The 230 Headerfold project

[MoparNorm]

Chris, for the "masses" here is that photo I sent you regarding the Jeep 258 header, 304 Stainless, about $550.

[maineSS]

Chris;
I'm looking at the percentage difference between your starting point (45) and your endpoint (65)- that's how I came up with ~30% increase for 20 Hp. Shell Oil experimented with a heatpipe hotspot add-on device called the "Vapipe" in the 70's, but never produced it commercially. The idea was that exhaust heat works faster than water for cold starts, but has problems with carbon/corrosion in manifold passages, so the heatpipe would replace small dia exhaust crossovers in the intake manifold. In my opinion, efficiently vaporizing gasoline to uniform 10 micron particles is the way to go- you don't lose power by heating incoming air (about 1% per 10 deg F). What rpm did you run your dyno tests at? I'm puzzled by the 45 Hp figure- it just seems rather low for a 95 Hp output, unless the 95 Hp was a "gross Hp" rating. It seems that combining better breathing with more compression and a 1958 pattern head should get earlier model PW's enough power for moderate highway speeds. If the crank oiling mods used on the tractor pull 230 work for sustained 4000 rpm operation, it would also help the highway problem with the 5.83's.

[chriscase]

So the heat pipe is a 'theoretical' item at this point in time.

The engine in my command car was a mish-mosh of parts, rebuilt and assembled in about 1978. I know that I had three sets of valves, and still had to buy four new exhausts anyways. So CR and cam are unknowns at this point. 95 psi? seems memorable.

Max hp is the only data I remember, after 25 years. OH, and there was an intermediate test, 52 horse power with a dyno tune and a Holly 1bbl from a slant six. And paper air filter.

Re: HP ratings:

Gross horsepower is with NO accessories- like alternator, water pump, or any drive train. Reasonable drive train/water pump/alternator loss for a modern V8= 15%? Would be about 40 HP? So same drivetrain/pump/alternator loss from 95hp would equal something like 45?

That command car ran better than any of the other 5-6 PWs I've had. Maybe it was lighter, being 1/2t, and less drag, being open top, and less friction in the t/c, being one speed? But I did add an MU-5 and bumper. Plus rode better with the lighter springs. I was running M37 5.83 pumpkins, in spite of the smaller splines on the 1/2t axles. It was a lot of fun, 25 years ago. 14 folks and a keg of beer, heading to the beach. John Winn standing up behind the rear seat, peeing off the back on El Cajon Blvd. Before sun set. Ah, memories. I spent lots of my money on power wagons and beer, and wasted the rest...

[chriscase]

And oh, what were the tractor pull oiling mods?

I heard back in 77 that you could reduce the size of the oil holes in the crank, at the rods, to prevent the crank from acting like a centrifugal pump and sucking the oil out of the rest of the system. Never did try it.

[chriscase]

Mu consciousness is steadily streaming:

How about an intake/riser/heater/collector? From one block of aluminum, three holes on the bottom to line up with the required three intake runners, one big hole on top to suit the carb, made from a block large enough to allow drilling lots of interconnecting holes for running hot water through? The three holes would make lots more surface area to conduct the heat from the riser to the air charge.

Now back to my regularly scheduled surfing....

[maineSS]

Chris-
A father-son team down in Tennesse were campaigning an antique tractor made by Dodge during the 50's from 2-ton truck parts. They quickly learned that the 230 didn't last long at 5-6000 rpm, and the biggest problem was the oil feed to #2 & #3 crank mains. These supply oil to rods 2,3 and 4,5 and these would fail at high rpm's (especially 2 & 5) from oil starvation. They solved the problem by cross-drilling the holes in the crank main journal so that the holes supplying the rods were connected. You don't drill new holes in the crank, instead you drill through the existing hole so that it will exit into the other rod hole, creating a passage between them. Mains #1 and #4 supply one rod each, so it's not necessary to drill them. They also deepened and widened the grooves in the bearings, but didn't say how deep or how wide. I would be extremely cautious about messing with these grooves for 2 reasons- (1) Research by GM in the 50's showed that grooving the bottom bearing shell DOUBLED oil film pressure ( which is why GM bottom bearings aren't grooved), and (2) increasing oil flow thru the bearings without knowing how much oil volume is being supplied is tricky- guess wrong and things get ugly quick. They also mentioned that the holes in the block didn't line up well with the one in the bearing, and required matching. I'd cross-drill and match, and leave the grooves alone.
They'd rev the engine up to 5-6000 rpm off the line, and hold it for 10-15 sec under full load during a pull- on stock valve springs! They did line bore the block, balance the rotating assembly to 6000 rpm, and spent a lot of effort on rod prep. There were no problems in 2 years of competition, and several teardowns showed no unusual main/rod bearing wear. One thing they did note was how quickly the flathead heated up compared to tractors with OHV engines. After a run, the oilpan was so hot you couldn't touch it, and the rest of the engine was mighty warm also. A 292 engine oilpan would be moderately warm, but its water temp would be higher. The flathead weighs twice as much, but is hotter over all except for water temp-odd! I've noticed that oil colors faster in the PW than in my Monte's V8, so an oil cooler might be a good idea. I would guess that the heating is due to the exhaust exiting thru the block close to the valve springs, which would expose the oil to higher temps than an OHV engine.
I did find some Gross Hp vs Net Hp figures- the difference was 103 vs 91 at 3600 RPM, which would be~12%. After adding it to the tranny and rearend loss, you'd have about 32% loss, excluding t-case and tire losses.
One thing I've noticed about the 230 is that it can lug at levels that would make modern engines buck like a Texas bronco. I'm thinking this may be because of the much longer rods- I'd like to see what a modern OHV head with non-siamesed intake runners and Fast Burn combustion chambers would do for that long rod bottom end!

