Need for Speed

Shure, if you want to shorten its Servce life.

Flat out wrong. Uphill is exactly where the OD excells for low HP engines.

 

2x on Ken's take of F heads like for high rpm. I never had much luck getting more than about 60k out of a bore job/ring set in either of the 134's. I suspect this is because of that 4.375" stroke and the resulting high piston acceleration at TDC/BDC and perhaps the lack of any significant Cr/Ni in the block. Sustained high rpms will accerbate this considerably. I think LIG is going to find the life of his Typhoon build up is going to be short, probably decreased by about the same percentage as the horsepower is gained. However, I too await the dyno slip.

Revisiting the crankshaft velocity issue, is it a valid argument to base the speed at which an engine will run on a comparision of the rpm at only peak torque? IMO, no. Some torque curves are decidedly peaky while others can be relatively flat with high torque spread over a considerable rpm band. The latter engine will continue to produce high torque well past the peak, the former will not. While the cam profile (something that is usually relatively easy to change) will likely have the greatest influence on the hp/torque curves, manifolds, heads, cr's, and headers will also have some bearing. I recently purchased a roller cam for the 3B. The durations for both the intake and exhaust are less than the flat tappet presently installed, while the new torque curve is both substantially higher and much flatter-all due to cam profile (and no, this is not a 134).

 

Roller cam? OK, I am probably not on the same level here as far as performance engine tech. What kind of gains can you get out of the F head without going overboard $-wise? I love the torque of these motors. Can you squeeze more top end. Kind of sounds like a "No" without sacrificing a lot of durability. And you still have the long stroke.

 

Not sure you can find a roller cam for a 134, mine is in a sbc. As to power gains from the F head, I think there is more than a little heightened anticipation of LIG's build-up. Hope he can put a bunch of miles on it and tell us what does and does not work.

I am not sure there are any low budget things you can do to significantly boost 134 output. You probably get the most bang for the buck with high compression pistons and a modern ignition, but neither are cheap and, IMO, the pistons would only go in if it needed rebuilt anyway.

 

I believe the high compression head produces the best bang for your buck.
Yes I agree hotter ignition is also. important.

I've gotten 75,000 miles out of my last F-134 rebuild. That long efficient stroke took its toll.
I did not size the rods and this was its downfall. It flatteneded a crank journal babbitt.

I have searched this before. Is there is a Dauntless dynamometer chart available ?
Without a chart one cannot know the Dauntless torque curvature.
The F-134 chart is seen here... http://www.film.queensu.ca/cj3B/Tech/EngineDyno.html
My previous reference to Dauntless vs. Hurricane is specifically oriented to the crankshaft velocity at maximum engine efficiency.

Speed and HP technically are seperate issues.
SPEED being the measure of linear distance divided by time.
HORSEPOWER being the measure of work divided by time.

The Dauntless is OBVIOUSLY the preferred engine to provide identical speed in less time when compared to the Hurricane.
The actual speed achieved is determined in part by engine harnessed force and the various resistances to this motive force.

 

I read a write up some time ago where a guy stuck a Weber, electronic ignition and a header on a F134. He was pleased but he also spent the $ too. I have never seen a huge gain just bolting this stuff on any other engine. I would bet 10% maybe over a properly tuned "stock" setup. Oh, and I missed the "(and no, this is not a 134)" at the end of the post. Didn't think there would be much of a market for F134 roller cams. Anyway, good information.