PINTO CAR CLUB of AMERICA
Welcome to FordPinto.com, The home of the PCCA => General Help- Ask the Experts... => Topic started by: waldo786 on April 08, 2014, 09:31:34 PM
-
Hello all,
From what I understand a ranger roller cam will bolt into our heads with no problem. I also found a crane dam that claims excellent low end torque. I'm looking at making a nice driver out of my Pinto and have an offy 4 bbl intake with a holley 390 carb. I also have the exhaust manifold from an 88 ranger. Wondering if this cam will bolt right in as it is a replacement for the ranger roller, and what I might expect. Also planning on adding stainless swirl polish valves as well.
http://www.cranecams.com/188-189.pdf
-
Just use the Ranger Roller Cam and have fun....The Cranes are for circle track, drag racing etc... Check with Turboford.org etc.
-
The Ranger cam used two different roller rockers. The earlier rockers fit the valve stem width of the Pinto motors. The later rockers have too narrow of a guide slot to fit the Pinto valves. These roller rockers also had two different ratios. So, you have to match the roller rockers to the valves slot size, then you have to match cam to the rocker ratio. Simplified just get the cam and the rockers from an early Ranger or Mustang. Check for yourself, but I think the cut off year for the early rockers is 1993.
The worse case would be to use early rockers with a later cam (if you even can). Lift would be very low. Some have speculated using later rockers with an early cam for greater lift. But then you have the guide slot issue. Discussion on the matter concluded that widening the slot would be difficult to follow the guide contours and have a hardened surface. BTW, the Ranger/Mustang roller cam actually has a lower lift that a stock Pinto cam. However, it is speculated that the lift rate (ramp speed) is faster and total volume passing through an open valve cycle is larger.
-
The problem with the Crane grinds listed there are the same as always for these engines, the lift is too low for the duration. The first lowest choice is already bumping the duration up with almost no increase in lift. I look for at least .060" lift improvement before I even think about another cam, you've got 1/3 that there. Erson used to make some sticks that used to have say 210 degrees with around .450"-.460" lift and much better cam for these engines. Dunno if they list anything like that anymore and they were more expensive than others. FYI thinking stock lift is around .400" or so.
-
Where can I find the specs on a ranger roller cam, and where can I buy one? Are the ok to buy used say out of a wrecking yard? These gross lift for the first cam was .420. I just want a nice cruiser that has a little more power than the stock setup it has now. Not looking for anything too racy and high rpm. My goal is to eventually put in an overdrive so I wouldn't be running real high rpms. I was looking at top end kit from BoPort that has the springs, retainers, valves, and he also sells the roller rockers. How can this Crane cam also work with both size rockers and valves as mentioned above as it says it is a replacement for 88 to 98? This is the first real engine "build" I'm doing so sorry for all the questions.
-
Ranger cams..
http://www.route66hotrodhigh.com/2300Cams.html (http://www.route66hotrodhigh.com/2300Cams.html)
-
There's no reason in the world to settle for grinds that are not what you want. I have had Oregon Cam Grinders regrind many camshafts for me and they do a great job.
http://www.oregoncamshaft.com/
Go all the way to the bottom of the page and click on the red square in the center at the bottom and then choose the style grind. You will see all of the grinds they have available. They will grind any grind you see, even mix and match any lift and duration you see and will grind to any lobe separation for 125 dollars for roller grinds. I have one with them right now getting ground for my bobcat's 302. The four cylinder cams may be less, I don't know. The gentleman's name you want to speak to is Ken. He is very helpful.
-
Thanks for the link Rob, been looking for someone that does custom grinds..
-
You're certainly welcome. Give Ken a call. He is a super nice guy.
-
I sure will, thanks.. 8)
-
just an fyi..... the hotrod high story on the cam and different ratio rollers has been 100% proven to be a false theory..... the only place you can get a different ratio roller is from esslinger... and they are pricy.... nearly the price of a new aftermarket cam...all ranger cams have the same lift and profile and the rollers are the same ratio with the difference being the early ones fit 11/32nds valve stems and the late ones fit 7mm valve stems... thats the only difference....
-
Well there's as many people saying yea as nay. Its all in who you trust I guess. Cam theories is like a~~ holes. Every body has one.
-
Cam theories is like a~~ holes. Every body has one.
Ain't that the truth, lol.. ;D
-
Go to http://www.4m.net/showthread.php?318610-2-3-roller-sliders-rocker-question Go down to #7 & #8 post to read what Ford printed about the rocker arms.
-
Very interesting.
-
its a type-o.... a reputable machine shop affiliated with turbo ford measured both cams and followers and both are the same ratio.... this person also sells them for both early and late model heads and verified they have the same ratio...
-
Well if its a type-o, its a type-o from FO MO CO
-
Higher ratio rockers or followers are a useless waste of money. All you have to do is choose a cam grind with the right amount of lift to begin with. Problem solved.
-
But where except a Ranger cam and rocker arms, are you going to get one for under $100? Not everbody is building a race car out of their Pinto.
-
Did you read my post above? For 125 Oregon Cam will regrind your Ranger cam. It might be less. 125 is what they charge foe a V8 cam. I'm not building anything close to a race engine. 125 for a custom roller regrind is a bargain.
-
'Higher ratio rockers or followers are a useless waste of money.'
I do not concur. There is an effect that can be achieved by popping open a valve faster in some way than the cam itself will do. For want of a better term I always referred to it as the 'gulp factor', an engine may well want that. For one, it can get flow started faster. That phenomenon can be very handy on engines with lower rod ratios since piston spends less time at the TDC rockover. You get more effective working timing.
I have used them many times and never lost power doing so, the point is, if you have them and a cam, the cam is automatically going to be bigger, are you going to walk away from that? No good tuner will. It is much easier to mix and match rockers than cams if motor already has clearance built in for it.
Often the cam numbers you want can be unobtanium as well. Just because someone grinds to any spec does not mean he can do the heat treat processes needed to make some of those grinds live. I can think of some that would shell pretty quick in a regrind. I have seen regrinds spit their guts out way more than once and these engines are very hard on rockers and lobes if using the slider type. Sometimes the base circle reduction from regrinding can be a problem as well, if enough lobe to warp the stick with every action. Always better to keep base circle big as possible, less valve to valve variation that way.
Of course no insult intended to your regrinder, he may well do re-heattreat. Many don't though and regrinding costs you the case hardened outer surface. Not the hot setup, I'll take the bolt on rocker there. That hardening is often only like .010" thick.
