Which Head?- 598 NA

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

Go down

Which Head?- 598 NA

Post  fastashley on September 15th 2016, 11:57 am

Want to do a NA 598 for the Sand Truck
'77 F150 4x4
4000 lb
33" scoops, 5.40 gear, hi-range
Track varies between 300'-600'
Want to build a 'reliable' BBF. I don't want to change valve springs every weekend. Max rpm, probably 7500.
A460 or Eliminator block
4.600 bore or larger
Scat steel crank
Oliver or Crower steel rod
14:1
HEADS?- Are CNC A460 enough? Is it worth considering C460 or Thor? If I went with a big bore/short stroke combo, would that change the head decision? (4.700 bore) I want to be less than 600". There are no 'class' rules, just line up with guys also runnin full size trucks. Cost is not an option...mostly





fastashley

Posts : 70
Join date : 2011-03-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Which Head?- 598 NA

Post  Lem Evans on September 15th 2016, 4:07 pm

fastashley wrote:Want to do a NA 598 for the Sand Truck
'77 F150 4x4
4000 lb
33" scoops, 5.40 gear, hi-range
Track varies between 300'-600'
Want to build a 'reliable' BBF. I don't want to change valve springs every weekend. Max rpm, probably 7500.
A460 or Eliminator block
4.600 bore or larger
Scat steel crank
Oliver or Crower steel rod
14:1
HEADS?- Are CNC A460 enough? Is it worth considering C460 or Thor? If I went with a big bore/short stroke combo, would that change the head decision? (4.700 bore) I want to be less than 600". There are no 'class' rules, just line up with guys also runnin full size trucks. Cost is not an option...mostly

4.600" X 4.500" works well with either the "A" or "C" head.

I'd come down to your budget. If you are going to use Ti valves and a shaft rocker system you may as well jump to the C460 program.





Lem Evans

Posts : 7067
Join date : 2008-12-03
Location : Livermore , Ky

View user profile http://bfevansraceparts.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Which Head?- 598 NA

Post  dfree383 on September 15th 2016, 5:20 pm

And 7500 rpm with any big block isn't going to be check the valve lash and change the oil once a season.

avatar
dfree383
BBF CONTRIBUTOR
BBF CONTRIBUTOR

Posts : 14087
Join date : 2009-07-09
Location : Home Wif Da Wife.....

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Which Head?- 598 NA

Post  Lem Evans on September 15th 2016, 10:05 pm

"Are CNC A460 enough?"

The 360 port is a good deal but, I'm not crazy about the valves etc in that package.

Lem Evans

Posts : 7067
Join date : 2008-12-03
Location : Livermore , Ky

View user profile http://bfevansraceparts.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Which Head?- 598 NA

Post  fastashley on September 15th 2016, 10:35 pm

Thanks for the input.
Not looking for maintenance free. But maintenance on a 7000 rpm drag BBF and 9000 rpm pulling motor are entirely different.

fastashley

Posts : 70
Join date : 2011-03-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Which Head?- 598 NA

Post  fastashley on September 16th 2016, 8:04 am

Lem, are the valves poor quality or just the wrong size?

fastashley

Posts : 70
Join date : 2011-03-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Which Head?- 598 NA

Post  Lem Evans on September 16th 2016, 8:50 am

fastashley wrote:Lem, are the valves poor quality or just the wrong size?

Poor design i.m.o.

Lem Evans

Posts : 7067
Join date : 2008-12-03
Location : Livermore , Ky

View user profile http://bfevansraceparts.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Which Head?- 598 NA

Post  Scott Foxwell on September 16th 2016, 10:06 am

To get the most out of that cubic inch at 7500 you're going to need something you can put a 2.450+ intake valve in. Good luck finding a set of Thor's. Keep the stroke on the short side if you can and it won't put such a demand on the induction. 4.63 x 4.375 keeps you under 600ci and with a 6.8 rod is only a 1.31 piston. Not a bad combination and 7500-8000 would be a walk in the park.

