What about a Competitive Ford in Pro Stock ! - Page 2

What about a Competitive Ford in Pro Stock !

24567227

Comments

  • Dave Renk'....Dave Renk'.... Senior Member
    edited October 2006
    Toby wrote:
    We will be running the Escort for a little while yet, a new car is in the planning and we hope to have a new Jerry Haas car by the spring.

    As far as Ford and Pro Stock.....with only one car out there there really isn't any reason for them to be interested in spending the kind of money it would take to develop a new block, which is what we really need.

    <BREAK QUOTE

    Thanks

    Tom Sweeny

    Just curious....what features would a new block have that would create HP? Back in the "olden days" the brains of the sport said: "their ain't no power in the block; It's all in the heads....."

    dar
  • SPIKE 06SPIKE 06 Member
    edited October 2006
    Joe T. wrote:
    Anyone here ever read anything about Bob Glidden not being the brains behind the Ford engine that propelled him to domination from ’85-’89? A friend of mine has an uncle that was involved with Ford back in the Gapp&Roush days. He always had a less than positive view of Bob. At the same time he would never “tell the story” either. I always assumed it was a “Ford secret”, could have been a damaged ego as well. Makes you wonder why Bob was the only Ford back then. At least the only one you would see racing.
    On a side note, back when Jim Yates hit it big in Pro Stock, he said Bob advised him against running a Ford. I read this right in the ND. ….

    Unless my memory is failing me, Bob himself used to praise a group of engineers at Ford called the "Arrow Engineers" for design work on the engine blocks used in the 80's. The purpose was for other types of racing as well as p/s.
  • Joe T.Joe T. Senior Member
    edited October 2006
    Just curious....what features would a new block have that would create HP? Back in the "olden days" the brains of the sport said: "their ain't no power in the block; It's all in the heads....."

    dar

    Depending on how technical you want to be, sure, the block doesn't make power. That holds true for light weight cranks, pistons, and rods as well. However it takes power to move these parts so reducing the "drag" of these components "frees up" power that is already there. Thus more power pushing the car. Back to the block. There is all types of friction from flex and distortion that a better foundation will fix. I have heard the new GM block has 9 cam bearings! I have built engines based on Dart & Merlin blocks and I can tell you that these things are heavy! It would be great if this board had a technical thread with qualified people posting some of the behind the glory good stuff.
  • Dave Renk'....Dave Renk'.... Senior Member
    edited October 2006
    Joe T. wrote:
    Depending on how technical you want to be, sure, the block doesn't make power. That holds true for light weight cranks, pistons, and rods as well. However it takes power to move these parts so reducing the "drag" of these components "frees up" power that is already there. Thus more power pushing the car. Back to the block. There is all types of friction from flex and distortion that a better foundation will fix. I have heard the new GM block has 9 cam bearings! I have built engines based on Dart & Merlin blocks and I can tell you that these things are heavy! It would be great if this board had a technical thread with qualified people posting some of the behind the glory good stuff.


    I understand that a short deck height is an advantave? I assume that it gives a better intake path thru the manifold even if it upsets the rod legnth/stroke ratio? Can anyone who knows about such things add to this?

    dar
  • Joe T.Joe T. Senior Member
    edited October 2006
    I understand that a short deck height is an advantave? I assume that it gives a better intake path thru the manifold even if it upsets the rod legnth/stroke ratio? Can anyone who knows about such things add to this?

    dar

    The deck height is the result of optimizing the rod to stroke ratio and minimum piston height. The piston is shrunk down as far as you can go before the piston self-destructs. Ring with and pin diameter all play a roll in how short you can get before parts start getting in the way of other parts. With GM adopting the 4.9” bore spacing in the new blocks, they were able to get the cubes with a larger bore and less stroke. Once the stroke got shorter, the rod was able to be shortened without losing the magic rod ratio. That too required the block to be shortened as to keep the piston right at the top like before. The straighter intake path is a welcome side affect.
  • edited October 2006
    The DRCE 3 has 9 cam bearings (but there is only one team that I know of that is running the 3), the new mopar block has more than 5 but I'm not sure how many, this helps control cam flex, yes they do flex....which helps tame harmonics, most of the H.P. gains made lately started with Harmonics control in the valve train, then Intake/header design which led to bigger carbs.

    The harmonics control allows the engine to spin higher, the intake ports, exhaust ports, Intakes and headers allow the engine to breath at higher RPM. Shortening the stroke reduces inertia mass and increases acceleration rate which also helps with RPM. The real key is how fast you can turn the rear tires, an engine that will only turn to 9800 needs a taller gear and more H.P. to achieve the same wheel speed than an engine that can turn to 10k or better.