-
Higher ratio rockers or followers are a useless waste of money.
Well, as I mentioned before I've never been a 4 banger person so I don't know, but I can tell ya that in big V8's they make a big difference just by increasing the exhaust, and the clocks don't lie.. ;) :D
-
This discussion got deep pretty fast. Waldo 786, as to your unanswered question I stated in my post (3rd one) you have to get the right cam. I did get my cam/rockers out of a wrecking yard. In my case Pick Your Part at their 50% off sale. The cam was $12 and the rockers $1 each. I took the lifters to because at 50 cents each I just couldn't resist. With all their fees and taxes I was still out the door for under $30. Maybe it is just "me being me," but I still marked the rockers to make sure they rode on the same cam lobes.
-
I got that disease as well.......... ............ev en if changing head I like to keep run-in parts together.
-
Ken has been grinding cams over 30 years. I would have agreed with your heat treating assessment before I talked to him. But he told me some very surprising things. He says all of the factory cams are hardened almost all the way to the core. I was surprised to learn that.
Also, the higher ratio rocker doesn't open the valve at any faster rate. Only a different cam lobe can do that. It does however open the valve further, which as I said, can be accomplished by choosing a camshaft with enough lift to begin with.
'Higher ratio rockers or followers are a useless waste of money.'
I do not concur. There is an effect that can be achieved by popping open a valve faster in some way than the cam itself will do. For want of a better term I always referred to it as the 'gulp factor', an engine may well want that. For one, it can get flow started faster. That phenomenon can be very handy on engines with lower rod ratios since piston spends less time at the TDC rockover. You get more effective working timing.
I have used them many times and never lost power doing so, the point is, if you have them and a cam, the cam is automatically going to be bigger, are you going to walk away from that? No good tuner will. It is much easier to mix and match rockers than cams if motor already has clearance built in for it.
Often the cam numbers you want can be unobtanium as well. Just because someone grinds to any spec does not mean he can do the heat treat processes needed to make some of those grinds live. I can think of some that would shell pretty quick in a regrind. I have seen regrinds spit their guts out way more than once and these engines are very hard on rockers and lobes if using the slider type. Sometimes the base circle reduction from regrinding can be a problem as well, if enough lobe to warp the stick with every action. Always better to keep base circle big as possible, less valve to valve variation that way.
Of course no insult intended to your regrinder, he may well do re-heattreat. Many don't though and regrinding costs you the case hardened outer surface. Not the hot setup, I'll take the bolt on rocker there. That hardening is often only like .010" thick.
-
"Also, the higher ratio rocker doesn't open the valve at any faster rate."
Theoretically the speed is the same to TDC of the cam (or better said BDC on the OHC 2.3). But the valve is (as you state) lifting it further... sooner. So to a certain level of lift it is getting there faster.
Meaning at the same amount of duration the lift on the higher ratio rocker will be higher in comparison to the lift on a "normal" ratio rocker. So, to a given "lift number" (up to the maximum lift of the normal ratio rocker) the higher ratio rocker is faster to that lift point.
-
Yes, you are correct. My apologies. I should have known this because in order to increase rocker ratio, the pushrod cup has to move closer to the pivot point. Pretty easy to figure out looking at it from that way. Here is a pretty good read on it that I found.
Higher Ratio Rocker Arms
by Jim Hand, July 1999
[This article originally appeared on Eric Douthitt's, The Pontiac Garage,
website. It now appears here courtesy of the author and Eric Douthitt.]
What are the overall effects of higher ratio rockers? Do they add stress to the engine? Are they safe to use? Do they add power? What precautions should be considered before installing them? The following is a summary addressing these questions.
The basic valve train consists of a cam, or cam lobe, some sort of cam follower, such as a lifter, a push rod, a rocker arm, and the valve (with the associated retainer/keepers, and valve springs). The cam lobe lift is dictated by the dimension from the base circle of the lobe to the lobe centerline, or peak of the lobe. The base circle must be kept large enough to not degrade the strength of the cam, while allowing for enough lift (in conjunction with the rocker arm) to meet all design goals. Obviously, the peak lift of the lobe cannot be higher then the outer diameter of the cam bearings - otherwise, the cam could not be installed. So, in cam design, as more lift is designed in, the base circle becomes smaller in diameter. As the obtainable lift is limited, the lift is multiplied by the rocker arm ratio to bring it up to the desired point(s). If we used rocker arms that had a 1 to 1 ratio, the valve would follow the exact opening and closing as the cam lobe - same peak lift, same opening and closing rate, and same limited valve open area. By making the rocker some greater ratio, such as the standard 1.5, the lift of the lobe is multiplied by 1.5, the opening and closing rates are much faster, and the area under the overall "curve" is much greater. This becomes very obvious by reviewing the graph.
The cam is rated at some duration at .050 lifter/tappet rise. This of course cannot be changed and will remain the same regardless of the rocker arm ratio. However, the valve lift is normally specified with standard 1.5 ratio rocker arms. This can be changed by installing different ratio rockers. As a 1.65 ratio rocker is 10% higher ratio then a 1.50, the lift provided by the 1.65 rocker will be 10 % greater with all cams. This also can be seen on the attached graph. Note that the graph shows a 1.72 ratio rocker, but the action is similar between various ratios. What happens to valve open time with the higher ratio rockers? Because the higher ratio rocker lifts the valve to a higher point in the same time period, it has to lift both quicker and steeper. As the valve begins to open at the same point regardless of rocker ratio, and it opens at the same time as the cam lobe, the duration of the valve opening in crankshaft degrees at the initial opening and closing points is identical to the cam lobe duration. However, because of the quicker and steeper opening/closing rates, the valve open time is greater from any point after initial opening when a higher ratio rocker is used. This is also obvious on the graph. How much more duration? I devised a method to actually measure it. As a standard lobe measuring point is .050 lifter rise, and lobe lifts are normally specified with 1.5 rocker ratio, that means the valve will always be at .075 when the lobe reaches .050" lift (when a 1.5 rocker is installed). By using the .075 point, and determining where it occurs in relationship to the crank in degrees, a yardstick is provided from which to reference any different rocker ratios. As expected, a higher ratio rocker will allow the valve to reach the .075 lift point earlier in the lift cycle (and later in the closing cycle). As the .075 valve lift point is the industry standard when specifying cam duration (1.5 standard rocker ratio X .050 tappet/lifter rise), it becomes a valid reference point. In the Wolverine 234 degree intake lobe, the intake valve was open 4 to 5 degrees longer when measured in reference to the crank when the larger ratio rockers were used. This is also easy to see on the graph.
