Keith Craft 482 8 Stack EFI Engine Build

[66gtk]

you guys may be assuming those dyno sheets are from the correct/pictured 482?

[FUNFER2]

Impressive numbers and a wide smooth power band for both TQ & HP through out the RPM's.

[Gaz64]

Originally Posted by FUNFER2

I don't know what happened last night, but it works for me now too.

Wish it showed the rpm's lower than 4,500.

Yes, considering 4500 onwards is after the peak.

A few other things that need some explanation:

A/F ratio of 6s and 7s? 100 / 7.4 = 13.5

So is that Fuel weight as a percentage of total A/F weight?

And Volumetric Efficiency in the 50% zone?

[DanEC]

Originally Posted by 66gtk

you guys may be assuming those dyno sheets are from the correct/pictured 482?

I did initially because they were in the same folder - but noticed the report was for a 496 ci. HP/T figures don't align either. I think it's back to contacting Craft Performance Engines for the correct report.

[Anthony]

Beautiful engine.

I was thinking about changing my solid roller over to a hydraulic roller. From the dyno sheet, it looks like the max rpm is about 6000 rpms? Is that about the max for a hydraulic roller?

I always thought the reasons ford extended the intake into the head area was maybe a weight advantage, by substituting an aluminum intake , having the intake larger, and the heads smaller ?

[fordracing65]

6000-6200 for hydraulic roller. Why do you need to rev higher than that.

[scottj]

Originally Posted by Gaz64

Yes, considering 4500 onwards is after the peak.

A few other things that need some explanation:

A/F ratio of 6s and 7s? 100 / 7.4 = 13.5

So is that Fuel weight as a percentage of total A/F weight?

And Volumetric Efficiency in the 50% zone?

I seem to remember a post by Keith a few years ago in which he explained that the dyno had a bad air flow meter.

[Dimis]

Originally Posted by fordracing65

6000-6200 for hydraulic roller. Why do you need to rev higher than that.

Because the sound is unrivalled

[olddog]

Originally Posted by scottj

I seem to remember a post by Keith a few years ago in which he explained that the dyno had a bad air flow meter.

I'm remembering Keith explained that there is only one air meter and the engine had two carbs, thus the reading needed to be doubled (assuming air flow through each carb was equal).

[scottj]

Originally Posted by olddog

I'm remembering Keith explained that there is only one air meter and the engine had two carbs, thus the reading needed to be doubled (assuming air flow through each carb was equal).

That was it.... good memory.

[fordracing65]

Originally Posted by Dimis

Because the sound is unrivalled

The sound going boom is not a good one.

[FUNFER2]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Beautiful engine.

I was thinking about changing my solid roller over to a hydraulic roller. From the dyno sheet, it looks like the max rpm is about 6000 rpms? Is that about the max for a hydraulic roller?

I always thought the reasons ford extended the intake into the head area was maybe a weight advantage, by substituting an aluminum intake , having the intake larger, and the heads smaller ?

They hydro's can not take 6,000 (+) rpm's. They will break apart and cause major damage, of course. If you consistently run high RPM's, that's where a solid roller is made for. Keep a hydro under 6,000 and they are fine.

[blykins]

They absolutely *can* take over 6000 rpm......there are no problems with doing so, other than overcoming the issues with valve float and lifter function. You can use short travel lifters and if you lighten the valvetrain enough, they will go 6500-7000 rpm. The lifters will not explode.... Barry R's last EMC entry was a 7000 rpm hydraulic roller....

Now, with that being said, a solid is more suited for higher rpms, because you can run more spring pressure to keep everything in check, without worrying about collapsing the lifter.

[scottj]

Heck, you could get a 7000 rpm red line HR right off the showroom floor... with a 2.20" intake valve... and drive it 100K miles.

[FUNFER2]

Now Brent, Like I said, If you "consistently",.... run high RPM's over 6,000, you're going to have problems. For the street, their fine.

[blykins]

Uh, I'm gonna disagree....

[scottj]

Originally Posted by blykins

Uh, I'm gonna disagree....

Me too.

Originally Posted by FUNFER2

Now Brent, Like I said, If you "consistently",.... run high RPM's over 6,000, you're going to have problems. For the street, their fine.

You're a circle track guy, so you probably have heard of the CT525 crate engine?... hydraulic roller motor... 6700 rpm recommended red line (but everyone turns them 7000+)... they spend their entire life at those rpm's in a racing application.

[Dimis]

Originally Posted by fordracing65

The sound going boom is not a good one.

Agreed. Boom is bad. But solid rollers and 7000rpm doesn't equal boom. It equals sweet sweet music.

Enjoy the soundtrack. Like I said, Unrivalled.

[undy]

Originally Posted by FUNFER2

They hydro's can not take 6,000 (+) rpm's. They will break apart and cause major damage, of course. If you consistently run high RPM's, that's where a solid roller is made for. Keep a hydro under 6,000 and they are fine.

Don't know where you come up with this stuff sometimes Kevin... I know quite a few hydraulic rollers that consistently run 7000 to 7500 RPM and last way past 100K miles. Don't make assumptions based on antiquated SBC experiences.

[FUNFER2]

Just because they & you suck buddy !

I've always been a solid guy and have never had issues on the track or street, if you don't mind lashing valves a few times per season on the street, racing every time.
You can't tell me that hydro's are just as good at constant 6,000 + RPM's VS solids.

Since you're a hydro only guy, that's fine as well, so what ever turns your crank, ....you cranky old man and go back to bed.

Hydro's have come a long way, and like Martha Stewart says, "and that's a good thing".