    These new motors make large h.p. at higher RPM, (peak H.P. somwhere in the neighborhood of 9500) but they don't torque like the older stuff, so it's almost like comparing a big block to a small block, or a small block to a honda. The sport compact motors make very little torque and need to rev to be efficient.

    Just to give you an idea, I'm more interested in inertia and acceleration rates than I am with H.P.
  • edited October 2006
    Toby:

    You have PM.
  • edited October 2006
    Got it..thanks:D
  • RacemasterRacemaster Senior Member
    edited October 2006
    Toby wrote:
    As the crew chief for the only Ford NHRA Pro Stock operation I feel I might be qualified to post on this thread.....

    1. Ford is not interested in sponsoring a Ford Pro Stock.
    1a. Ford is not interested in developing new pieces for NHRA Pro Stock due to a lack of demand....this is purely business, we hope to change this.

    2. We are working with Ford Racing and are getting fresh E-460 castings from them, we hope to have them in the next month

    3. We are in the process of establishing an in-house engine program here in Crofton. We have spent a considerable amount of funds to purchase/hire the required equipment, parts and personnel to develop a competitive engine package. We decided to miss most of the events this year so we can concentrate on building our shop and research and development. We are very close to where we need to be....very close.

    4. The Cunningham family is committed to fielding a competitive program for 2007.

    Finally, we are really excited about next year and we hope to give all of the Ford fans out there something to cheer about.

    Thanks
    Tom Sweeny
    Crew Chief
    Cunningham Motorsports

    Tom,
    I thought Jimmy was trying to get Carroll Carter's B441 4.900 bore space Hemi back in the rule book. The DRCE III and Dodge are nothing but a copy of it.
  • RacemasterRacemaster Senior Member
    edited October 2006
    The_Leaker wrote:
    competitivenes(ouch) , Ford and Prostock shouldnt be used in the same sentence...

    Post this on the IHRA forum.
  • edited October 2006
    I haven't seen a "new" B441 head. There was a B 441 hemi head that Glidden used back in the day. Billy Glidden has a motor in plastic "under the bench" with this combination. He tried to get the NHRA to let him use it early in the year and was turned down.

    As of right now the only part number I can use is E-460.

    check you p.m.'s racemaster
  • RacemasterRacemaster Senior Member
    edited October 2006
    It's not a new head. Externally it looks like the IHRA head. It's been around since 1996. You working with Tom Detloff at FRPP?
  • Joe T.Joe T. Senior Member
    edited October 2006
    Ioconio & Panella had compeditive Fords for a brief moment a few years ago. They seemed to vanish just as quick. What was that all about? Was it money, or was there some type of cronic failures? The only thing that I can think of that will keep teams from building a compeditave Ford is quality legal parts not being available. An engine doesn't know what brand it is.
  • edited October 2006
    Racemaster wrote:
    It's not a new head. Externally it looks like the IHRA head. It's been around since 1996. You working with Tom Detloff at FRPP?

    Check your p.m.s please;) ...yes we are.
  • b.guggenmosb.guggenmos Senior Member
    edited October 2006
    Tom. I assume that the new heard that you are talking about will be a wedge and not the hemi style? I seem to remember something about not being able to get the compression ratio high enough on the hemi?
    Also since Billy Gliddens name came up does anyone know what he is up to these day's? Used to see his name with Pro 5.0 Mustang stuff but I don't really follow that stuff. I have an old magazine article that say's he purchased the entire shop and all the equipment from his dad. Seems like he has to do something to make some bucks. Thanks again and keep going on that Ford. Brian
  • SPIKE 06SPIKE 06 Member
    edited October 2006
    Tom. I assume that the new heard that you are talking about will be a wedge and not the hemi style? I seem to remember something about not being able to get the compression ratio high enough on the hemi?
    Also since Billy Gliddens name came up does anyone know what he is up to these day's? Used to see his name with Pro 5.0 Mustang stuff but I don't really follow that stuff. I have an old magazine article that say's he purchased the entire shop and all the equipment from his dad. Seems like he has to do something to make some bucks. Thanks again and keep going on that Ford. Brian