Summary:
Higher ratio rocker arms open the valve faster, higher, and hold it open for a much greater total period of time as compared to lower ratio units. Does this cause more stress on the valve train? There will be more pressure on the cam lobes due to the friction and pressure caused by the higher lift and resultant greater spring load. However, as compared to providing the same higher lift and effective longer duration with a more radical cam and even stiffer springs, the higher ratio rockers may create less total valve train stress. And such a cam lobe would be very aggressive and would require much heavier springs to keep the lifter from flying off the lobe. Very radical lobes will also add more side stress on the lifters/bores and could possibly cause lifter bore failure. The added pressure on the studs from either higher ratio rockers, or more radical lobe, will be well within the capabilities of modern after market studs.
-
So much for that. Also, you don't harden a cam all the way to the core, rather, you pick a base material of the raw part that is as hard as you want it. Problem with that is, when making thousands of them it will cost you millions more in tooling costs, so you harden the outer surface after machining it while softer. It rarely is more than a few thousandths thick. .100" is a bunch there.
-
Thank you rob3865! Maybe this will put an end to this thread and just show that if you could or would machine a late model 2300 roller rocker arm to work on an early cam, it would be ok. I doubt any of us will do so, but it can be done. And why not turn the tip of the valve down to fit the rocker arm?
-
That is a well written article. It is obviously written from an OHV/ Cam in Block or one piece bearing, OHC perspective.
The only point I'd disagree with is, "Obviously, the peak lift of the lobe cannot be higher then the outer diameter of the cam bearings - otherwise, the cam could not be installed." Many modern OHC engines use a split bearing similar to a crankshaft. So, there is no "pass through" restriction of cam bearing size. Again, I realize the engine type he is referring to in the article. I just didn'twant anyone to think that was a restriction for all engines.
BTW, for higher lift on "in block" designs do they ever go to larger cam bearings?
-
It has been done before, yes. Can't remember exact ones but I know I've seen it. They do it as well to stiffen the cam up when using really radical lobes. The lobes on some specific engines are so tall now that they do it to help stabilize cylinder to cylinder timings. The S&S Harley pro stock bike engines are so radical the timings have to be cut differently for each lobe simply to make them seem to be the same in the real world. The hits from the huge cylinders speed up and slow down the cranks so much that cylinder to cylinder timing jumps around like a b-tch. 5.25" bore X 3.700" stroke, 2.75" intake valve, all at 9500 rpm.
And, I would turn the valve tip down way before I cut on a rocker........ ......
-
Yes! The small block Mopar has a few race oriented blocks that have provision for very large needle type cam bearings. They ain't cheap.
-
You're making me dig through cobwebs, LOL, I almost wanted to post SB Mopar but could not remember for sure.......... ........I really hate to post anything I'm not pretty much 100% sure of. That has me posting less and less nowadays, the old hard drive really taking dumps now.
-
Bruce Cower built a Hemi Desoto engine in the 50's for an indy car with all roller bearings on the cam, rocker arms, crank shaft, and rods. It ran great but no better than one with plain bearings. It slipped out of gear trying to qualify and went to over 10 grand, and blew up big time. End of project, but Cower did sell roller bearing cams after that for a while.
-
Roller cam bearings have been used in Chevy, Ford, Mopar and Pontiac that I know of maybe even more I don't know(always way out of my budget), but Sprint, NASCAR and Pro Stock all used them at one time, don't here much about them anymore so I don't know if they're still being used or not, lot of discussions out there about them though, kinda like oil discussions,LOL..
-
The frictional differences are nil. Main reason for roller would be durability but since the rollers do not contact all the way around some argument there too. Rollers work with less oil pressure and why you can run 15 psi like on bike motor and engine last forever, same engine in plain bearing needs like 60-70 psi. So some difference since oil pump loads more, more parasitic hp loss.
The difference in rollers on sliding cam lobes is obvious.
-
I just happened to be communicating with Esslinger over the last few days. I told them I need more power in the 1500-4000 RPM range and asked them what they recommended.
Although this is certainly not a Ranger roller cam, they said, "We would go with our pn# 2261 with a change in lobe center. I would decrease the lobe separation angle to 107 deg. That should help perk it up in your rpm range!"
This is the link to their cam specs page :
http://www.esslingeracing.com/catalog/page05.pdf
From that page, the Part Number 2261 cam has :
Dur.@.050 = 229/240
Int./Exh. Lift = 486/487
Adv Dur = 270/286
Center line = 117
According to the notes on the cam, "Spirited Street, Stock Head, 5200 to 350 Carb" and the power range is 1800 - 5500 and it's for a hydraulic lift, flat tappet 2300 engine.
I only have a very faint idea what any of that means but hopefully someone here can decipher the specs and compare that cam to a Ranger roller cam?
Dave
-
Are the lifters used in the roller cam heads standard hydraulic 2.3 lifters or are they specific to roller cams?
-
that cam would require removal of the head and machining of the guide bosses.... the amount of lift from that profile would cause the retainers to hit the valve seals.... anything over about 450 lift requires this machining to be done.....
the hla's are the same for any hydrolic cam unless the cam requires shiming of the hla's and then wide groove hla's would be needed so they could still recieve oil..
-
the hla's are the same for any hydrolic cam unless the cam requires shiming and then wide groove hla's would be needed so they could still recieve oil.
Good to know. I need to hit a Pik-a-Part & nab a couple rollers
-
No way will that cam approach a stock (roller or otherwise) cam in terms of driveability below 2000 rpm. NO WAY. Bringing lobe centers in closer will have it loping at idle pretty good. Gas mileage in town will be a disaster. I really don't care what the cam rpm limits say, often they are impossible in the real world. Bringing in lobe centers advances the intake and good for low rpm but any amount also increases overlap, they tend to cancel each other out. The way to get true power off dead idle is low overlap and short duration intake period so the intake closing is early at low rpm. Or, a stock cam. You need less than 220 degrees at .050" to pull at 1500 on these. Stockers are usually around 200-205 on the intake side.