[chriscase]

It's not the long rods that made for low end, it is the looong stroke.

There is an optimum rod length, figured in how many degrees it swings back and forth at the wrist pin. Too long, less swing, poor oiling of the wrist pin. Too short, too much swing, to much side thrust on the piston. Thats a difference in the high-block vs low block in the big blocks by both Mopar and GM.

I did have a 230 idling at 50 rpm once. Smooth as glass. Then I looked at the oil pressure- ZERO! Oil volume drops with speed, but clearances don't get any tighter!

ETA, No, I don't think the exhaust gas is any closer to the springs in a FH than in a OHV. I would think that the excess heat in the oil could be from two places: oil splased directly onto the inside of the exhaust ports in the block, and also directly from more friction involved with the looong stroke. Rings rub twice as far in a twice as long stroke, plus the greater momentum of the faster moving rod and piston weight makes more heat every stroke when the have to slow down and go back the other way. Remember, double the stroke will eqaul the same speed as double the rpm. Plus, double the speed will make FOUR times the heat.

[W_A_Watson_II]

mainSS

Tell me more about the Dodge Farm Tractor.

[monkeymissile]

Mu consciousness is steadily streaming:

How about an intake/riser/heater/collector? From one block of aluminum, three holes on the bottom to line up with the required three intake runners, one big hole on top to suit the carb, made from a block large enough to allow drilling lots of interconnecting holes for running hot water through? The three holes would make lots more surface area to conduct the heat from the riser to the air charge.

Chris,
this is the direction I think I am headed. I am not sure how much higher I can raise the carb before hitting underside of hood so I thought maybe making a piece that fit between air cleaner elbow and top of carb instead. Also thought it might be better to heat the air before it entered carb. Thoughts?

Just got through shoveling snow off the roof of my truck's temporary shelter for the 6th time in 3 days. Almost 24" in two storms. Nice!

Justin

[monkeymissile]

Monkey, is it too late for a 'before' dyno test?

Chris,
I'd have no idea of how to even begin to get it dyno'd and I'd have to repair the cracked stock manifold first anyway. That would make quite the photo though, a 7300lb M43 up on a dyno!

justin

[monkeymissile]

MM;
it would be fun to run a chassis dyno test on your rig after intake/exhaust improvement, and see what it gains.

Finally, a "hot spot" works better than intake air heating for vaporization, heat pipes work very quickly once their vaporization point is reached, but the best thing for power production is not to heat incoming air at all. I did some "cold vapor" experimentation on an Escort in the 80's and was able to get 60 MPG when everything worked (not often, with that system).

mSS,
dyno testing not likely in my case. I would've thought heating incoming air would be better. So is heating the air/gas mix better?
Thanks.

How about this snow, eh? I'm not too far SW from Biddeford and we got almost 24" in these last pair of storms.

Justin

[monkeymissile]

Stainless would be nice, but Jeez! About $400 for SS parts from Classic.

I used the typical 'crush bender' for the usual exhaust pipe. Like the cheapest headers are made. Obviously, it worked well. But did get crusty in time. Any pics I would have would have been after 20 years- you boys would lose all respect for me if you saw the state they were in 20 years after I made them. I think I had sprayed them once upon a time with gold header paint. Tacky, but functional.

ETA: I probably used 1 1/2" pipe. I doubt if I found 1 3/8" locally, or that we had dies for it. Tubing is by OD, which would make 1 1/2" 16ga tube 1 3/8 ID. How little are the ports in the block?

Maybe I'll eBay a hydraulic bender and go into business? Dyno Shop payed $2500 for theirs, used, in 1982. I wonder what Harbor Freight has?

ETA: I see Harbor freight has a 12t bender for $70. Anybody try one like that on exhaust pipe? Yaknow, the vertical hydraulic jack that you hand pump. It would only need to pump up a couple dozen 90 degree bends, if you didn't screw up any pipes...

I sourced some fairly inexpensive thick-walled SS pipe and I hope to have access to a mandrel-type bender. Exhaust ports are 1 3/8" and the 1 1/2" pipe works out perfectly.

[chriscase]

The set i did were on a 1/2t, 1941. I was never concerned about the hood height. Thanks for mentioning it, may be a limitation on my '53 FFPW. M37/43s would really limit rise.

I had assumed you would change carbs and air cleaner system. Changing manifolds is only half the battle, with that undersized carb and restrictive filter and ducting. Hmmm, maybe a set of three side draft Mikunis off of a Japanese motorcycle would fill the bill? 32mm would be about 1 1/4" . Or would that look too high tech on that old iron? On the '41 I ran a 2bbl from a '70's 318 van- Stromberg? The GM Monojet one bbl is good, the Duo-jet two bbl Okay also. The small Holley/Weber progressive two bbl (5200?) might get the best milage. Like on Pintos. Holleys have always done a good job of atomizing fuel.

Heating the cooler air after evaporation of gas would be more efficient- more heat to transfer faster with the bigger temperature differential of the hot water vs the colder air after the evaporation of the gas.

[chriscase]

MonkeyMssile, your drawing in post #7 only gives one diameter for a port, 1.25". In your latest post you say exhausts are 1 3/8" Are the intakes 1.25 and the exhausts 1.375?

[monkeymissile]

my bad

MonkeyMssile, your drawing in post #7 only gives one diameter for a port, 1.25". In your latest post you say exhausts are 1 3/8" Are the intakes 1.25 and the exhausts 1.375?

Chris,
I goofed, all ports are 1.25" diameter. I wrote 1.375" becuase that's the pipe ID I plan to use based on some header calculations. Too much holiday candy has got my brain all frazzled!
Thanks for catching that.

Justin