Torque Monster Dodge V10

[Fusion Works]

That article brings up an interesting point. Mike mentioned his V10 re-grind was on a 114 lobe center and the stock cam is on a "117". Wonder what happens if I push the LC down to 110? I would get a little lope probably, and I wonder if the there is any major effect on the power brakes? (although A vacuum can will mitigate that problem)

I guess all this kinda hinges on what the heads flow.

[wyrmrider]

you may not be able to get a regrind on 110, not enough meat where you need it
new core time
There IS a reason
start by plotting where Intake closes @.006 then overlap points Intake Open and ex close then ex open
there are several ways to get to similar points- LSA is one, lobe duration is another

[Fusion Works]

you may not be able to get a regrind on 110, not enough meat where you need it
new core time
There IS a reason
start by plotting where Intake closes @.006 then overlap points Intake Open and ex close then ex open
there are several ways to get to similar points- LSA is one, lobe duration is another

I don't want to use duration because it pushes the power curve higher, right? Mike would know what is and isn't possible on the stock profile.

[Truckedup]

Maybe it's been mentioned. but anyways, increasing midrange power and the resulting higher cylinder pressure will invite detonation. I have some experience with this by advancing lobe centers and cam timing. Dedicated gas truck engine always had lowered static compression to deal with this. Electronic engine management helps of course but in the end you may have to use 93 octane pump gas to maintain performance. This is one of the reasons I suggested accepting higher rpm to build power where detonation is less of a problem.

[ptuomov]

Maybe it's been mentioned. but anyways, increasing midrange power and the resulting higher cylinder pressure will invite detonation. I have some experience with this by advancing lobe centers and cam timing. Dedicated gas truck engine always had lowered static compression to deal with this. Electronic engine management helps of course but in the end you may have to use 93 octane pump gas to maintain performance. This is one of the reasons I suggested accepting higher rpm to build power where detonation is less of a problem.

Or turbocharging it with an electronic boost controller such as eboost2 that can do an rpm and/or gear specific boost profile. This will allow one to run the engine close to the knock limit at almost all relevant rpms past the boost threshold rpm point.

[Truckedup]

Maybe it's been mentioned. but anyways, increasing midrange power and the resulting higher cylinder pressure will invite detonation. I have some experience with this by advancing lobe centers and cam timing. Dedicated gas truck engine always had lowered static compression to deal with this. Electronic engine management helps of course but in the end you may have to use 93 octane pump gas to maintain performance. This is one of the reasons I suggested accepting higher rpm to build power where detonation is less of a problem.

Or turbocharging it with an electronic boost controller such as eboost2 that can do an rpm and/or gear specific boost profile. This will allow one to run the engine close to the knock limit at almost all relevant rpms past the boost threshold rpm point.

Yes, but pulling a heavy load will always limit the cylinder pressure more so than a situation like a much lighter weight performance vehicle.I would assume the Ford Truck Eco Boost engines have a lot of special design features for reliability .

[wyrmrider]

remember wit a regrind that timing marks will not be valid unless restamped by the regrinder
always degree in your cam

[Fusion Works]

Maybe it's been mentioned. but anyways, increasing midrange power and the resulting higher cylinder pressure will invite detonation. I have some experience with this by advancing lobe centers and cam timing. Dedicated gas truck engine always had lowered static compression to deal with this. Electronic engine management helps of course but in the end you may have to use 93 octane pump gas to maintain performance. This is one of the reasons I suggested accepting higher rpm to build power where detonation is less of a problem.

I accept that using 93 octane may be a requirement for my performance increase. I can live with that. Maybe I should keep the compression a little lower than I wanted to compensate for the potential for increase part throttle preignition or detonation.

Or turbocharging it with an electronic boost controller such as eboost2 that can do an rpm and/or gear specific boost profile. This will allow one to run the engine close to the knock limit at almost all relevant rpms past the boost threshold rpm point.