    He races 10.5 outlaw and runs a smallblock nitrous Mustang. He wins most of the time and just captured the NMCA champ for 2006. He also has a select number of engine customers as well. The name still draws lots of attention at the track and elsewhere.
  • larrydavis427larrydavis427 Banned
    edited October 2006
    Good luck in your Pro Stock efforts... There are many of us Ford fans hoping to return to the days of Dyno and B.G. Ford needs to put some of their money into Pro Stock and not into a phony Nascar program. The Mustang makes for a great looking race car!!!This would also put additional fans into the seats at NHRA. Larry Davis
  • b.guggenmosb.guggenmos Senior Member
    edited October 2006
    I agree with the look of the Mustang. Robert Patricks new red Shelby looks pretty sharp. I don't know how the aerodynamics of the Mustang are as compared to the Mopars and Gm's for Pro Stock. I also agree with the person who commented on the nice clean look of Dave Connolys white paint with logo. Looks very sharp. The wild paint schemes and camo just don't do it for me. Leave that stuff to the funny cars. Brian
  • edited October 2006
    I agree with the look of the Mustang. Robert Patricks new red Shelby looks pretty sharp. I don't know how the aerodynamics of the Mustang are as compared to the Mopars and Gm's for Pro Stock. I also agree with the person who commented on the nice clean look of Dave Connolys white paint with logo. Looks very sharp. The wild paint schemes and camo just don't do it for me. Leave that stuff to the funny cars. Brian

    How about some flames???:D
  • edited October 2006
    Tom. I assume that the new heard that you are talking about will be a wedge and not the hemi style? I seem to remember something about not being able to get the compression ratio high enough on the hemi?
    Also since Billy Gliddens name came up does anyone know what he is up to these day's? Used to see his name with Pro 5.0 Mustang stuff but I don't really follow that stuff. I have an old magazine article that say's he purchased the entire shop and all the equipment from his dad. Seems like he has to do something to make some bucks. Thanks again and keep going on that Ford. Brian
    Go to yellowbullet.com. He posts there often.
  • edited October 2006
    Just wondering, .. what makes anyone think a Hemi head is
    the best way to go for a 500" engine?

    Curtis
  • Joe T.Joe T. Senior Member
    edited October 2006
    RFD wrote:
    Just wondering, .. what makes anyone think a Hemi head is
    the best way to go for a 500" engine?

    Curtis
    500" or naturally aspirated? You're not going to tell us that size matters…
  • edited October 2006
    Hi Joe,

    Size matters ??

    Well, yes & no, .. how much difference do you think there is in cylinder head
    demands of a 800" IHRA pro stock turning 8000rpm VS a 500" NHRA
    pro stock turning 10,200 rpm??

    In NHRA there's both wedge ( if we can call it that ) heads in the DRCE
    and Hemi style heads in the Mopar, .. and although the Mopar
    is holding it's own, .. the DRCE seems the be the way to go for now.

    Ford has the E-460 pro stock head, .. VERY similar to the DRCE in it's
    port and valve lay out. In fact an enterprising cylinder head guy who may
    know the trick valve placement for the DRCE might be able to make
    the E-460 make just as much power.

    I think there may be some compromises in the hemi design, .. mostly dealing
    with high rpm engines and cam design that might not make it the best choice, ..
    at least not a true opposing valve style hemi.

    But, .. it's all just speculation at this point.:rolleyes:

    I'd like to see a Ford in NHRA too, .. and I'd like to see Cunningham do it, ..
    but it's very expensive and very hard work, .. ..

    Curtis
  • Joe T.Joe T. Senior Member
    edited October 2006
    Let’s keep it simple:

    800 cu. in. X 8000 RPM = 3703 cubic feet of volume

    500 cu. in. X 10200 RPM = 2951 cubic feet of volume


    The bigger but lower RPM engine needs roughly 25% more air. The piston also travels roughly 25% more speed/distance at max RPM assuming the stroke is 5.750 verses 3.600, two very different engines.

    Right now I would not call the Mopar head a Hemi. Gliddens Ford was always referred to as a semi-hemi due to the fact that it had quench decks and thus, not a true hemisphere. Unfortunately what Ford is missing is a cool marketing angle. That is why Mopar brought back the Hemi. It is their word and they can use it all they want. If you haven’t noticed, it seems to be EVERYWHERE!

    I think the Hemi concept is the way to go. Basically placing the valves in the most optimum position for air flow purposes. You still need to burn it all efficiently and so the big compromise begins when you actually build the head. I also agree with the marketing side of the Hemi as well.

    Since this is a Ford thread, what is the big word that will put Ford racers in the stands and at their local car dealer?

    Boss, Cobra Jet?
  • FordflashbackFordflashback Junior Member
    edited October 2006
    Joe T. wrote:

    Unfortunately what Ford is missing is a cool marketing angle.
    Since this is a Ford thread, what is the big word that will put Ford racers in the stands and at their local car dealer?

