|
Post by spanks79 on Nov 15, 2013 7:23:45 GMT -5
Looking good Art! I have not been posting but I still watch the forum every day. How long has the car been in your garage now? I have not worked on mine in exactly 1 year. That is going to change next week!
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on Nov 15, 2013 9:29:35 GMT -5
Looking good Art! I have not been posting but I still watch the forum every day. How long has the car been in your garage now? I have not worked on mine in exactly 1 year. That is going to change next week! Wowsers. I checked my posts, and I put the car in the garage a year ago: Nov 5, 2012 at 6:30pm I see in your thread that you've worked on your car since then, with the steering column. And I did a bit of working putting bumpers on the car, but other than that it's just been sitting there. I've been practicing my pullups: www.jbchinupchallenge.com/working on a grim reaper costume to get my picture taken with Santa and the nephews at Christmas, and working on a 5th Element Mangalore costume for next halloween, but not much to report in the Blues Brothers / Marin County area. Until now! This weekend, I hope to post some exciting news about a completed motor. And I'm glad you're keeping touch with the board, as I'll appreciate your comments as I start to merge the motor with the car. your friend in getting things moving again, arthur
|
|
|
Post by spanks79 on Nov 15, 2013 19:47:15 GMT -5
Looking good Art! I have not been posting but I still watch the forum every day. How long has the car been in your garage now? I have not worked on mine in exactly 1 year. That is going to change next week! Wowsers. I checked my posts, and I put the car in the garage a year ago: Nov 5, 2012 at 6:30pm I see in your thread that you've worked on your car since then, with the steering column. And I did a bit of working putting bumpers on the car, but other than that it's just been sitting there. You are correct. I had to review my own post to see what I did. Last November I went on a trip after thanksgiving and for some reason I mentally blocked out everything I did on the car after that point. Interestingly enough reviewing the post provided a bit on needed motivation. I hope to have some good stuff going the next couple weeks. I finally got the doors and rest of the body parts painted so I plan on some assembly of the body and some assembly of the engine. Get some video of that engine running on the dyno. I had the opportunity to see one of my old racing engines dynoed, it is crazy to be standing right next to an engine running wide open under load.
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on Nov 16, 2013 7:40:26 GMT -5
I had a great day at the motor guys, and I'll post specifics after while. For now, pics! Missile Dry sump pump: my special angled pan: the driver side header area is a little busy, but a good portion of that real-estate was used by the dry-sump in-line filter. In the car, I'll put that a filter up on the motor plate: On the aftermarket blocks, the starter is right up against the block: typically, they just grind the block a bit to make room for the mopar mini starter, but I preferred not grinding the block, and using a clockable starter, such as the "msd aps mini starter", which doesn't seem to require any grinding on the block: board.moparts.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=Racer&Number=5978811&Searchpage=1&Main=5977959&Words=+BIG+BEAR&topic=&Search=truefor the dyno, they just wedged an insulator between the positive terminal and the block and used their standard starter. changing jets:
|
|
|
Post by 58hemifury on Nov 16, 2013 8:29:48 GMT -5
Wow! Very impressive. What kind of horsepower are you shooting for? Adam
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on Nov 16, 2013 9:32:17 GMT -5
What kind of horsepower are you shooting for? Adam 800hp is the ballpark. That seemed to be a good point on the "bang for the buck" curve. The relatively narrow bluesmobile tires will limit how much power can be put to the pavement (except for high speed runs at the TX Mile), so I thought 800hp would be enough for most situations. Here's a dyno chart of a motor they built similar to mine: I believe that dyno run was for "Nick 500's" motor, discussed here: www.bigblockdart.com/forum/showthread.php?16958-572-muscle-motor
|
|
|
Post by 58hemifury on Nov 16, 2013 15:04:23 GMT -5
Wow, good luck with it. Too bad the Bluesmobile wasn't a Dart or Aspen, you'd save a thousand pounds and she'd really fly!