I have to say no on boost because of the extra complications I will incur when building the system. I have a race car to build, Land Cruiser to rebuild and boost, and a pile of shop cars to work on. My tow rig needs to have a reliable solution. Building a fresh motor with increased efficiency is a relatively simple solution. If I decided to boost the truck, I would need to add oil coolers, inter coolers, even more radiator, more heat shielding and protective measures, would need to build two new exhaust manifolds compatible with the turbos, (no log manifolds won't work), new exhaust, charge piping, battery relocation, and other factors that go into building a competent turbo system. I don't have the time nor will to re-engineer the wheel so to speak.

remember wit a regrind that timing marks will not be valid unless restamped by the regrinder
always degree in your cam

Yessir, I have the big Moroso wheel hanging here in the shop waiting for me to figure out a plan. Of course I use it so infrequently, I will have to go back and read the instructions again. HAHA

[ptuomov]

Or turbocharging it with an electronic boost controller such as eboost2 that can do an rpm and/or gear specific boost profile. This will allow one to run the engine close to the knock limit at almost all relevant rpms past the boost threshold rpm point.

I have to say no on boost because of the extra complications I will incur when building the system. I have a race car to build, Land Cruiser to rebuild and boost, and a pile of shop cars to work on. My tow rig needs to have a reliable solution. Building a fresh motor with increased efficiency is a relatively simple solution. If I decided to boost the truck, I would need to add oil coolers, inter coolers, even more radiator, more heat shielding and protective measures, would need to build two new exhaust manifolds compatible with the turbos, (no log manifolds won't work), new exhaust, charge piping, battery relocation, and other factors that go into building a competent turbo system. I don't have the time nor will to re-engineer the wheel so to speak.

Ok, I accept that you're not going to boost it. It's an expensive change for sure. Accepting that you won't boost it, here's however some counterarguments just for the sake of conversation.

First, the turbo engine is going to be nicer to drive and more reliable than an a same-displacement normally aspirated engine making the same power and torque at each rpm. Second, for the same torque and power I don't think you necessarily need more cooling for a turbo engine than for a normally aspirated engine, if the base engine displacement is the same. Turbo engine is more efficient and will therefore by logic put less heat into the cooling system and/or out the tail pipe. Third, with the stock cams that don't seem to have much overlap, I don't understand why log exhaust manifolds wouldn't work. Fourth, if a turbo kit already exists for this car/engine, one might be able to cut down the time and effort considerably by starting with that turbo kit.

But that's just for the sake of conversation. I get it that it's a bigger and more expensive project than what you're looking to do here.

[user-9613590]

What;250 hp from 8 litre V10?? Something is really wrong..

[DrillDawg]

I think if he is not careful with the compression and timing he will be looking at another broke ring land while pulling one of those heavy loads, might want two computers, one for hot rodding around town and one for 89 octane towing.

[Fusion Works]

What;250 hp from 8 litre V10?? Something is really wrong..

That's 250 at the wheels through an automatic,transfercase, D80 rear axle, large wheels and tires. That's a 20% loss. Maybe a touch high, but about what I figured for a truck. I am sure my dually is a little worse.

I think if he is not careful with the compression and timing he will be looking at another broke ring land while pulling one of those heavy loads, might want two computers, one for hot rodding around town and one for 89 octane towing.

My engine didn't blow. This is a core motor from Craigslist. My motor is running along just fine with 160K miles. The core engine, I suspect had two bad injectors, although the PO said it overheated due to a leaking waterpump.

I have the option of running two different tunes, and I definitely don't have a problem doing that. Its not hard to switch between a towing tune and a street tune. I am going to keep the compression down below 9.2 and probably run premium the first few tows will be monitored heavily to see what the engine is doing under extreme conditions.

[bigpig41]

did this core engine ever get put together for the OP's towing vehicle ?