    Boss, Cobra Jet?

    Bingo. They damn sure are missing the boat. Mopar's made a killing on the Hemi name. I've heard the 'Boss' name may be making a comeback. Maybe Force can help out a little. How about 'Cammer' LOL
  • Mustang EddieMustang Eddie Senior Member
    edited October 2006
    Would be nice but probably will never be a reality. Ford just doesn't give a crap about NHRA drag racing except for the mega exposure they get from John Forces Mopar powered "Mustang".
  • KileKile Member
    edited October 2006
    Ford refers to the 4.6/ 5.4 stuff as 'cammer in many areas, including the Performance Parts book.

    Toby,
    Nice set of passes on the Escort this weekend. Did you guys test either before Richmond or stay over Monday? Also, what about that welder(lol) driving the car, didn't either of the Cunningham team drivers want to run that quick?
  • b.guggenmosb.guggenmos Senior Member
    edited October 2006
    I thought that on an interview that I heard with Greg Anderson said that they were pushing 11000 RPM!!!. Man, that is alot of inertia flyin around in there even with lightweight everything. I noticed on the tv coverage that there cars have an entire black blanket covering the engine while they are doing between rounds maintanence.
    This thread has gotten way more attention than I ever thought. Going to be 3000 hits before long. Glad I am not the only Ford fan out there that would love to see a Ford in Pro Stock. Brian
  • RacemasterRacemaster Senior Member
    edited October 2006
    Joe T. wrote:
    Let’s keep it simple:

    800 cu. in. X 8000 RPM = 3703 cubic feet of volume

    500 cu. in. X 10200 RPM = 2951 cubic feet of volume


    The bigger but lower RPM engine needs roughly 25% more air. The piston also travels roughly 25% more speed/distance at max RPM assuming the stroke is 5.750 verses 3.600, two very different engines.

    Right now I would not call the Mopar head a Hemi. Gliddens Ford was always referred to as a semi-hemi due to the fact that it had quench decks and thus, not a true hemisphere. Unfortunately what Ford is missing is a cool marketing angle. That is why Mopar brought back the Hemi. It is their word and they can use it all they want. If you haven’t noticed, it seems to be EVERYWHERE!

    I think the Hemi concept is the way to go. Basically placing the valves in the most optimum position for air flow purposes. You still need to burn it all efficiently and so the big compromise begins when you actually build the head. I also agree with the marketing side of the Hemi as well.

    Since this is a Ford thread, what is the big word that will put Ford racers in the stands and at their local car dealer?

    Boss, Cobra Jet?

    The new 6.2/5.8 SOHC will be called Boss. It will be in the 09 Mustang and will be 7 liter capable.

    Most of the 500" engines use basically the old Cleveland intake angles 9 1/2 X 3 1/2, the exhaust is usually 2 1/2 X 2 1/2 with a 22.5-23 degree rotation.

    Take the old A-441 Glidden Boss or the newer Tom Roberts 4.9 Boss and plug those valve packages in and get rid of the long exhaust rocker and you have a symetrical flat valve angle semi Hemi.

    The E-460 is basically the same as the DRCE II. But it aligns the manifold runners better than the DRCE II because the Ford block offset is opposite to a GM engine. The DRCE II is a Ford symetrical layout (Cleveland) but it doesn't layout as well onthe GM block.

    All you need is deep pockets. LOL

    Tom, I got your PM.
  • edited October 2006
    Racemaster,

    Those valve angles arent what I've seen used on DRCE II stuff, ..
    9 1/2 x 3 1/2 won't get it done in pro stock. I've seen the side angle as high as 10 degrees !

    There was a problem with the DRCE III stuff, .. when the valves where
    rotated around the bore to get closer to a semi hemi style it started
    blowing intake charge out the exhaust and had to use a different
    cam, .. cost power, ..

    This "blow through" is what I think may be a problem with Hemi
    or semi Hemi style heads, ..

    Deep pockets is right, .. most people have no idea just how deep. ;-)

    Curtis

Leave a Comment

Rich Text Editor. To edit a paragraph's style, hit tab to get to the paragraph menu. From there you will be able to pick one style. Nothing defaults to paragraph. An inline formatting menu will show up when you select text. Hit tab to get into that menu. Some elements, such as rich link embeds, images, loading indicators, and error messages may get inserted into the editor. You may navigate to these using the arrow keys inside of the editor and delete them with the delete or backspace key.