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on Nov 17, 2013 9:42:49 GMT -5
From my trip to Muscle Motors. I spent a few hours with Scott at the dyno. I asked him about the seal between the tunnel ram base plate and the intake manifold (the red lines indicated here): Scott said that they used an anaerobic sealer. I mentioned that I had previously called Indy and asked if they used a gasket, and they said no - they just used RTV. Scott said that he didn't think RTV was a good solution where it could be attacked by gas. I like his solution. I said that after the dyno work, when I was going to just use my EFI lid, that I thought about just welding it and making it one part of the intake, and he pointed out that when reinstalling the intake, it would be easier to verify the port matching of the intake gasket with the lid removed. I liked his idea of keeping them separate. I asked what he thought about the motor plate, no mid plate, and rubber transmission mount, and he didn't care for that. He really thought a mid plate was a huge benefit to keep the motor from twisting around, and was important (as well as a fore/aft limiter). I think he convinced me to use a mid-plate. It could also have been how the floor was rumbling during the dyno session. I asked what he thought about a rubber-isolated motor plate (like this one from Magnum Force: www.magnumforce.com/magnumforce_161062_motorplate.asp), and he'd have to think that over. For the dyno test, I had suggested earlier that they just use race gas, and I'd tune it all up later with EFI for E85. I expected that they'd use a tunnel ram setup allowing them to use a single carb, like this: But the setup was actually dual E85 Quick Fuel dominators. Apparently they already had some of those available, and it was easier to use them as compared to getting a single-carb lid. Scott finished adjusting the valves, and after warming it up, did a run, and got 600hp. Power was clearly not as expected, and he checked the plugs and made a jet change, and did another run, and power was down. After puzzling, eventually he pulled the valve cover, and one of the pushrods had fallen out. It didn't look like there was any catastrophic damage; the pushrod had just fallen away from under the rocker arm. The obvious cause was the lifter not doing its job. Scott said they'd seen problems with the previous hydraulic roller lifters they used (I believe comp cams), but not with their new supplier (I believe Johnsons) ... until now. So he'd call Johnsons and see what they thought. He said he had talked to them earlier, asking about what weight oil would be acceptable to use with them, and they said that the 15W40 that Muscle Motors was using would be the thickest they'd recommend. Scott talked about what could be happening. Rather than me trying to describe my recollections, I think this gets across the situation: from www.network54.com/Forum/119417/thread/1133285659/Proposed+Engine+Build+-+Please+CommentScott said that newer style motors (for which most hydraulic roller lifters were made) used a lighter weight old, while older style motors (such as mopar wedge) used heavier weight oil. I asked why the wedge couldn't use lighter weight oil, and I think the answer was that there's no particular reason why not; just that they manufacture theirs with all the tolerances expecting a heavier weight oil. I'm not trying to pin them down on anything; I could have misquoted some aspect of the conversation. I'm just trying to relay what I think I got out of the session. It scares me a bit that the pushrod fell out, but I've hitched my wagon to this horse, and I'll wait to hear from them on the next step.
|
|
|
Post by 58hemifury on Nov 17, 2013 19:02:22 GMT -5
I've put push rods thru rockers, bent push rods, eaten up lifters and cam lobes on initial fire ups and haven't hurt one yet(beyond the push rod or cam and lifters), I'm sure it's fine.
|
|
|
Post by countrybunker on Nov 17, 2013 19:29:16 GMT -5
What? No video Arthur?? Come on man!
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on Nov 17, 2013 19:46:58 GMT -5
I've put push rods thru rockers, bent push rods, eaten up lifters and cam lobes on initial fire ups and haven't hurt one yet(beyond the push rod or cam and lifters), I'm sure it's fine. Thanks, 58HF. I don't have any direct prior experience with motor builds or breakins, so the reassurance is helpful. What? No video Arthur?? Come on man! I guess I just thought that a video with a tinny pocket camera microphone wouldn't be able to effectively share what was going on. But I'll get a video next time, put it online, and we can decide then. Here's to a full vid, at full power!