The 2267 at top is close to same duration and centerline already lowered, less lift but INCREASES the minimum rpm number, less lift does not do that. So, one cam number set argues with another. Common, some of the rpm ranges are out to lunch there. Your chosen cam being one.
-
This might be entirely off the topic, but it is related. Before anyone gets excited about cam dynamics and Specs, if your goal is a solid punch of torque and bump in HP.. Remember this, An engines valves open and close so the flow rate at half lift is critical to avoid having issues with fuel standoff or exhaust scavenging problems that lead to lost power or idle issues. The port and valve stem shapes can make a world of difference here, even when the cam is not Spec radical. I'm quoting the Vizard Book on "How to Hop Up the 2.0 liter OHC Engine". In fact , the Book covers the issues with Roller cams and Rockers extensively, and there is much to be considered, given the Build of the motor, and Rpm ranges of usage.
Can of worms , But Old school N/A dynamics can't be ignored.
Pintosopher, Lobe centers aligned , Moderate on the lumps, Duration questionable
-
I have a nice slider for my buggy that's .495 int/exh, 226 dur@.050 & has a 125 centerline. I'd love to try it on the street & see how it feels.
-
I have a nice slider for my buggy that's .495 int/exh, 226 dur@.050 & has a 125 centerline. I'd love to try it on the street & see how it feels.
Go for it.. :D
-
Go for it.. :D
I'm tempted to stick it in the 87 Mustang 2.3 that's going in my wagon with a T5 but since it's my driver I'll be hard pressed to swap it back out if drivability suffers. If it was a weekend cruiser I wouldn't think twice.
Instead I'm going with a Ranger roller, Ranger header, 2 1/2" exhaust, D-port carb intake & I think I'm gonna splurge on a brand new Weber 32/36 DFEV in the hopes that I can break 20 mpg & not have to touch this car again until I'm ready to strip it for the parts. That's 2 or 3 years down the road at least.
-
Yeah, daily transportation is not really a good choice for experiments,lol,
Sounds like a good package ought to get good mileage out of that..
-
Yeah, daily transportation is not really a good choice for experiments,lol,
Sounds like a good package ought to get good mileage out of that..
My biggest fear with the big cam in an otherwise stock-ish engine would be a lack of torque in 5th gear below 3000 RPM going up a hill at 65 mph. I think the roller will let it climb a hill in 5th versus having to downshift with the big cam since I plan to keep the 3.18 rear gear. I'm hoping for around 2500 RPM in 5th at 70 mph & 20 mpg out of it.
The exhaust is the only thing I'm unsure about. I need to scour the muffler threads for a good choice. I have 2 1/4" & 2 1/2" pipe & everything from glasspacks to Flowmaster mufflers in the garage to choose from. I'm unsure what's the best choice for a non turbo daily driver to squeeze mpg's out of it.
-
My biggest fear with the big cam in an otherwise stock-ish engine would be a lack of torque in 5th gear below 3000 RPM going up a hill at 65 mph. I think the roller will let it climb a hill in 5th versus having to downshift with the big cam since I plan to keep the 3.18 rear gear. I'm hoping for around 2500 RPM in 5th at 70 mph & 20 mpg out of it.
The exhaust is the only thing I'm unsure about. I need to scour the muffler threads for a good choice. I have 2 1/4" & 2 1/2" pipe & everything from glasspacks to Flowmaster mufflers in the garage to choose from. I'm unsure what's the best choice for a non turbo daily driver to squeeze mpg's out of it.
Yeah, that's the problem with tiny motors they can make power but you have to buzz the snot out of them, found that out with my Boss302 :-[
Don't want to go too big on the exhaust either, I would think 2 1/4 would do it unless you're going to build something that's really gonna breath heavy???..
-
For a motor that will not see over 3000 rpm, I would go with a 2" pipe max. The Ranger header only has a 2" outlet so the 2 1/4" or 2 1/2" pipe would do nothing but kill torque big time. You must remember that a 2300 is a tractor motor compared to todays engines. The Walker Super Turbo is a very good muffler, but only the super turbo. Has a nice sound to it but not to loud. In this case, bigger is not better. BTW all of the glass packs I have looked at have a 2" core regardless of the inlet or outlet size. 2 1/2" in and out does nothing if the core is 2".
-
Didn't measure mine, but yeah don't want to go bigger than the header, be a torque killer for sure.
-
For a motor that will not see over 3000 rpm, I would go with a 2" pipe max. The Ranger header only has a 2" outlet so the 2 1/4" or 2 1/2" pipe would do nothing but kill torque big time. You must remember that a 2300 is a tractor motor compared to todays engines. The Walker Super Turbo is a very good muffler, but only the super turbo. Has a nice sound to it but not to loud. In this case, bigger is not better. BTW all of the glass packs I have looked at have a 2" core regardless of the inlet or outlet size. 2 1/2" in and out does nothing if the core is 2".
Great, looks like I need to buy some 2" tubing & some mandrel bends. I know we drifted from the original post a bit but if this is about torque & power from a roller then it's related.
Is this the muffler?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Walker-Exhaust-Muffler-Super-Turbo-2-Inlet-2-Outlet-Steel-Aluminized-Each-/390802978706?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item5afdac3792&vxp=mtr (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Walker-Exhaust-Muffler-Super-Turbo-2-Inlet-2-Outlet-Steel-Aluminized-Each-/390802978706?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item5afdac3792&vxp=mtr)
-
That's the right muffler. What makes it so good is there is a curved baffles at the end of the tubing which directs the exhaust to go back in the other direction where most turbo mufflers have nothing to redirect the exhaust. Good muffler.
-
Richard one, one, seven, two, seven, six two is correct. :-) While reducing back pressure is part of the goal you do not want it to also reduce the velocity of the exhaust. So, going too big can be a problem. And remember at lower RPM's the volume of exhaust will also be less. Just like we have progressive two barrel carburetors in a more ideal world we would have similar exhausts. A rather small pipe for general driving and another for larger throttle open applications. Cost and space become factors.
Here is a couple of links regarding pipe sizing:
http://www.magnaflow.com/07techtips/faq/question10.asp (http://www.magnaflow.com/07techtips/faq/question10.asp)
http://www.exhaustvideos.com/faq/how-to-calculate-muffler-size-pipe-diameter/ (http://www.exhaustvideos.com/faq/how-to-calculate-muffler-size-pipe-diameter/)
-
Richard one, one, seven, two, seven, six two is correct. ???? What am I missing here or is it to another Richard on here?
