502 F350 engine

bruno wrote:sweet build Lem ..... it would also be cool to see what kind of mileage this piece would get once it gets on the road

I'd be curious on the mileage as well. Nice numbers regardless.

Nevs wrote:

bruno wrote:sweet build Lem ..... it would also be cool to see what kind of mileage this piece would get once it gets on the road

I'd be curious on the mileage as well. Nice numbers regardless.

I will report back . One thing I can tell you is that it feel damn good to not being looking for fuel every time we looked up...compared to the big HP units with 1250s attached

Thats a good topic Lem How much fuel will a 900/1000 hp engine use on each pull

It's the warm-up....oil temp mostly that kills you

Impressive #s , and a very good looking motor as well. Like the cherry m/t valve covers, haven't seen a pair that clean in at least a decade. That would be an awesome spec motor for a classic old Ford p/u. Talk about driveability! Torque to break the back end loose at will!

bbf-falcon wrote:Thats a good topic Lem How much fuel will a 900/1000 hp engine use on each pull

EMC motors in the 750 hp range with 2 dominators seemed to go thru about 10 gallons a day, probably 15-20 pulls or so.

i believe Lem and Bob went thru 5-6 gallons of fuel on a dozen pulls on the 562 .... i believe

When my motor was on the dyno down at Bret's, the readout for fuel consumption at WOT was 75gal/hr . This was on a baby motor with only about 600hp.

we only went through 7 gals of methanol when we did our smallblock, that was breakin, 2 warmups, and over a dozen pulls.

Lem Evans wrote:TFS street/strip heads
J429 FRPP manifold [performer rpm]
218*/224* comp hyd. flat tappet cam
QFT 735 VS carb
9.25/1 comp ratio

Interesting....a 218-224 @.050 cam making that kind of power with 9.25 to 1 c.r.. What's really interesting to me is that the torque band from 2500 to 4600. It never dipped below 548 ft lbs !

Equally impressive is the 450 hp and 578 ft/lbs at 4100 rpm which I believe is the shift point for a C-6 trans. (under full throttle)


Thanks for posting Lem !

Do you think the motor would lose much with ported bigger valve D0VEs flowing 313/182 at .600 lift with everything else the same. Maybe a bigger cam but still hyd.

Lem the funny thing is Blake and I were talking a month ago about building an engine identical to this but using Pro Crap heads to keep the compression down, we figure it should build around 400 to 425 hp and have about 550+ torque, but thats the only thing I can think those heads would ever be good for....but I was thinking more like a 780 vs holley


Randy

droppedf100 wrote:Do you think the motor would lose much with ported bigger valve D0VEs flowing 313/182 at .600 lift with everything else the same. Maybe a bigger cam but still hyd.

I think you'd probably loose at least 40-50hp all things equal

Good build Lem, there I thought you never fooled with these small engines! Although this build doesn't help my confidance in my build that I will come close to my goals.

Outstanding Lem...

Looks like you found a bit more after we talked.

Small cam plus good heads = big hp at reasonable RPM.
This is a lesson that many should heed. Its all about the combination of parts...

Damned near 1 HP per inch at 4700 RPM Damn!!!

droppedf100 wrote:Do you think the motor would lose much with ported bigger valve D0VEs flowing 313/182 at .600 lift with everything else the same. Maybe a bigger cam but still hyd.

Given the TFS streets flow of about 335 @ .600" lift and the better exhaust port you would be short 20 to 30 HP with your heads.

In this particular application I would bet a pair of my 332@ .600" intake and 200@ .600" Doves would generate very similar numbers vs out of the box streets. Ported streets are another story though how much flow does a 480 HP combo really need?



PS.

These numbers are SF110 and SF600 verified by Dave McLain and Bret powell...

The Mad Porter wrote:Outstanding Lem...

Looks like you found a bit more after we talked.

Small cam plus good heads = big hp at reasonable RPM.
This is a lesson that many should heed. Its all about the combination of parts...

Damned near 1 HP per inch at 4700 RPM Damn!!!

Thanks Scotty . Finished it up New Years day . The last pulls were spacer tests....1" 4 hole hurt power and tq....1" open worse yet f.y.i.
The cam was but .515" lift , that's why I think a SCJA package would be good for a car engine .

That is a real Torque-Daddy! Very


TJ

I too was talking to Scotty yesterday about a similar build but 545 cubic inches and large valve D3's or Edelbrocks. He speced a cam very similar.


Travis

Bump for Paul.

I would like to see what that engine combo would do in a small lightweight mustang.
The low end torque would be quite a challenge at the track.
With a C6, just leave it in gear and let it shift by itself.
Heck you could run fairly high rear gears, run respectable ET's and still be able to cruise.

that would make a good mud bog engine in a lower running class

nickbay wrote:I would like to see what that engine combo would do in a small lightweight mustang.
The low end torque would be quite a challenge at the track.
With a C6, just leave it in gear and let it shift by itself.
Heck you could run fairly high rear gears, run respectable ET's and still be able to cruise.

I agree. I wonder how that would work in my '67 with a C6 and a 2.75:1 rear. 160 mph @ 5500 rpm. I would get arrested on the highway..

[quote="cletus66"]

nickbay wrote:I wonder how that would work in my '67 with a C6 and a 2.75:1 rear. 160 mph @ 5500 rpm. I would get arrested on the highway..

They got to catch you first!!!

That kind of torque will pull a trailer inside-out. Great build!!

Bill

[quote="billandlori"]

cletus66 wrote:

nickbay wrote:I wonder how that would work in my '67 with a C6 and a 2.75:1 rear. 160 mph @ 5500 rpm. I would get arrested on the highway..

They got to catch you first!!!

That kind of torque will pull a trailer inside-out. Great build!!

Bill

You can't out run Motorola....