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on Nov 22, 2013 14:43:18 GMT -5
Scott said they'd seen problems with the previous hydraulic roller lifters they used (I believe comp cams), but not with their new supplier (I believe Johnsons) ... until now. So he'd call Johnsons and see what they thought. Johnson's is located in Michigan: johnsonlifters.com/ContactUs.aspxThey're sending out a rep to Muscle Motors next Monday or Tuesday to checkout the situation firsthand. While we're waiting to hear about that, I give you some pics of a great time I had a few months ago, when both my dad came to visit, and Country Bunker and his friend Jake came to visit! Country turned on the spotlight and siren for the neighborhood kids. They were screaming and dancing; it was a riot!
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on Dec 3, 2013 16:29:51 GMT -5
Johnson's is located in Michigan: johnsonlifters.com/ContactUs.aspxThey're sending out a rep to Muscle Motors next Monday or Tuesday to checkout the situation firsthand. Lifter/pushrod investigation update: The rep wasn't able to make it out until after the PRI show, Dec 12-14. It looks like a cool show: www.performanceracing.com/tradeshow/They sent him the parts to inspect. > After he looks at them, he is going to tell us what to do and make a custom set if needed.
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on Dec 6, 2013 6:54:26 GMT -5
Arthur, I had a chance to talk with my transmission guy today. He actually built a 4l60e for me last week and is doing a clutch for me this week. I presented him with the idea of a hypothetical 4l80e application that a friend was investigating about mounting a transmission at a 5 deg nose down orientation in a performance application and asked if this would cause any issues. Without hesitation, he shook his head no and said he sees no reason why that would be a problem, stating that he would just fill the trans to the "full hot" mark while cold. Basically just running it a bit over full just to be on the safe side. He also confirmed that there is no splash luberication. All he fluid supplied to the trans goes thru the filter port, so as long as you keep enough fluid volume at the filter port the transmission will be fine. I even asked about my remote resivor idea and he said a "dry sump" would technically work however he could not think of why you would want to do something like that. I was doing some internet cruising for motor plate / mid plate, and found this pic: from www.yellowbullet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=290325And said - hey, that motor plate looks basically vertical, which means that the motor crank centerline is basically horizontal (as compared to the stock situation of being nose up). A 4L80E typical automatic transmission pan is setup so that the bottom of the pan is horizontal with a typical motor installation of crank centerline a few degrees nose-up. Since the motor is more nose-down than typical, the trans is more nose-down than typical, so if it has a typical transmission pan, the bottom of the pan will be nose-down. and sure enough: the transmission pan looks angled downward in the front. some other pics of that car: notice in the pic above, the cut-down mid-plate as compared to the original size mid-plate in the first pic in this post. and in that same thread, there's a pic of this different car: The bottom of that trans also looks nose-down. I think the angling down of the motor (as compared to a regular car) is due the larger tires on the rear. Here's a pic of the car associated with all the first pics above: That big rear tire setup matches how this oil pan was angled for this car: from bluesmobiles.proboards.com/post/4226The only thing he and another builder were concerned about was the drive shaft angle. I think that's the real issue. With my car having just regular size diameter tires in the back, having a nose-down attitude would have the output shaft of the transmission pointing up in the sky, instead of at or near the pumpkin, so it will require some CVness to get things to work. As compared to nose-downing the motor as far as it can go and still give me ground clearance, I'm thinking of lowering/angling it just enough to get the tall intake to clear the hood, which will probably be about crank centerline horizontal. It will still require CVness, but less extreme angle. And will give me some room to mount the steering rack under the crank pulley.
|
|
|
Post by spanks79 on Dec 6, 2013 8:38:33 GMT -5
and in that same thread, there's a pic of this different car: Kind of off topic, but I like that crossmember on that car. His sub frame connectors look like they are still a work in progress. Also check out the steel lining the drive shaft tunnel. As compared to nose-downing the motor as far as it can go and still give me ground clearance, I'm thinking of lowering/angling it just enough to get the tall intake to clear the hood, which will probably be about crank centerline horizontal. It will still require CVness, but less extreme angle. And will give me some room to mount the steering rack under the crank pulley. I am in favor of decreasing drive line angles as much as possible. Even though cv's allow steep angles, that doesn't mean you should, conservative driveline angles are always better and more efficient.
|
|