Milwaukee Midget

[fordboy628]

Cylinder #           Reading            Leakage %            Source 
    1                             86/90                      4.5%                  rings/cylinders
    2                             84/90                      6.7%                  rings/cylinders
    3                             87/90                      3.4%                  rings/cylinders
    4                             86/90                      4.5%                  rings/cylinders

That 6.7 is a concern, but to hell with it - I'm going racing. 

That's a 4.775% average on a cold engine.    It would be nice if it was lower, or the engine made 200 bhp, etc, etc, etc.    I don't think you want to be Dilbert!!    Design approved and released for production . . . . . 

GO RACING!!

Fordboy

[fordboy628]

Midget,

I hate to make predictions, it is too easy to get bitten in the a**, by a monkey or crocodile. . . . . .      but, here goes. . . . . . .

I'd be satisfied by the dyno session if:

1/   It stays together,
2/   No additional problems are discovered,
3/   We get all the testing we want to do finished,
4/   The BMEP is 190 psi or better,
5/   The corrected TQ is 76 lb/ft or better,
6/   The corrected Bhp is 95 bhp or better.

I know this is a long list, but as usual, I'm thinking long term.

Fordboy

Midget, et all,

As a precursor to posting a dyno data dump, I'm revisiting my predictions . . . . .

1/   It stays together,                                                I'm estatic here  A+
2/   No additional problems are discovered,                 as above  A+
3/   We get all the testing we want to do finished,        I always want to do more testing, just my nature, but I'm satisfied with where we ended up.  A-
4/   The BMEP is 190 psi or better,                              ended up at 178 psi, so I think just a C is deserved.
5/   The corrected TQ is 76 lb/ft or better,                   finished at 72.2 lb/ft, a bit low, so maybe C+
6/   The corrected Bhp is 95 bhp or better.                  95.1 bhp @ finish, so A, but I always want to exceed the target . . . . .

I guess I've eaten at too many Chinese/German restaurants, because an hour later I'm already hungry for: more power . . . . . .   not complaining though.

brought to you by Spotted Cow & Pizza
Fordboy

[Milwaukee Midget]

Midget,

I hate to make predictions, it is too easy to get bitten in the a**, by a monkey or crocodile. . . . . .      but, here goes. . . . . . .

I'd be satisfied by the dyno session if:

1/   It stays together,
2/   No additional problems are discovered,
3/   We get all the testing we want to do finished,
4/   The BMEP is 190 psi or better,
5/   The corrected TQ is 76 lb/ft or better,
6/   The corrected Bhp is 95 bhp or better.

I know this is a long list, but as usual, I'm thinking long term.

Fordboy

Midget, et all,

As a precursor to posting a dyno data dump, I'm revisiting my predictions . . . . .

1/   It stays together,                                                I'm estatic here  A+
2/   No additional problems are discovered,                 as above  A+
3/   We get all the testing we want to do finished,        I always want to do more testing, just my nature, but I'm satisfied with where we ended up.  A-
4/   The BMEP is 190 psi or better,                              ended up at 178 psi, so I think just a C is deserved.
5/   The corrected TQ is 76 lb/ft or better,                   finished at 72.2 lb/ft, a bit low, so maybe C+
6/   The corrected Bhp is 95 bhp or better.                  95.1 bhp @ finish, so A, but I always want to exceed the target . . . . .

I guess I've eaten at too many Chinese/German restaurants, because an hour later I'm already hungry for: more power . . . . . .   not complaining though.

brought to you by Spotted Cow & Pizza
Fordboy

The torque thing - let's face it - short stroke engines simply don't develop torque.  They CAN'T, because they simply don't have the mechanical advantage over the crank that a long stroke engine does.  You know that, I know that, it's simply a product of the physical limitations of the geometry I put into this thing from the beginning.

But in a heartbeat, I will GLADLY trade the diminished torque for the wider than expected power band we've developed.  Jiminy Cricket!  I've got 1600 RPM to play with topping out at 8 G with a 4:22 rear end and 22 " tires!  And this engine has revved to 9,000 in the past.  I won't knock the other builds on this forum, but as the fool who is going to strap himself into this contraption, I think it's safe to say that I've got a degree of flexibility with respect to the goal that I'm shooting for that few other racers can claim.

As far as BMEP is concerned, think about what we started with.  It would be tough to build a decent supercharged street flathead with BMEP numbers like that.  The head I'm working with is only one generation removed from a flathead.

As to additional testing, all I can do is quote Sparky Anderson - "Don't throw it all away in the bull pen."

I just finished putting the engine and transmission in the car.  It's the first time that I've felt that I'm not gambling on this project.

So from the student to the mentor, I am adjusting your grades.

Mark, all that's left is your valedictorian speech.

Chris

[SaltPeter]

Midget

I love this build and the sound on the Dyno well it certainly is sweet, I'd be really happy with this result.

That is a Proper Job.

Pete

[Milwaukee Midget]

Midget

I love this build and the sound on the Dyno well it certainly is sweet, I'd be really happy with this result.

That is a Proper Job.

Pete

There are a number of Australian linguistic colloquialisms that I've learned from reading this site.

"Pommy car" comes to mind . . . often used as a derisive term.   

I am aware that "a Proper Job" is high praise, and Pete, I thank you for the compliment.

