes this can possibly work.
but if you're building an all out race/street engine NA you will want 10:1 or 11:1 compression or even higher.
Not a good idea to add high Boost to a a High Compression Engine...
Just Sayin
but i know what your saying and you know what I'm saying....
please keep the videos coming!!!!
Comparing different Superchargers and Forced Induction comparisons very informative...
Great Stuff
WE RUN BOOST ON A LOT OF 10.0:1-11:1 NA MOTORS-THEY MAKE MORE POWER THAN AN 8:1 OR 9:1 MOTOR, JUST NEED THE FUELOCTANE /TIMING TO BE SPOT ON
Throttle body / plenum to lower manifold didn't look like much of a match.
I miss Steve, but he deserves retirement 😅