Scott Foxwell

Posts : 398
Join date : 2011-06-23
Location : N/E Tennessee

View user profile http://www.straubtechnologies.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Which Head?- 598 NA

Post  rmcomprandy on September 16th 2016, 10:25 am

Scott Foxwell wrote:To get the most out of that cubic inch at 7500 you're going to need something you can put a 2.450+ intake valve in. Good luck finding a set of Thor's. Keep the stroke on the short side if you can and it won't put such a demand on the induction. 4.63 x 4.375 keeps you under 600ci and with a 6.8 rod is only a 1.31 piston. Not a bad combination and 7500-8000 would be a walk in the park.

I certainly agree with Scott on this, get the stroke shorter so the piston speed at that RPM is conducive to good ring seal.

"KFM" - Keith Fulp Motorsports, ( "Wheelie58" on here ), has a great A460 CNC program for this and I believe it uses a 2.400" intake valve but, maybe a bit larger.

rmcomprandy

Posts : 5047
Join date : 2008-12-02
Location : Roseville, Michigan

View user profile http://www.rmcompetition.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Which Head?- 598 NA

Post  fastashley on September 16th 2016, 11:23 am

Thanks. I actually prefer a shorter stroke

fastashley

Posts : 70
Join date : 2011-03-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Which Head?- 598 NA

Post  Lem Evans on September 16th 2016, 1:23 pm

Why? A .043" X .170" ring package will stay planted just fine with a 4.5" stroke at that kind of RPM.

Lem Evans

Posts : 7067
Join date : 2008-12-03
Location : Livermore , Ky

View user profile http://bfevansraceparts.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Which Head?- 598 NA

Post  Lem Evans on September 16th 2016, 1:24 pm

What kind of power are you looking to make?

Lem Evans

Posts : 7067
Join date : 2008-12-03
Location : Livermore , Ky

View user profile http://bfevansraceparts.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Which Head?- 598 NA

Post  Scott Foxwell on September 16th 2016, 2:46 pm

I wasn't considering ring seal as a factor in my comments about stroke. Sure, you can get 4.5" stroke to "seal". The 611 I did had a 4.5" stroke with .043 rings and it made peak at 8000 and turns over 9000 regularly. It's plenty sealed up (with a vac pump). That's not the issue IMO. This is not a pulling engine, it's a drag racing engine that has to accelerate through an rpm range and IMO a shorter stroke will get the job done better than a longer stroke. When I refer to piston speed I'm thinking in reference to the induction. I'm talking about peak piston acceleration and the demand on the induction. Ring seal is a whole other discussion.

Scott Foxwell

Posts : 398
Join date : 2011-06-23
Location : N/E Tennessee

View user profile http://www.straubtechnologies.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Which Head?- 598 NA

Post  Lem Evans on September 16th 2016, 3:01 pm

I see where you are coming from but, I've been involved with several dozen 588/598/604 engines with the "A" or "C" heads and haven't seen the 4.5" stroke to be an issue at that kind of RPM.

It may be one of those deals where something isn't as bad as it looks like it is.

Lem Evans

Posts : 7067
Join date : 2008-12-03
Location : Livermore , Ky

View user profile http://bfevansraceparts.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Which Head?- 598 NA

Post  Scott Foxwell on September 16th 2016, 3:10 pm

Lem Evans wrote:I see where you are coming from but, I've been involved with several dozen 588/598/604 engines with the "A" or "C" heads and haven't seen the 4.5" stroke to be an issue at that kind of RPM.

It may be one of those deals where something isn't as bad as it looks like it is.    
Never said it was bad. Just not necessary... again, IMO. Wink Lots of ways to skin this cat. Cool

Scott Foxwell

Posts : 398
Join date : 2011-06-23
Location : N/E Tennessee

View user profile http://www.straubtechnologies.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Which Head?- 598 NA

Post  Lem Evans on September 16th 2016, 6:33 pm

I didn't say you were talking ring seal.....Randy was.

Most of the time there is a practical & a financial factor to my view of an engine package. Both are very kin.

