Video

@paulthompson1654 you are right. There is a ton of misinformation out there. I am trying to take some of that guesswork out of it for anyone who wants to take the time to listen to my videos.

@@tristan_white Even AFR donot do calculations unless u ask . I found out the wrong way well before I asked the correct questions . Firstly AFR assumed my vehicle chassis setup was semi stock . Proof is an 195 struggles to make power on a 400cuin over 5800rpm . Would have been good as a factory option for a mild setup. Well proven that 227AFR is a good head for 6800-7000 peak on a 400 . The 220 is spot on for 400 cuin for rpm limit of 6500rpm . 400 builds are not as common and more costly [block] typically but in the last few years many dyno sheets are appearing for many street variations . Unfortunately sellers are still thinking either 350/383 when recommending parts.

@paulthompson1654 yeah, this industry can be frustrating. Having the knowledge to ask very specific questions is important. A lot of the answering service people for the big companies really don't know any of the technical info and you have to make sure you talk to the right people to get the right parts for your needs.

@joeg9200 yeah, I didn't do much videos back then. The main focus of this video was to provide a build sheet in the description.

@MrTurboTurkey I over built the engine so that I could experiment with a lot of things for fun. In the current configuration, I expect that the engine will last a very long time. Obviously, as I push it harder, anything could happen. I always mateculously calculate everything prior to doing it for real to give it the best chance of running very well. So far, everything I have done has added power, so there will be a point where the "block" fails as it is the weakest link.

@tristan_white Sounds like a blast. I think you would enjoy the build from Best Tugs. He put a detent in the throttle lever the hits the nitrous with 3 different presets. Its a bush plane so he had to figure out and account for different altitudes and stuff. Happy building man, im excited to see whats next.

Is there another way to contact you other then comment section

@DragpackRacing no, but I am really responsive on here unless I am at work. What's your question specifically? For a turbo, your turbine size will impact the backpressure in the exhaust system dramatically. If it is not managed well, it will cause a loss of hp and potentially cause damage to parts.

@@tristan_white ok but your car is turbo and you used this math corrrct? If not what math did you use? Or I can give you any info you need on my build of your willing to help? I am in the process of doing the manifold as we speak. Any help would be greatly appreciated I’m never scared of knowledge! 🤣 especially free knowledge!!

@@tristan_white I’m trying to find the optimal runner size and length for my setup..to make the most power for a drag setup.

@@DragpackRacing I need a lot more info than that. Complete application info. Literally everything about the engine.

@CarlosTrujillo-vh5dv yeah, it is supercharged now with a 900cfm Sniper X-Flow making 464hp to the tires. See my newer stuff. I do some videos on header selection. I have some Hooker 1-3/4" Long tubes on mine. They are not easy to fit.

Very true, good comment. This can vary slightly with different manufacturers and different grades of steel, so it's not as standard of a measurement and should always be checked.

@@tristan_white great video by the way! Really informative!

@@ryanlohrenz190 I am glad you liked it and found it helpful!

@peterolson8350 no, this was originally a formula that was determined to help choose LCA (lobe center angle), which is the ICL (intake center line) for a 10.5:1 CR sbc engine.

​@@tristan_whiteOk, but what if I were to apply that formula to my BBM (512) with cr12.5?

@peterolson8350 that formula is not very scientific and is just a thumb rule. The most important thing to determine is the IVC point, EVO point, and then determine how much overlap you need based on the rpm you want to make peak power in. The rest is derivative. See the below video to then turn those points into a camshaft from a catalog. I would recommend taking it one step further and look at lobe profiles, because based on ramp rate you will also impact the rpm band and hp potential. Look for Cams with larger .200" lift durations with the same overall duration. This will be a more aggressive lobe and require more valve spring but will always net more power. czcams.com/video/pJ5V556dROo/video.html

​@@tristan_whiteI'll watch it tomorrow, now it's the middle of the night here in Sweden

​@@tristan_whiteI'll watch it tomorrow, now it's the middle of the night here in Sweden

@@robertheymann5906 no problem!

