Page 3 of 3
Re: Why does 400" always win the EMC?
Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:31 pm
by PackardV8
Here we go, one more time, when a Ford FE wins, big time props to the builder, but taking that one to the winner's circle has some magic not obvious to those who'd done a few. One more time, what's the magic of a 4"x 4" 400" in the EMC?
No one has explained the internal math/logic, but It seems there's something inherent in the formula which makes this the sweet spot. It seems I've spent some unproductive time arguing long strokes don't make more torque and that a 4.250" x 3.50" built right will make as much power as a 4" x 4" but the EMC says it ain't so.
Re: Why does 400" always win the EMC?
Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2020 9:13 pm
by vortecpro
Stan Weiss wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:40 pm
Jack,
Might want to talk with Mummert who is a member here. His 289 sbf came in second place and not where out of first.
390 FE (400") 2,511
289" (296") 2,504
427" BBC (429") 2,448 ( Jon Kaase)
404" BBC 2,412
Stan
Dyno sheet from testing
https://i1043.photobucket.com/albums/b4 ... sqdz8w.jpg
This 289 dyno test is very close to a SS/L 289, 425? motor craft carb, 1.780/1.45 valve, production head, flattop piston. I believe it was 467 HP/380 TQ.
Re: Why does 400" always win the EMC?
Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2020 3:11 pm
by Steve.k
The 4x4 combo from what I’ve seen in our Cleveland stuff seems to make more tq at lower rpm than with the shorter stroke 3.5 bigger bore. This seems to compliment the emc guys as they score lower in rpm ranges. With the little bit over size ports on Cleveland it seems to compliment that extra stroke.
Re: Why does 400" always win the EMC?
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 6:04 am
by gmrocket
vortecpro wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 9:13 pm
Stan Weiss wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:40 pm
Jack,
Might want to talk with Mummert who is a member here. His 289 sbf came in second place and not where out of first.
390 FE (400") 2,511
289" (296") 2,504
427" BBC (429") 2,448 ( Jon Kaase)
404" BBC 2,412
Stan
Dyno sheet from testing
https://i1043.photobucket.com/albums/b4 ... sqdz8w.jpg
This 289 dyno test is very close to a SS/L 289, 425? motor craft carb, 1.780/1.45 valve, production head, flattop piston. I believe it was 467 HP/380 TQ.
Very close in the peaks but not averages or the rpm where they occurred right?
Can you post the sheet for the SS/L combo
Re: Why does 400" always win the EMC?
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 7:45 am
by Rick!
JC565Ford wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:52 pm
IIRC, the first year was 366" limit smblks, second year was 470" limit BB, but I don't recall if you could be smaller. 2004 was 410" max limit and I know there were a couple 383's and at least 1 Ford 393" crate engine.
This is Kaase's winning pull from his pump-gas 1.7 hp per cube 410" Cleveland (CHI Heads): I think it was 11.5:1
I've been meaning to graph this out to see the curve.
The relationship(s) being sought for the "400" "EMC engines already exist but are the contestants willing to divulge the data necessary to model them properly?
Re: Why does 400" always win the EMC?
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 8:49 am
by LoganD
There's a reason almost all modern OEM engines are very nearly square. If you could get the airflow necessary to make the engine undersquare that'd be the way to go in EMC. Look at the Kaase Mod Motor that won. If the rules had let him run that engine at 330 or 350 ci he'd have scored even better.
One of the areas that absolutely needs to be explored in EMC is variable cam timing. It'd be really nice to see contestants able to use factory VCT on things like LS motors, and to see an aftermarket company make a VCT setup for something like a SBC. There's a lot of performance advantage there, and when you get into things like Coyote's there's huge performance available with VVT. The aftermarket should be using the tech for performance instead of eliminating it or ignoring it.
Re: Why does 400" always win the EMC?
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 12:04 pm
by tt 383
LoganD wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 8:49 am
There's a reason almost all modern OEM engines are very nearly square. If you could get the airflow necessary to make the engine undersquare that'd be the way to go in EMC.
Look at the Kaase Mod Motor that won. If the rules had let him run that engine at 330 or 350 ci he'd have scored even better.
One of the areas that absolutely needs to be explored in EMC is variable cam timing. It'd be really nice to see contestants able to use factory VCT on things like LS motors, and to see an aftermarket company make a VCT setup for something like a SBC. There's a lot of performance advantage there, and when you get into things like Coyote's there's huge performance available with VVT. The aftermarket should be using the tech for performance instead of eliminating it or ignoring it.
Are you talking about the 2013 EMC?
Re: Why does 400" always win the EMC?
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 2:09 pm
by Tom Walker
From what I see at these dyno contests is this, the scoring rewards those who have the experience, knowledge, passion, time and equipment to test and the creativity to use all the above to the greatest efficiency.
There are certainly opportunities afforded by the rules that come into play, but the skills and passion of the builder are paramount in my humble opinion.
I stand in appreciation for those who compete, and am truly impressed with your results. Awesome display of talent.
Re: Why does 400" always win the EMC?
Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 7:33 am
by vortecpro
gmrocket wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 6:04 am
vortecpro wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 9:13 pm
Stan Weiss wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:40 pm
Jack,
Might want to talk with Mummert who is a member here. His 289 sbf came in second place and not where out of first.
390 FE (400") 2,511
289" (296") 2,504
427" BBC (429") 2,448 ( Jon Kaase)
404" BBC 2,412
Stan
Dyno sheet from testing
https://i1043.photobucket.com/albums/b4 ... sqdz8w.jpg
This 289 dyno test is very close to a SS/L 289, 425? motor craft carb, 1.780/1.45 valve, production head, flattop piston. I believe it was 467 HP/380 TQ.
Very close in the peaks but not averages or the rpm where they occurred right?
Can you post the sheet for the SS/L combo
I will look for the test, I do believe the SS/L 289 peaked around 7700 RPM and was tested to 8400 RPM.
Re: Why does 400" always win the EMC?
Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 7:53 am
by exhausted
It is probably the best bore diameter and stroke length/action for the most common valve diameters in American v-8's
Re: Why does 400" always win the EMC?
Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 9:21 pm
by GARY C
LoganD wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 8:49 am
There's a reason almost all modern OEM engines are very nearly square. If you could get the airflow necessary to make the engine undersquare that'd be the way to go in EMC. Look at the Kaase Mod Motor that won. If the rules had let him run that engine at 330 or 350 ci he'd have scored even better.
One of the areas that absolutely needs to be explored in EMC is variable cam timing. It'd be really nice to see contestants able to use factory VCT on things like LS motors, and to see an aftermarket company make a VCT setup for something like a SBC. There's a lot of performance advantage there, and when you get into things like Coyote's there's huge performance available with VVT. The aftermarket should be using the tech for performance instead of eliminating it or ignoring it.
Don't these engines basically go to a single LSA at wide open throttle through the rpm range ran in EMC? If so then it is a "FCT" at that point.