The practical aspect of the crankshaft is: OP said he is gonna use a Scat crankshaft...the readily available shafts from Scat and most others are 4.300" not 4.375".
The financial aspect of the crankshaft is: strokes other than 4.150/4.300/4.500" really effect the price point.

Another aspect of the practical side of a package for this truck is: The thing weighs TWO TONS and the track can be as short as 300'. I'll take some 'peak' or any other way I can get it piston acceleration. Smile

Lem Evans

Posts : 7067
Join date : 2008-12-03
Location : Livermore , Ky

View user profile http://bfevansraceparts.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Which Head?- 598 NA

Post  rmcomprandy on September 16th 2016, 7:06 pm

Lem Evans wrote:I didn't say you were talking ring seal.....Randy was.

Most of the time there is a practical & a financial factor to my view of an engine package. Both are very kin.

The practical aspect of the crankshaft is: OP said he is gonna use a Scat crankshaft...the readily available shafts from Scat and most others are 4.300" not 4.375".
The financial aspect of the crankshaft is: strokes other than 4.150/4.300/4.500" really effect the price point.

Another aspect of the practical side of a package for this truck is: The thing weighs TWO TONS and the track can be as short as 300'. I'll take some 'peak' or any other way I can get it piston acceleration. Smile

I have often witnessed "blow-by" meter testing when reaching over 90 feet per second average piston speed, that a normal big bore .043" thick ring weighs enough that it WILL flutter and not seal against the piston ring land when changing directions at TDC unless it is assisted by some kind of gas port or crankcase vacuum or preferably both.

Believe whatever you wish to believe and I will, too.

rmcomprandy

Posts : 5047
Join date : 2008-12-02
Location : Roseville, Michigan

View user profile http://www.rmcompetition.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Which Head?- 598 NA

Post  Scott Foxwell on September 16th 2016, 7:46 pm

rmcomprandy wrote:
Lem Evans wrote:I didn't say you were talking ring seal.....Randy was.

Most of the time there is a practical & a financial factor to my view of an engine package. Both are very kin.

The practical aspect of the crankshaft is: OP said he is gonna use a Scat crankshaft...the readily available shafts from Scat and most others are 4.300" not 4.375".
The financial aspect of the crankshaft is: strokes other than 4.150/4.300/4.500" really effect the price point.

Another aspect of the practical side of a package for this truck is: The thing weighs TWO TONS and the track can be as short as 300'. I'll take some 'peak' or any other way I can get it piston acceleration. Smile

I have often witnessed "blow-by" meter testing when reaching over 90 feet per second average piston speed, that a normal big bore .043" thick ring weighs enough that it WILL flutter and not seal against the piston ring land when changing directions at TDC unless it is assisted by some kind of gas port or crankcase vacuum or preferably both.

Believe whatever you wish to believe and I will, too.
I completely agree with you...but I can't imagine building an engine like this without either (gas porting, proper ring gaps and a vac pump). I guess I figure that's a given.

Scott Foxwell

Posts : 398
Join date : 2011-06-23
Location : N/E Tennessee

View user profile http://www.straubtechnologies.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Which Head?- 598 NA

Post  Scott Foxwell on September 16th 2016, 7:48 pm

rmcomprandy wrote:
Lem Evans wrote:I didn't say you were talking ring seal.....Randy was.

Most of the time there is a practical & a financial factor to my view of an engine package. Both are very kin.

The practical aspect of the crankshaft is: OP said he is gonna use a Scat crankshaft...the readily available shafts from Scat and most others are 4.300" not 4.375".
The financial aspect of the crankshaft is: strokes other than 4.150/4.300/4.500" really effect the price point.

Another aspect of the practical side of a package for this truck is: The thing weighs TWO TONS and the track can be as short as 300'. I'll take some 'peak' or any other way I can get it piston acceleration. Smile

I have often witnessed "blow-by" meter testing when reaching over 90 feet per second average piston speed, that a normal big bore .043" thick ring weighs enough that it WILL flutter and not seal against the piston ring land when changing directions at TDC unless it is assisted by some kind of gas port or crankcase vacuum or preferably both.