Chris

[SPARKY]

WARNING: this read could cause loss of sleep!!! 
http://www.profblairandassociates.com/pdfs/RET_Bellmouth_Sept.pdf

[fordboy628]

WARNING: this read could cause loss of sleep!!! 
http://www.profblairandassociates.com/pdfs/RET_Bellmouth_Sept.pdf

Sparky,

This is the same link referenced by roygoodwin a couple of pages back.    And yes, there is probably a bhp or 2 in "the best" inlet air horn.   The problem is: Where do you get them?    A LOT of the add on, aftermarket bits for carbs that I have flow tested, DO NOT JUSTIFY THEIR COST.    I normally don't do this, BUT, I'll "decode" my last sentence:  MOST of the stuff you buy, adds neither flow or bhp!!    Reference my post #2617 on page 175 of MM's build diary.   The trick, pretty looking, anodized, fully radiused, EXPENSIVE, aftermarket inlet bell LOST airflow on every comparison test!!   It flowed less air than the STOCK Weber part!!     Caveat Emptor!     Many times a great idea on paper, gets compromised somewhere in the manufacturing process.    Manufacturers claim all sorts of things, I want to see data for my (or my client's) application.

So having pontificated, I will also point out, I have NOT flow tested EVERY inlet bell for Webers.    I am certain that there are some out there that are manufactured in a way so as to improve airflow over the stock part(s).   I just don't have any numbers, YET.    Interestingly enough, I'm going to be flow testing more 45DCOE's & 48DCOE's this week.   I will be able to test about 5/6 air horns from 2/3 manufacturers, back to back to back.   I'll post up the numbers later.

Someone with access to more machinery than I have, could certainly take Dr. Blair's formula and manufacture special bells for their application.   I just don't want to be in the business of manufacturing anything anymore.

On an interconnected side note, the racers who loaned me the "trick" bells for testing were convinced that those parts would "far outperform the stock Weber parts".    They also dyno test their engines and parts, but they don't flow anything, because their dyno guy doesn't think it's necessary . . . . . .    because he feels the "dyno will point the way to go".    He doesn't have a flowbench.    I find it interesting that their "dyno development program" has stalled out @ 140/141 bhp (from 1310cc's) over the last 3 years or so, the time period that they have been using the "trick" bells.   I'm modifying and flow testing 2 carbs for them.   I'll post up those numbers and their bhp numbers when I learn them.

Dynoboy AND Airflowboy
(sheesh, which costume do I wear today Alfred?) 

[Dean Los Angeles]

69 days to go time. Time to shoot the engineers (sorry Mark) and ship the product.

[fordboy628]

69 days to go time. Time to shoot the engineers (sorry Mark) and ship the product.

Hey Dean, no need to be sorry, I agree.   See below:

Cylinder #           Reading            Leakage %            Source 
    1                             86/90                      4.5%                  rings/cylinders
    2                             84/90                      6.7%                  rings/cylinders
    3                             87/90                      3.4%                  rings/cylinders
    4                             86/90                      4.5%                  rings/cylinders

That 6.7 is a concern, but to hell with it - I'm going racing. 

That's a 4.775% average on a cold engine.    It would be nice if it was lower, or the engine made 200 bhp, etc, etc, etc.    I don't think you want to be Dilbert!!    Design approved and released for production . . . . . 

GO RACING!!

Fordboy

Note my advice in green above . . . . .

Thanks again Dean, for your insights.

MB

[salt27]

Fordboy,
  Will you be at Speedweek?

If not you should be.

Don

[Milwaukee Midget]

Fordboy,
  Will you be at Speedweek?

If not you should be.

Don

He's out parts chasing this afternoon - testing air horns (!) - yeah, he's the curious type.

I've made a room available to him, and he definitely needs to get out of the Midwest, if only for a week, but as of last Thursday, he hadn't decided.

Okay, everybody, time to pressure him. 

[SPARKY]

sorry that way was my warped way of  trying to thank him--I was looking at a lot more of where and how the flows are going, than the how much  ,  more is not always better  -- where and what condition --some times --pays 

[Seldom Seen Slim]

I'll try to help get Mr. Fordboy to decide to attend SpeedWeek -- by offering him the chance to speak live on the internet during the streaming audio time.  He can tell one and all some of the wisdom that went along with helping you, Chris, get the little grenade to do what it has done.  I'd love to have him live and in person to comment when you make a run (or two), but I'd expect that he'll be at the line with you to watch the fun and excitement of you leaving the line.  But anyway -- the invitation is open to him.  Oh, yeah - do we need to bribe him with one of the special edition Salt Talks shirts?

[Buickguy3]

  Other than good conversation, all the Salt Cat Team can do is offer him some raunchy beer from the C-store that is open every morning on the way to the Salt. I look forward every day to reading the build story of the Midget.
    Doug 

[Milwaukee Midget]

Here we go again –

So the borrowed manifold we tested that gave us the best horsepower, the Maniflow 3.75 unit, is not in stock – it's built to order.  Okay.  So I ask what the time frame is.  6 weeks. 

I have these scary visions of the deal that happened to my wheels – and my flywheel – and my crankshaft.

I do have a manifold that's down ~ 3hp from the one we tested with, so I'm still racing.  But if I get close and that new piece isn't in Wendover, I'm going to shoot myself.