@josephspratt2055 I understand that. I will be very busy for the next few months, but after that, I will do some more videos, and try to touch back on some of this material with more math and actual flow bench usage.

@peterolson8350 false my friend. Every single valve is open 50 times a second at 6k rpm & 58 times a second at 7k rpm (give or take a few times based on cam duration). There is essentially constant flow at higher rpm, which is why stock low rpm cars/trucks see almost no performance gain from shorty headers alone because there is just not enough flow to matter. If the engine is designed for hp it is typically making hp >6k rpm, which is where this flow becomes critical and will "I repeat will" have excessive back pressure with those small collectors.

Doesn't matter how much it revs. Is as you write ALMOST constant flow, but NOT constant flow. So it will be completely wrong to calculate as you do

@peterolson8350 I don't mean to sound rude, but prove it. Show me how you are right and I will change my way of thinking. See my more recent videos on how to calculate flow requirements, and show me how I am wrong please.

​@@tristan_whiteAfter all, the exhaust valve is closed longer than it is open, then there can be nothing but pulsating flow. Will be the same phenomenon on the intake side if you have IR intake, 1 carb port to each intake port. If I had it on my Mbb, each carburettor port would have to flow about 370 cfm, that would be almost 3000 cfm in total. But if I were to use a tunnelram or a single plane, I wouldn't even need half of the 3000 cfm in carburetor size.

@peterolson8350 flow on the intake side is handled very differently than the exhaust side. You are not taking into account the gas expansion rate. I did a series of videos on headers, and one of them particularly I thought you may like. Again, I am absolutely open to any learning and feedback, but I want to make sure we are on the same page. If your interested check it out: czcams.com/video/IAh7rM2ZDYs/video.html

@georgedreisch2662 knock tolerance of the fuel we are using is how we determine appropriate timing. If the methanol is injecting at a fixed rate the lower the fuel demand the higher the octane will be if it is still injecting fully. It doesn't matter if your at a drag strip or climbing a hill, the engines fuel demand & IAT will dictate knock tolerance. The rpm where you generate the maximum amount of torque is where cylinder pressure is at its highest point, and will also be where your closest to knock on pump gas. If your injecting methanol, water, or a blend of both you are lowering the IATs and raising the octane of the fuel (except if 100% water). Both fight knock, and will raise your knock threshold. Our best timing curve will be different for every engine, but it is selected based on this information. Did I answer your question?

@paulmurphy9902 Liquid Nitrous Oxide has a latent heat of vaporization of 161.7 BTU/LB below temperatures of 97.5°F. Above that temperature, the nitrous will discharge as a supercritical fluid with no latent heat of vaporization benefit. At that point, the temperature drop will only be due to the rapid expansion. This is the reason getting bottles at the best temperature & pressure prior to a run is very important. You can use the math I taught in Part 1 to determine the cooling benefit of nitrous oxide. It is 10.23lb/Gal and your jetting will tell you how much you are using just like meth injection.

@georgedreisch2662 I believe you are asking if the additional volumn of methanol & water in the intake port will displace air flow impacting performance & VE? If so, the answer is a little more complicated. When we raise the air density per cfm we can get away with displacing some of it with the fuel/water and still make more hp. However, there is a point where the air density no longer raises and we will impact hp by displacing too much air flow (balancing act). As long as the AFR is on target this shouldn't be happening.

@@tristan_white yup, think you got what I asked. Can imagine how further complicated this’d get for the different properties, interactions and variables… I’m finding this all interesting and useful, as I’m in the process of planning a N/A DOHC V-twin. I’m thinking they’ve left >30% potential on the table for induction, valve train, architectural constraints, but don’t see bigger as being better. Focusing on velocity management. I’m imagining a good amount of TIG time in the future. Thanks for the reply!

@georgedreisch2662 yeah, it's not about how big the port is. It's about getting all of the local velocities correct. Getting flow at every part of the port as close to between 315-330fps is key on the cylinder head. Camshaft just need to be chosen once the head is done to maximize its flow potential.