Believe whatever you wish to believe and I will, too.
Yeah, I never understood the odd crank choices for Fords. In that case I'd go for the 4.5 as well. Just wouldn't be my first choice especially with an A head.

Scott Foxwell

Posts : 398
Join date : 2011-06-23
Location : N/E Tennessee

View user profile http://www.straubtechnologies.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Which Head?- 598 NA

Post  Lem Evans on September 16th 2016, 8:19 pm

rmcomprandy wrote:
Lem Evans wrote:I didn't say you were talking ring seal.....Randy was.

Most of the time there is a practical & a financial factor to my view of an engine package. Both are very kin.

The practical aspect of the crankshaft is: OP said he is gonna use a Scat crankshaft...the readily available shafts from Scat and most others are 4.300" not 4.375".
The financial aspect of the crankshaft is: strokes other than 4.150/4.300/4.500" really effect the price point.

Another aspect of the practical side of a package for this truck is: The thing weighs TWO TONS and the track can be as short as 300'. I'll take some 'peak' or any other way I can get it piston acceleration. Smile

I have often witnessed "blow-by" meter testing when reaching over 90 feet per second average piston speed, that a normal big bore .043" thick ring weighs enough that it WILL flutter and not seal against the piston ring land when changing directions at TDC unless it is assisted by some kind of gas port or crankcase vacuum or preferably both.

Believe whatever you wish to believe and I will, too.

What is "normal" .043" deal look like? Is it a .210" or 170"?

Lem Evans

Posts : 7067
Join date : 2008-12-03
Location : Livermore , Ky

View user profile http://bfevansraceparts.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Which Head?- 598 NA

Post  rmcomprandy on September 16th 2016, 8:27 pm

Scott Foxwell wrote:
rmcomprandy wrote:
Lem Evans wrote:I didn't say you were talking ring seal.....Randy was.

Most of the time there is a practical & a financial factor to my view of an engine package. Both are very kin.

The practical aspect of the crankshaft is: OP said he is gonna use a Scat crankshaft...the readily available shafts from Scat and most others are 4.300" not 4.375".
The financial aspect of the crankshaft is: strokes other than 4.150/4.300/4.500" really effect the price point.

Another aspect of the practical side of a package for this truck is: The thing weighs TWO TONS and the track can be as short as 300'. I'll take some 'peak' or any other way I can get it piston acceleration. Smile

I have often witnessed "blow-by" meter testing when reaching over 90 feet per second average piston speed, that a normal big bore .043" thick ring weighs enough that it WILL flutter and not seal against the piston ring land when changing directions at TDC unless it is assisted by some kind of gas port or crankcase vacuum or preferably both.

Believe whatever you wish to believe and I will, too.
I completely agree with you...but I can't imagine building an engine like this without either (gas porting, proper ring gaps and a vac pump). I guess I figure that's a given.

You would then probably be surprised what some people want in their interest of cutting some costs because they just don't believe it is at all very important. THey want the "buzz" parts and do the rest as cheaply as possible; (you know who they are) ... those always first round losers who just wish to be a part of that particular racing fraternity who revel talking about the really good stuff and just have little idea about what is probably necessary to make that good stuff work well.

I machine stuff for those people all the time and they almost take it as an affront when I won't assemble it the way they want so, they do it themselves.

rmcomprandy

Posts : 5047
Join date : 2008-12-02
Location : Roseville, Michigan

View user profile http://www.rmcompetition.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Which Head?- 598 NA

Post  Lem Evans on September 16th 2016, 8:29 pm

Scott Foxwell wrote:
rmcomprandy wrote:
Lem Evans wrote:I didn't say you were talking ring seal.....Randy was.

Most of the time there is a practical & a financial factor to my view of an engine package. Both are very kin.

The practical aspect of the crankshaft is: OP said he is gonna use a Scat crankshaft...the readily available shafts from Scat and most others are 4.300" not 4.375".
The financial aspect of the crankshaft is: strokes other than 4.150/4.300/4.500" really effect the price point.