-
The numbers are your name? and you are correct about pipe sizing.
-
Richard one, one, seven, two, seven, six two is correct. ??? ? What am I missing here or is it to another Richard on here?
My name's Keith so it ain't me lol. Phone number without the area code?
-
I wonder if offset in/out will hurt. I get 30% off at Advance making this a tad over $40
http://shop.advanceautoparts.com/p/dynomax-super-turbo-muffler-17763/18290127-P?searchTerm=dynomax+2%22#fragment-1 (http://shop.advanceautoparts.com/p/dynomax-super-turbo-muffler-17763/18290127-P?searchTerm=dynomax+2%22#fragment-1)
-
You guys are killing me............ ....
The book referenced above, unless it has been updated, shows virtually nothing about roller cams although it goes into rocker geometry a decent amount. Mine doesn't anyway, and great amounts of it committed to memory just like all the other intensive engine tech books I have. Yunick. Jenkins, Atherton, the like. I like reading Vizard but in some ways he's off the mark to me. Like the part about half lift and carb standoff. Standoff happens when the intake rammed-by-inertia mass hits a closed valve at the end of the intake event. Half lift has no effect there, you're NOT at half lift. If half lift is good then the column should be a bigger one and the effect worse. If bad at half lift standoff (reversion) will be less but no matter, engine's not making any power then. Half lift is valuable because you go through it TWICE versus only once for full lift. It really has no effect at idle either since the idle mixture is so under negative pressure. The engine has trouble pulling in with ANY size hole at that time because it is pulling down against the carb butterflies. That restriction pales the lift at cam, almost any lift past barely open that allows engine to draw against carb will work. The size of valve pocket affects reversion but so does all the rest and most importantly the intake plenum size, it is the reversion absorber. Why the chase for IR intakes on big prostock engines in the early '70s failed so miserably. You can't stop reversion with big individual cylinders and intake runners with no connection between them. The control of air mass becomes harder and harder the greater the size of the mass. Why smaller engines make more hp/cu.in. than big ones do. Simple physics.
I have one other big disagreement with Vizard and that is his idea that if intake speed is to be kept high then exhaust must as well all the way down to make power. No. NO no. Missing something very basic there. WHY if that is true then does every engine on the planet with truly wave/pressure tuned exhaust run BETTER WITH NO EXHAUST PIPE AT ALL, the exhaust exits the header pipe end to SLOW DOWN GREATLY??? Take that idea and go BACKWARDS with it, you can increase in exponential amounts the amount of power a two stroke engine makes by dropping exhaust speed slower in incredible amounts and even by choking it to reverse BACKWARDS. The ideas work on four strokes as well, simply harder to implement them.
Exhaust tuning is nowhere near that simple, it is about speeding up or slowing down the flow to get the effect you want.......... ..........I will submit to you that if you have fast velocity in the tailpipe all the way down you are actually restricting the engine, the velocity itself is proof of that. Velocity goes up with push behind it, that push itself is restriction. Sorry Dave.
More. I have never seen any muffler that makes the flow change direction work as well as a simple straight through muffler that does not change direction. Never. The physics say no, the turn is a flow killer. Of course you will not get the noise control on a straight through you can get with a double U-turn muffler, the reduction in noise is evidence the muffler also kills power. We had a saying at Dad's shop, 'noise is horsepower', while not always true, it is often enough. Engines make more power when you use physics to make them wave tuned, that tuning is with SOUND waves.
Dig up the book 'The Scientific Design of Intake and Exhaust Systems' but be prepared for some boring reading, it is written by quants for quants only.
-
Richard one, one, seven, two, seven, six two is correct. ???? What am I missing here or is it to another Richard on here?
You can't slip 'dick' (<--I stand corrected. lol) past the filter. So, it's the formal 'Richard' in posts, and I assume the spelling out of the numbers was meant to be humorous, along those lines.
In short, it was a joke. ;)
Eta (all bolded items): So I'm confused, now, as well. lol
-
On the exhaust theory, I had my glasspack replaced with 2" pipe, straight out the back...sounds fantastic, and feels more peppy.
Can noise equal perception of felt horsepower? Probably.
Does it actually run better? Yes...yes it does.
And it sounds awesome. :)
-
The links are interesting... .............
Magnaflow..... ........'Answer: Don't be fooled! Bigger is not better! Many people think that having the biggest diameter pipe is the best way to make power.
Not true. Due to a variety of factors, extensive testing is required.'
So, how can they state all that as perceived fact if the last sentence is true????.............. ..........LOL
The second link, exhaust videos........ .....problems again. They simply take the same 'certain figured mass of air' amounts and plug them into a formula like you do with trying to find the ideal carburetor size for a certain engine size. It DOESN'T WORK. My old 360 ATX Javelin figured out at a 600 cfm carb at 5000 rpm, the stock Ford 4300 on it had 650 cfm, huh. I put a 800 cfm Holley DP on it and the car dropped a half second in the 1/4 mile and ran great even at lower wide open throttle conditions (3.15 gear) , in short the engine loved it. Couldn't make it bog at all, it pulled hard from 2000 rpm. Over the years I have tossed the prefigured carb size out again and again, first thing you find out is that all engines are NOT created equal, A GM or Ford or Mopar engine of same size will often perform radically different with same size car even if it is optimized for that particular engine. I found that SBF like 302 couldn't handle the same big carb I ran on my crap little 304 AMC with its' puny 1.78 and 1.40 valves. Boss 302 was a totally different issue though, that car loved the bigger carbs, we ran an 850 on it until the tunnel ram with two 750s on it. It's all about the total combination picked there.
People keep saying you have to have the 'velocity, it's all about the velocity' but it's not. When you go for hi-perf you look for 1 inch or less of vacuum (surprise! less velocity) at top rpm showing correct carb size and as low a restriction exhaust (open if possible) as you can get. When you start talking this or that velocity you are heavily giving away power there to me, it all becomes a compromise, what will you give up in performance to get this or that in real world useability? Velocity in the intake means you have restriction, same thing in exhaust. I'm not saying it all is bad but if after maximum power it is. You then draw the line as to how far you'll go; the tradeoff.