@@sharifmowad627 no problem! Hope it was helpful!

@@mituc Glad you found it helpful!

@norb231 E-85 technically requires 26.74% more fuel to make the same hp as gasoline, but most people run it on the rich side to take advantage of the cooling ability. Gasoline's energy density is 120,476 BTU/Gal as compared to E-85's 88,258 BTU/Gal. M1 Methanol is 65,200 BTU/Gal, which means it requires 45.88% more fuel than gasoline to make the same hp (in regards to BTU output alone). Usually, people run about 3x more methonal the gasoline for max hp. How much more of each fuel you run will be purely on the needs of the combination. The higher the boost, the more fuel you will need to facilitate combustion to ensure the proper AFR.

@@tristan_white That maybe correct using BTU's but using stoich values the fuel is 9.76 vs 14.65 =.666 , then the amount of fuel volume change on e85 is 1/.666= 51% more vs gas to maintain stoich, However in the real world 35-40% works. out.

@@norb231 yeah, I don't use AFR values when comparing different fuels much unless I convert everything to Lambda scale. It's not a direct relationship when tuning if the AFR gauge is calibrated to a gasoline 14.7:1. If you use 9.76:1 when tuning using a gasoline calibrated AFR gauge you will be very rich. In reality, tuning without converting will yield similar AFR demand as with gasoline.

@@tristan_white The afr gauge is usually set to read gas, but if you put e85 it will read the same values, unless you calibrated it for E85 scaling. In the holley, if you set the fuel calculations for e85 you better use the E85 scale. if you stay on the gas scale tune it normally as you would for gas maybe 10% richer, as e85 tends to favor running a bit rich, however the VE tables will be abnormally high. LIke you said lambda is easier to deal with in the end, especially with flex fuel setup.

Yep, a fact many do not understand!

@@vg23air you need to know the flow rating in cfm on the exhaust side before you can calculate that.

​@@tristan_white throttle intake is 197.76 cfm my cam is 0.4075 Lift Intake Exhaust cfm .100 48 42 .150 64 57 .200 78 72 .250 94 85 .300 106 94 .350 114 97 .400 117 101 .450 121 105 .500 127 110 .550 130 113 **

The answer is "it depends." There is a specific rpm window (usually pretty narrow) where this is true in some applications. Every application has a different window. There is a lot of math that goes into getting that right, and it is not super simple to explain. We have a few things happening, we have something called adiabatic expansion happening at that point, as well as a change is gas entropy. The derivative is a complex calc that also adds in the impact to isentropic flow.

Just the name of my truck.

@x2bannedyoutubeaccount408 she's not the most powerful truck out there, but she is still a lot of fun.

@jakubkeclik9589 you are absolutely correct. Honestly, I was just going for simplicity. I am all about being exact though, so when doing this calculation I recommend using the method you described for reflective wave timing. The average guy doesn't truly understand how to degree a cam and find the true seat to seat timing (cam cards lie). The critical numbers for header sizing is "net flow rate", and while it does change the output some on reflective waves (still important) the impact of keeping it simple for that specific parameter in this discussion is negligible. Good feedback to add in the comments though!

@@Gratitude6ixty9ine It is a Blower Shop 192 Supercharger.

@@edsmachine93 thank you!

You need a cam card or us my other videos to figure out the individual timing events.

Nope, this build was 100% Emissions legal.

I have a video on my channel of my last dyno session. It put down 463hp/455tq to the rear wheels. I just swapped the blower to a high-helix version, turned up the boost, and added methanol injection. Once I get it tuned up a bit more I will take it back to the dyno. Shooting for over 500+ wheel hp this next time.

The entire build list with part numbers is in the video description.

​@@tristan_whiteappreciate it bro

No problem

I am running a beefed up 700R4.

It is a Blower Shop 192.

No it is a Blower Shop 192.

@@tristan_white very cool

How much boost does it make?