I have a 98 V-10 quad cab 4x4 that I put a Novi 2000 centrifugal blower on when it was new and I found that you will need to also get rid of that special QC labled spark plug dodge used because the V10 was also used in marine applications(plug may have had stainless steel outside to deal with saltwater ?)......after you do that it will be easy to find at least a one step cooler spark plug from the autoparts stores which will help with potential detonation.

Another thing to be aware of is if you end up adding any additional computers to run additional fuel injectors etc. behind the dash I was unable to find a "tach signal" anywhere despite there being a factory tach in the dash LOL ended up having to build a li'l ignitor ignition circuit bolted onto the front shaft of the alternator with it's own coil and spark plug sparking soas to have a place to run a traditional tach signal wire to. Could then easily change the rate of the "tach signal" going to that extra computer(Haltech) by adding or removing little magnets to the plastic ring bolted to the front of the alternator

Remember the stock ECU has a RPM limiter at about 4600rpm if I'm remembering right.

[HRD]

I'm still working on it, but Is on the back burner right now. Heads are out at the porters where they have lived since I started this thread. Need to get the block apart and figure out the pistons.

I HATE the chambers in these heads. Just big stupid holes with little thought applied to the combustion dynamics beyond, "Yep, we can make it burn inside there". Thanks Chyrsler. Too bad I can't weld the chambers into something nice and compact like I could if the heads were aluminum. I figure its gonna take a custom pistons with a dome to help shape the chamber to get good combustion dynamics without the preignition problem of just a normal high compression engine.

I keep reading more about the way towing engines are with relation to cylinder pressure and load at very low RPM. This causes problems you would never see in a higher RPM engine not pulling a load. I didn't notice the new Ford 7.3 has a 10:1 compression ratio though.

Brakes are a bigger problem on this truck. American truck manufactures haven't figured out big trucks need big brakes.

I have an SCT so I can reflash the ECU as I need to to compensate for bigger injectors, more compression, etc.

Also not really sure how I ended up with a different user name after the change over. Guess I'll have to go fix that.

[Fusion Works]

Finally bringing this back to the top. I just got the heads back from the "porter". Guess what, he didn't do squat. He had them media blasted and he disassembled them. Ground the valves, but nothing special certainly didn't even add the back cut to the intakes or round the margin on the exhausts like I ask. Also never flowed them so I basically have nothing but some clean heads.
I got some good pics of the ports and chambers here. Time to figure out the plan of attack.

IMG_1100.JPG

IMG_1099.JPG

IMG_1098.JPG

Just looking at these pics there is definitely room for improvement. Need input from the cylinder head gurus. What are your thoughts on removing the entire lip encircling the intake valve seat on the combustion chamber side? To me that looks like a terrible inhibitor of flow until the valve is off the seat more than enough to clear the lip. Also looks like a hot spot for pre-ignition to start if I raise the compression beyond the 8.4:1. Maybe leave it on the side shared with the exhaust valve to avoid charge robbing on overlap? (not a problem with low overlap truck cam?)

IMG_1100.JPG

IMG_1099.JPG

IMG_1098.JPG

What happens if I make that tit in the middle of the chamber go away? Is it there as trip for the mixture or some remnant of the casting process that wasn't removed? Seems bizarre to have that in the middle of the chamber. Dodge calls these "high swirl" chambers/heads. Modern tech says that is bad compared to high tumble now.

More pics of the ports later. I haven't measured the throat IDs yet, but will to compare throat diameter to valve seat diameter ratio.

Thoughts on improvements? If I go from a 1.920 intake to the bigger 2.02 valve do I hurt myself from a shrouding standpoint? Is there any reason to go to a larger exhaust valve on a truck engine? Get heat out of the exhaust better? Are stainless valves much better than the OE valves? Should I look at Inconel exhaust valves or some other high heat type material? Are bronze valve guide liners good, bad , indifferent? On aluminum heads I would definitely go to bronze guides, but don't know on casts iron heads. Any reason to convert the rocker bolts from 5/16 bolts to a proper rocker 3/8s stud? Is valve train instability really a thing with with such a low RPM engine, low lift cam?