-
On the subject of noise......... .......there is a quality of noise side to that, you hear say leaking exhaust that is louder but sounds like crap, that is no better and may run worse. Tuned engines though will develop a certain note that to the trained ear instantly makes them stand out, think Nascar. I love to hear the in car sound bites they have there. I think in terms of bike stuff where you can actually tell what the rider is feeling by listening to the engine as it runs, at some point it begins to blend together in that certain sound that has wave tuning coming into play all over it. When the individual exhaust pulses disappear and then noise turns into a solid howl or roar. The engine at that point actually begins to get louder, the waves are all in synch with the hard parts then. Most exotic I ever got to play with was Honda CBX six with 6-1 header, I see why so many of those Italians left their wives for a V-12 engined car.
If you keep the velocity up in the intake and exhaust sides of the engine you don't get or far less of that. Wave tuning cries out for both sides of engine as unrestricted as possible. We used to run simple bolt on header mufflers back in the day and I can personally attest to how you can get another 75 hp. by simply pulling a best of the best full exhaust pipe system off the car and replacing with those. More than one vehicle, hell the Boss 302 picked up MIDRANGE by dropping the full pipes, we ran it forever with two big diameter Cherry Bombs only after that for years. So, keep talking about velocity in the entire pipe, you lost me there.
-
EXHAUST. If you really want to understand / use / be helped by it, go to http://www.maxracesoftware.com and get Larry Meaux's "Pipemax" software. And if that is not enough for you, get your self a copy of "Design and Simulation of four-stroke Engines" by PHD Gordon Blair. It is SAE # R-186 and 825 pages of all there is to know about exhaust and induction.
-
Got the book BTDT.......... ......that guy is plenty smart.
-
AMC 49, I think we are getting to the point of comparing apples to oranges. The poster was discussing 2,500-3,000 RPM range as a daily driver. You are discussing race (or near race) cars at wide open throttle. In the end 98% of guys will just go to the muffler shop (or do the work themselves). They will likely randomly select a pipe size between 2" and 2-1/2" with little reason behind the decision.
So, I'd still take the "velocity" perspective over say..., the supposed need for "back pressure" any day (not that anyone mentioned that argument). At least for me that is about as complicated as I can mentally get. The likelihood one would benefit a daily drive based on race experience (or reading a 825 page book) is probably far less that what they "believe" they have benefited going to any larger exhaust. Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate experience and knowledge. I just think it needs to be applicable to the value of the task at hand. After all we are talking about near stock Pinto's going down the road between 25 MPH to 65 MPH.
-
I tried to shut this down on reply # 28. Maybe now????
-
I was always taught that in a non-turbo engine operating at a moderate & steady RPM that a certain amount of backpressure was desired to reduce turbulence & keep velocity up in order to fully evacuate the cylinder of spent hot gasses. The cooler empty cylinder then draws the fresh intake charge better than one contaminated by leftover combustion.
A Pinto engine is probably 85-90% efficient on it's best day where race engines exceed 100% VE so they benefit from an open exhaust with little restriction.
Turbo engines pressurize the intake charge & operate well above 100% VE so the free flowing exhaust with no restriction is preferred.
-
Most race engines do well to exceed 85-90%. Why VE is always at a lower rpm.
Necessary back pressure as understood by most is a myth, I can show it several ways, but open headers pretty much lays that to rest. The idea developed from minds that did not understand how exhaust works. Look at when the idea began, in the early part of the century, we've learned much since then.
What works on race cars works to a lesser degree on street ones as well.
'They will likely randomly select a pipe size between 2" and 2-1/2" with little reason behind the decision.'
Yes they will, but not me. Not nearly the first time I don't follow the crowd either.
FYI, these engines are too small. To get anything more than maybe 25 easy bolt on hp you WILL be going toward the race end of the spectrum, there is no way to pick up more power without shelling power band as a consequence unless you turbo. Four cylinders get b-tchier and more quickly than bigger engines do and smaller size only aggravates that more. Why same cam timing in a bigger motor will idle smooth but lopes in smaller engine.
I digress as usual so I will shut up, thanks all that listened to the rave.
-
interesting thread. one thing that is obvious is the enormity of opinions on what works.
here's mine: if it feels good, go with it.
if it sounds good, go with it.
what else can you ask for?
-
RIGHT ON!!!!
-
Uh, back pressure has nothing to do with evacuation of cylinder, that requires NEGATIVE pressure to achieve.
-
Uh, back pressure has nothing to do with evacuation of cylinder, that requires NEGATIVE pressure to achieve."
Which..., (unfortunately)..., brings us back to velocity. Ok, I'm no scientist, or expert, or anything, but the theory goes as such (for the benefit of those who don't know - or those who hear that "backpressure" is necessary):
On the exhaust stroke the piston is slowing (and in fact, for a fraction of a second, stopping) as it approaches TDC. The "push" of the piston becomes less effective in removing exhaust gasses. However, as the exhaust gas is moving down the manifold (header), tailpipe etc. the momentum helps to void (draw out) the burned gasses from the cylinder. The best way to have that "drawn out" momentum process is to have the exhaust moving as fast as possible (velocity).
So, this is where pipe size becomes tricky. Too big a pipe and the momentum drops off fast. Too small of a pipe and the momentum is hindered (in relation to its volume) to moving its fastest. Ideally the pipe diameter would keep expanding and contracting as needed. That way you could get maximum velocity dependent upon the volume of the gasses. The expanding pipe isn't going to happen so any pipe size is a "one size" compromise.
Say, someone goes into the muffler shop and asks for a 3" exhaust. They state, "you won't have enough back pressure." What they really mean is that you won't have the best velocity of exhaust gasses for a street driven car. Now to be fair, compared to a 3" pipe, a 2-1/4" pipe may actually increase backpressure as an end result of having higher velocity. But, increasing backpressure is not the goal, increasing velocity is. The tricky part is to have the benefits of increased velocity without the detriments of increased back pressure.
Now, that is likely "Basic 101" on the subject. There is the factor regarding the open and closing of the valves that generate pulses. There is the factor of overlap (where both the intake and exhaust valves are open at the same time). And that is probably only "102" on the subject. Apparently there is an 825 page book on the subject. And, after all that theory there is "real world" experience. Certainly for me WAY beyond my comprehension and thus my ability to apply. But, when much is on the line applying the upper end of this subject is applicable.
Anyway, my goal is just to point out at the bottom end that backpressure is not the goal. And, that (in a street driven car operating at various RPM's and loads) ideal velocity is fleeting. AND, that this basic understanding is just cracking the ice on the subject.
Now, do you all love me or hate me???
-
LOL........... .........
I agree with the top half of that but not a lot of the bottom half. This whole pipe velocity misses the major point like so many of the discussions do. The point is this. You want velocity until you get to the end of the tuned pipe length and NO MORE, anything beyond that is later pipe inhibiting the earlier pipes' performance. If you can trick the engine into thinking the exhaust has hit atmospheric pressure then the exhaust tuning works like gangbusters, indeed the engine thinks any header there is open. The atmosphere has no velocity to it at all. so what happened there? And the maximum power producing condition.
No one qualifies the pipe velocity statements with that phenomenon at all. They just continue to assume it must mean the ENTIRE pipe must be high velocity and simply not so. The major reason why? Once you have passed the tuned length all else there is fluff, there will be no real effect. You CANNOT get tuned length open pipe performance with full length pipes, anyone trying has pretty much failed there. When you look for velocity in tailpipes you have restricted the pipe further up to kill power, end of discussion. Why? Because if sized to make velocity they will stop the exhaust plug from firing through the pipe earlier and further back as fast as it can. It wants atmosphere (zero resistance) there, no amount of velocity later on can replace that full open condition. The later pipes' area to be plowed through will inhibit the exhaust pulse as the gases stack up in the pipe to be shoved further back, sizing for velocity only makes that worse. Velocity later on in the system will not aid one other big tune of simulating open pipe, the pressure backflow that results in a positive pulse reversing to go back up the pipe and acting as a pipe stuffer to limit the loss of mixture at the end of overlap, full length pipe pretty much totally destroys that, it does not happen. Velocity does nothing for that at all either, in fact it squelches the effect. But short pipes like straight through header mufflers will let some of that happen.
You wave tune with short pipes, once you must use full car length pipes you must give up true wave tuning, all you can achieve is flow enough to simply let engine breathe easier, there will be a big loss in power with the wave tuning effect gone. Pretty much impossible to get around it, but a trick or two can help it get better.
Enter the difference between true sound wave tuning and vacuum tuning ala multi-tube headers. Two totally different animals.
Lemme guess, I went and made it worse again right?
-
Well, again I keep going back to the original premise of a Daily Driver with a relatively stock 2.3 (... a Ranger roller cam and header). The owner needs to replace the exhaust and is contemplating what size exhaust and legal muffler to run (to the rear of the car). None of the wave tuning you mention applies because, as you note, the run is too long and it becomes irrelevant.
I'm truly not trying to be obnoxious, but given the exhaust described above (see underlined) what would you recommend tubing size wise? And why? - I mean some tubing size needs to be selected before the work can begin. And regardless that none of the science of the wave tuning is applicable there still should be some form of reasoning (no matter how minor) in the size selection.
-
Depends on how many mufflers, fours commonly use two to really quieten things. Probably 2 or 2 1/4'', what I've used with good result. Using only one muffler may well be too loud there. Inline fours make more exhaust harmonic noise than other engines, the 180 firing order......... ..2 inch on single muffler, the bigger one with two.
-
I am actually looking at doing an 86 ranger exhaust manifold as I'm hoping that's just a bolt in for the car and I imagine it flows better than stock. I'm in the process of ordering a ranger roller cam, and we'll go from there. I have the offenhauser intake and a holley 390 carb.
-
Are you getting the cam/rollers new? What is the going rate? I saw a used set on Ebay for $99. Wrecking yards would likely be cheaper. We have Pick Your Parts around here with their 50% off sales. I got the cam/rollers/lifters out the door for just under $30. I guess I'm so tight with the dollar that it pains me even when it's another mans money. LOL
-
go with 2 1/4" pipe a muffler at the rear (walker makes a good one) and if you notice a harmonic vibration graft in a 2 1/4" perforated core straight thru (glasspack or similar)(make sure the core is 2 1/4" diameter too) in the straight section of the exhaust pipe ahead of the rear axle.
make sure you run the exhaust all the way to the rear of the car or you WILL have a lot of noise inside the car.
-
Uh, back pressure has nothing to do with evacuation of cylinder, that requires NEGATIVE pressure to achieve.
That was actually quoting a couple different articles that state how backpressure decreases turbulence which keeps velocity up.
-
Just throwing is into the backpressure mix. I just bought a V6 muffler that I am going to use BACKWARDS to reduce the backpressure on a turbo'd 2.0L. I know some mufflers are directional but Pinto ones don't seem to be. This based on looking at (into) my original 71 muffler. It's hole'ier than the Pope and needs replacing. I think two tail pipes with add a little extra touch and sound better. To me, stereo usually sounds better than mono. Feedback good or bad welcome. I bought this muffler cheap so no big deal if I can't use it.
71HANTO
(http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj72/71hanto/Pinto/KGrHqVHJDME63ZMWGmEBO1Ubo4vjw60_57_zpse515194d.jpg)
(http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj72/71hanto/Pinto/KGrHqJHJCEE63UQEEBO1UbrLB2Q60_57_zpsb44bdc35-1.jpg)
-
Wittsend, I actually was introduced to someone who sells the thru our forum. I bought one with the followers for $172 shipped. Not as cheap as yours but I also don't have all day to go out and pull one either. I know what you mean about saving money. I do everything I can to try and save. I think I do pretty well overall.
-
Are you getting the cam/rollers new? What is the going rate? I saw a used set on Ebay for $99. Wrecking yards would likely be cheaper. We have Pick Your Parts around here with their 50% off sales. I got the cam/rollers/lifters out the door for just under $30. I guess I'm so tight with the dollar that it pains me even when it's another mans money. LOL
I got one off ebay with lifers, rockers & cam for $99 shipped. The closest pik-a-part to me is an hour each way meaning 2 hours time & $12+ in gas just to see if they even have one. In the end the $99 isn't that expensive considering.
-
Again, I often forget my good fortunes. I haven't had to work (most) Fridays for the past 23 years. That said, the closest Pick A Part is nearly 45 miles away. And it is $10 in gas and $6 for yard admission (there are three self serve yards in the area). So, yes, I'm $16 spent even if I don't get anything. They also don't allow core exchange on 50% off sale days (which is the only time I go). So, I often wind up eating my core charge because I'm not spending $10 in gas plus 2 hours of my time just to get my $10 core refund. Sometimes I come home with a bunch of stuff. Other times nothing.
I'm also about 60-70 miles from the huge Pomona swapmeet. But that is $20 gas, $10 parking, and $12 to get in. So, I'm $42 in the hole before I buy anything. And, the last time I went, I really didn't get much. So, while I'm a confirmed penny pincher I can understand the value that comes with paying more at times.
Ironically there is the "Largest Mopar Swap west of the Mississippi" (as they bill it) that is only $8 in gas, free parking and free admission. I get more there simply because many parts are generic. An electric fan is an electric fan. It is were I got the fan for my Turbo Pinto (for instance). In fact, I got a complete gasket kit for a Ford 289 at this Mopar show!
-
Just throwing is into the backpressure mix. I just bought a V6 muffler that I am going to use BACKWARDS to reduce the backpressure on a turbo'd 2.0L. I know some mufflers are directional but Pinto ones don't seem to be. This based on looking at (into) my original 71 muffler. It's hole'ier than the Pope and needs replacing. I think two tail pipes with add a little extra touch and sound better. To me, stereo usually sounds better than mono. Feedback good or bad welcome. I bought this muffler cheap so no big deal if I can't use it.
71HANTO
charles what ID is the inlet? been a while since i have laid any pipe or hung any mufflers but you may have to flip the inlet to one side or the other. the bracket on the muffler (if you can) should be relocated to the rear, outlet end to take advantage of the stock hanger which IIRC is located to the rear of the stock muffler.
i used to bend exhaust pipe for a living (many years) and a muffler like you have is something we hung a lot of back in the day. gm cars with the small v6 used a muffler similar but with smaller inlet & outlet pipes.
it should work just fine.
just remember, 20+ lbs at the top of 1st and through all the rest of the gears will open your eyes wide.
i used to peg a 20# VDO boost gage with ease with the setup you have. it WILL be fun!!! :o ;D
(http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj72/71hanto/Pinto/KGrHqVHJDME63ZMWGmEBO1Ubo4vjw60_57_zpse515194d.jpg)
(http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj72/71hanto/Pinto/KGrHqJHJCEE63UQEEBO1UbrLB2Q60_57_zpsb44bdc35-1.jpg)
-
I always weigh the cost of acquiring a part including labor into what I'm willing to spend to have one sent to me. Usually it's only 25% more to buy it off ebay versus digging it out of the boneyard myself. It's not penny pinching as much as work is running me into the ground Sunday afternoon through Friday morning so my spare time is limited. I have trouble finding time to mow my grass LOL
-
I know what you mean Pinto5.0. I work 10-12 hour days most days typically, and finding time to do things is not easy. I'm willing to spend a little more for the opportunity cost, although I think it'd be cool to be able to go to the u-pick it. Unfortunately there aren't many of those around here (DE), so it's usually just easier to buy them through other means. I got a mid-90's ranger header from the same guy for $95 shipped.
-
From SRT:
"charles what ID is the inlet? been a while since i have laid any pipe or hung any mufflers but you may have to flip the inlet to one side or the other. the bracket on the muffler (if you can) should be relocated to the rear, outlet end to take advantage of the stock hanger which IIRC is located to the rear of the stock muffler."[/size]
Steve, I just got the V-6 muffler delivered and the inlet (outlet) is only 1.75. It looked bigger in the E-Bay pictures. I was hoping for at least a 2 incher. I could try to mod it or I may need to send this muffler on. It is date coded 12/1978 without a speck of rust.
71HANTO
-
go with 2 1/4" pipe a muffler at the rear (walker makes a good one) and if you notice a harmonic vibration graft in a 2 1/4" perforated core straight thru (glasspack or similar)(make sure the core is 2 1/4" diameter too) in the straight section of the exhaust pipe ahead of the rear axle.
Another (usually cheaper and lighter) possibility is to identify the frequency of the harmonic resonance and build a suitable Helmholtz resonator to cancel it. I haven't tried it yet, but all the reports I have read are quite positive from Nissan Titan trucks to Fox3 Mustangs to late model Camaros. Some cars came stock with these noise-cancelling resonators. The Honda S2000 is an example.
It's really easy to identify the resonant frequency. All you need is a clean digital audio recording of it and free audio software like Audacity.
-
Interesting. I have a '73 Valiant 318 that dumps two, 2" pipes into a single 3" pipe through a Flowmaster 50 and then out the back. The drone is unbearable from 2,000-2,600 RPM. These resonators seem like the water hammer pipes one installs in plumbing. I didn't read far enough to grasp the science behind it (and I probably wouldn't understand it anyway). But, they all seem to be fixed length pipes. I think I'd make mine adjustable (pipe sliding over pipe) since my experience has been that "math" and "real world experience" can often be two different things.
-
These resonators seem like the water hammer pipes one installs in plumbing.
They look the similar, but don't operate in the same way.
Noise-canceling resonators operate on the principle of constructive and destructive interference. The drone in an exhaust is caused by constructive interference that makes sound waves stronger when they "stack" upon each other. Destructive interference does the exhaust opposite. Kind of like 1 + (-1) = 0.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
Noise-cancelling headphones attempt to do the same thing electronically; they duplicate the noise audio 180° out of phase so it cancels the ambient noise.
-
Cam was to replace 2500-7500 power range cam(hyd roller)105mph,2 nd gear(auto)3.08 rear,205 50 15 tires.would not go any faster in drive.also 390 holley 4 on 4bbl offy inake,headers,unported heads(limiting factor i believe).ignition was hipo too. Slower then stock below 15-20mph.have 4.56 and 3.40 8inch stumps that i thought of using for takeoff but would not help top end.was going for street-strip car.
-
Over the years I've had "STREET" cars with 4.56, 4.86 & 5.38 gears out back when I was street racing. I also ran slicks, soft compound street tires & rim screws on these cars. NONE of this stuff works the minute you jump on the highway & try to drive 65 mph for longer than 30 seconds. Trust me!!
Run the 3.40 & swap in the 4.56 for the track only. Rarely are you going to be using the engine below 2000 rpm so the slight loss of bottom end wont come into play.
-
X2. The words street/strip car and a four cylinder do not belong in the same sentence together unless there is a turbo involved. I view hopping up these as just an exercise in making the car powerful enough to hold its' own on the freeway with the big boys. Why the Contour and Focus zetecs were such a breath of fresh air, cars that could accelerate without dropping them off a cliff. That last 30 hp. is to kill for in street driveability.. ............
I ran an AMC car on the street with 5.0 gear and a 304 that would run in the elevens, it got pretty bad cruising for long distances and the gas price now would simply kill you.