@@wadeepps3443 I have pullies that vary from 5 psig to 13 psig.

Duration is based on degrees of crankshaft rotation. However, based on the lobe profile, you will have different lift values during that duration event. In previous videos, I went through how to choose the duration required to obtain the required flow as well as how much flow your heads need to be able to support. I also covered how to obtain the net flow for a given lobe profile.

Ah, ok. I haven't watched all of your videos yet. I'm definitely going to, though. Thank you!

@@Driver_32 let me know if I do not answer your question.

I have no way of posting it on here, or I would. I would just screenshot what you want. Some of my newer videos I go into more detail on exhaust and hp calculations given density.

​@@tristan_whiteu can upload document to google drive...

It is a solid roller cam. Lash.

Let me know if you have any questions.

@@tristan_white For now I just have one. Is that TBS192 a quality item/setup? I'm impressed with the data from the Sniper. I might have to step up $$$ and go that route.

@mikef-gi2dg the TBS 192 is good for up to about 650 hp without nitrous. My combo makes 463 to the rear wheels, so probably 550-580hp to the crank. It has a little more to offer with E-85 and some other airflow improvements. I haven't dynoed it since the new high-helix version, but it makes 1.5 psig more boost at the same rotor speed.

@@tristan_white That power level is exactly what I can be happy with for a long time, and the E-85 factor addea a cherry on top. Do you have to change the Sniper for E-85? This info was very helpful, thanks a bunch.

Yeah, it's new. I sent mine back in to have it modified.

@@tristan_white I just looked at their website...and they mention it briefly, with no details.

​@mikef-gi2dg yeah, it makes 1.5 psig more boost at the same rotor speed, but I am more interested to see what the exit temperature improvement does for density & power. I'm not sure if it is worth the extra cost, but we will see when I take it to the dyno.

@@tristan_white I have been watching a lot of Gale Banks videos and I have gained a new appreciation for the data you speak of. Lots of boosted videos out there, but nobody talks about the data, that makes or breaks a build. Just slap on a turbo and rule the world. Looking forward to the dyno test video.

@mikef-gi2dg most do not understand the data, and so they do not leverage it. I am glad you appreciate the information.

The sharp edge orifice I use has a 3" diameter. I do not know the thickness off the top of my head, but it is very thin. Why?

@@tristan_white Thanks , well i made a new plate for my bench which i built near 20 years ago, (was in storage for 10 yrs now rebooting) my current plate is a 300 cfm and its ID is 2.753" , thickness is 0.028 sheet metal, and my piping is 4". The plate i just made on my lathe is from 0.250" extruded 6061 aluminum and has a perfect square edged bore of 2.64" , supposedly that would be a 275 cfm plate according the Flo Bench plans i'm using and bought from an ad i came across in hot rod magazine back in the day. Your plate having a big 3" bore would im guessing be like a 400 cfm in my setup , piping in your setup is 6" by the look of it so a 3" plate seems appropriate. My bench has manometer (both H2o & digital) stability issues 0.500 lift (the new 275 plate didn't fix this) and im beginning to suspect that my signal pickup in the vena contracta might be to far from my orifice plate and in a position that becomes turbulent at higher flow rate. My signal pickups / tube connections , are at 1 inch on either side of the orifice plate and im thinking that might be to far away ? i think you even mention in one of your videos that the pickups need to be right beside the plate ? Im also thinking of putting a 3 angle inlet on my new orifice plate to change the shape of the vena contracta and make it longer / less turbulent ?

@luckyPiston yes, you want them as close to the plate as possible to prevent them being influenced by airflow. However, when you see a large fluctuation in your manometer, it is usually due to flow turbulance in the cylinder head port. To test this take the head off the flowbench and run your bench wide open, if you see a nice smooth DP across your orifice then it is the cylinder head and not your bench design. When port velocity gets too high (>330 fpm) then you start to get turbulance, and this causes pressure pulsations that you see in your manometer.

Sorry I cannot Translate that...