Another aspect of the practical side of a package for this truck is: The thing weighs TWO TONS and the track can be as short as 300'. I'll take some 'peak' or any other way I can get it piston acceleration. Smile

I have often witnessed "blow-by" meter testing when reaching over 90 feet per second average piston speed, that a normal big bore .043" thick ring weighs enough that it WILL flutter and not seal against the piston ring land when changing directions at TDC unless it is assisted by some kind of gas port or crankcase vacuum or preferably both.

Believe whatever you wish to believe and I will, too.
Yeah, I never understood the odd crank choices for Fords. In that case I'd go for the 4.5 as well. Just wouldn't be my first choice especially with an A head.

Well uh, there is nothing 'odd' about it.:

4.500" stroke with a 6.700"  or a 4.300" stroke with a 6.800" rod works with the same piston CH/CD.... grade school math.

Lem Evans

Posts : 7067
Join date : 2008-12-03
Location : Livermore , Ky

View user profile http://bfevansraceparts.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Which Head?- 598 NA

Post  rmcomprandy on September 16th 2016, 8:35 pm

Lem Evans wrote:

What is  "normal" .043" deal look like? Is it a .210" or 170"?

NORMAL piston ring radial dimension is spelled out in the automotive machinists handbook as "bore size divided by 22"

Anything else in the aftermarket costs more money and a lot of cheap-ass people don't believe it is necessary to spend their money on things like that.  It doesn't show and they don't know how to talk about it.


Last edited by rmcomprandy on September 16th 2016, 8:38 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : spelling)

rmcomprandy

Posts : 5047
Join date : 2008-12-02
Location : Roseville, Michigan

View user profile http://www.rmcompetition.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Which Head?- 598 NA

Post  Scott Foxwell on September 16th 2016, 8:37 pm

Lem Evans wrote:
Scott Foxwell wrote:
rmcomprandy wrote:
Lem Evans wrote:I didn't say you were talking ring seal.....Randy was.

Most of the time there is a practical & a financial factor to my view of an engine package. Both are very kin.

The practical aspect of the crankshaft is: OP said he is gonna use a Scat crankshaft...the readily available shafts from Scat and most others are 4.300" not 4.375".
The financial aspect of the crankshaft is: strokes other than 4.150/4.300/4.500" really effect the price point.

Another aspect of the practical side of a package for this truck is: The thing weighs TWO TONS and the track can be as short as 300'. I'll take some 'peak' or any other way I can get it piston acceleration. Smile

I have often witnessed "blow-by" meter testing when reaching over 90 feet per second average piston speed, that a normal big bore .043" thick ring weighs enough that it WILL flutter and not seal against the piston ring land when changing directions at TDC unless it is assisted by some kind of gas port or crankcase vacuum or preferably both.

Believe whatever you wish to believe and I will, too.
Yeah, I never understood the odd crank choices for Fords. In that case I'd go for the 4.5 as well. Just wouldn't be my first choice especially with an A head.

Well uh, there is nothing 'odd' about it.:

4.500" stroke with a 6.700"  or a 4.300" stroke with a 6.800" rod works with the same piston CH/CD.... grade school math.
Give it a rest Lem.

Scott Foxwell

Posts : 398
Join date : 2011-06-23
Location : N/E Tennessee

View user profile http://www.straubtechnologies.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Which Head?- 598 NA

Post  Lem Evans on September 16th 2016, 8:43 pm

rmcomprandy wrote:
Lem Evans wrote:

What is  "normal" .043" deal look like? Is it a .210" or 170"?

NORMAL piston ring radial dimension is spelled out in the automotive machinists handbook as "bore size divided by 22"

Anything else in the aftermarket costs more money and a lot of cheap-ass people don't believe is is necessary to spend their money on things like that.  It doesn't show and they don't know how to talk about it.

Easy there Randy lol!

You gotta understand that I aint having one of the machinists hand job books Smile

Lem Evans

Posts : 7067
Join date : 2008-12-03
Location : Livermore , Ky

View user profile http://bfevansraceparts.com

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum