# Direct drive SBC

### Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

#### MARCVINI

##### Well-Known Member
As it might be of public interest, I "extrated" EPI ENG´s weight comparison chart (available at Evaluating an Engine Conversion) wich is quite representative of what one could hope a IO-360 or a IO-540 would weight fully dressed:

 Item 500 HP EPI Gen-1-V8 200 HP Lyc IO-360-C1C6 260 HP Lyc IO-540-D4A5 300 HP Lyc IO-540-K1E5 425 HP Lyc TIGO-541-E1A Engine (complete) 424.0 293.0 402.0 447.0 702.0 Reduction Gearbox 86.0 included Air Cleaner 4.9 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Inlet Air Duct 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Alternate Air Mechanism 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Exhaust Headers 16.2 7.0 9.0 9.0 14.0 Exh pipes to Muffler 3.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 included Muffler 14.2 5.0 6.0 6.0 n/a Exh pipes from Muffler 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Oil Filter + 1 qt oil 3.9 included included included included Oil Heat Exchanger + 1 qt oil 10.9 9.9 10.2 10.2 11.7 Oil Lines 5.6 1.7 2.3 2.3 4.9 Engine Oil 30.7 11.5 15.3 15.3 19.2 Coolant Heat Exchanger 32.3 Expansion Tank 3.1 Overflow Tank 1.9 Coolant Lines 6.2 Coolant (14 qt) 29.2 Fuel Filter 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 Prop Governor 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 Vacuum Pump 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Baffles / Ductwork 9.3 4.2 5.2 5.2 6.2 Propeller 125.0 55.0 79.0 79.0 125.0 Spinner 9.1 7.0 8.0 9.0 9.1 Cowling 35.0 22.0 27.0 27.0 33.0 Engine Mount 47.0 13.5 19.2 19.2 31.0 TOTAL 914.5 451.5 604.9 649.9 975.7 DIFFERENCE 463.0 309.6 264.6 -61.3

I think it can help anyone as a reference for weight diference estimates between auto conversions and aeronautical engines, specially considering the aeronautical engine weights listed. As for the auto engine proposed by EPI, well, every one has his/her own formula/recipe, and, therefore, it may be inaplicable.

Marcvini

Last edited:

#### rv6ejguy

##### Well-Known Member
I also agree. But a criterious aproach SBC/SBF DD wise could make the weight diference manageable. Stol´s success story is the living (and flying...) proof of that.

Markvini
Ben uses a redrive which drastically improves the power to weight ratio of any automotive engine.

#### Doggzilla

##### Well-Known Member
Considering that rally cars run flat out with 400hp and drag engines of about 1400hp, the durability issues with this engine have been answered.

Blaine
In reality, the leagues have to regulate that engines survive a certain number of races. The engines barely survive to the 40-50 hour mark. If it wasnt for the regs, the more wealthy teams would run absolutely insane engines which would last a single race.

#### MARCVINI

##### Well-Known Member
I'd guess that too. Which means that if you needed 450+ HP, an automotive derived V8 with even the heaviest PSRU around would meet and eventually surpass the power/weight of the big bore aircraft engines.

So looking at it another way, looking strictly at power/weight, a IO-720 replacement should be "easy"; a 540 replacement is "possible"; while the 360 is going to be tough to replace with a V-8.
Toobuilder, this is a stroker engine chart, by Engine Builder Magazine. If not everything, it covers almost everything that is worth looking for stroker v8 engine wise. Worth looking at it. I may contain the recipe for you IO540 killer. View attachment 111620StrokerCh_00000062138.pdf

RHS has a very interesting LSx aluminum block, one that, if not on the lightest weight side, can accomodate a 4.600 stroke crank, in order to get the most torque at low revs.

Cheers.

#### MARCVINI

##### Well-Known Member
Ben uses a redrive which drastically improves the power to weight ratio of any automotive engine.
Thanks for reminding me of that. Post was corrected.

Marcvini

#### blainepga

##### Well-Known Member
In reality, the leagues have to regulate that engines survive a certain number of races. The engines barely survive to the 40-50 hour mark. If it wasnt for the regs, the more wealthy teams would run absolutely insane engines which would last a single race.
Any reply that contains a Huskie is one I take seriously. I had four but I lost two and another will be gone shortly. I will be down to one but we are in contact with several rescues and we will get him a new friend for his pack

Blaine

E

#### ekimneirbo

As it might be of public interest, I "extrated" EPI ENG´s weight comparison chart (available at Evaluating an Engine Conversion) wich is quite representative of what one could hope a IO-360 or a IO-540 would weight fully dressed:

 Item 500 HP EPI Gen-1-V8 200 HP Lyc IO-360-C1C6 260 HP Lyc IO-540-D4A5 300 HP Lyc IO-540-K1E5 425 HP Lyc TIGO-541-E1A Engine (complete) 424.0 293.0 402.0 447.0 702.0 Reduction Gearbox 86.0 included Air Cleaner 4.9 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Inlet Air Duct 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Alternate Air Mechanism 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Exhaust Headers 16.2 7.0 9.0 9.0 14.0 Exh pipes to Muffler 3.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 included Muffler 14.2 5.0 6.0 6.0 n/a Exh pipes from Muffler 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Oil Filter + 1 qt oil 3.9 included included included included Oil Heat Exchanger + 1 qt oil 10.9 9.9 10.2 10.2 11.7 Oil Lines 5.6 1.7 2.3 2.3 4.9 Engine Oil 30.7 11.5 15.3 15.3 19.2 Coolant Heat Exchanger 32.3 Expansion Tank 3.1 Overflow Tank 1.9 Coolant Lines 6.2 Coolant (14 qt) 29.2 Fuel Filter 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 Prop Governor 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 Vacuum Pump 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Baffles / Ductwork 9.3 4.2 5.2 5.2 6.2 Propeller 125.0 55.0 79.0 79.0 125.0 Spinner 9.1 7.0 8.0 9.0 9.1 Cowling 35.0 22.0 27.0 27.0 33.0 Engine Mount 47.0 13.5 19.2 19.2 31.0 TOTAL 914.5 451.5 604.9 649.9 975.7 DIFFERENCE 463.0 309.6 264.6 -61.3

I think it can help anyone as a reference for weight diference estimates between auto conversions and aeronautical engines, specially considering the aeronautical engine weights listed. As for the auto engine proposed by EPI, well, every one has his/her own formula/recipe, and, therefore, it may be inaplicable.

Marcvini
You've done a good job reviving this thread, and obviously put a lot of work into searching for information. A couple of things seem to jump out which don't seem to be well thought out. One is the thoughts about engine capacity. As I mentioned earlier, you need to decide what type (mission) of airplane you want. Being in Brazil, it would seem logical that something that could operate from short grass strips would be desirable. Thats my thought, but you may want to travel long distances quickly rater than land short. Which type you select will determine the type of engine that you may utilize. You seem to have ideas running the gamut all the way up to very large cu in (608) aftermarket engines . After deciding what type of airplane, you need to determine how much weight you can actually place in the nose. Ben Haas has done a very credible job building a reduction drive Ford conversion. Ben apparently has exceptional experience and resources along with the talent to bring it all together.
I think he would be the first to tell you that you can only use a certain amount of power in a small airplane. There is no reason to think and dream of excessive power when applied to a small airplane. You can have too much of a good thing......then it becomes a BAD thing. Decide what is usuable without putting you and your plane in an untenable situation. Then start realistically looking for what can provide that power safely and reliably. All the other thoughts are just wasted brain waves. Look at it another way. Lets speculate that you need an engine which will produce 200/250 hp. If an engine is capable of doing this with direct drive, would there be any benefit to adding a redrive at 85 additional pounds and several thousand ($5K) dollars in cost so the engine can operate at 4000 rpms and produce 400 horsepower. The obvious answer is that it does not accomplish anything but adds weight and cost. Now look at what smaller and lighter engines can reliably produce similar horsepower by using a redrive...........and see how much the combination will weigh and cost. Considering things outside that realm only serves to confuse the issue. Ben Haas has pretty well proven his combination. If that satisfies your needs, why not emulate what he has. Remember, virtually any aluminum V8 can be used, its just a matter of how much the final costs will be, and how heavy or light the combination can be made per$. Its kinda like the cost of each sq ft in a house.............

The second point is the list of weights you provided in your chart. While I know your intentions are good, I think that some of them are somewhat higher than what can be assembled in practice. Keep up the good thread..............

Last edited by a moderator:
E

#### ekimneirbo

In reality, the leagues have to regulate that engines survive a certain number of races. The engines barely survive to the 40-50 hour mark. If it wasnt for the regs, the more wealthy teams would run absolutely insane engines which would last a single race.
I remember reading back in the sixties about a group of Chrysler engineers calling themselves the RAMCHARGERS. They had built a "grenade" engine to use if they reached the finals of the NHRA drag nationals. It was designed to last one race (or most of it), and would be used only in a championship race. Nowadays, the top fuel dragsters routinely rebuild complete engines in the pits.

#### MARCVINI

##### Well-Known Member
You've done a good job reviving this thread, and obviously put a lot of work into searching for information. A couple of things seem to jump out which don't seem to be well thought out. One is the thoughts about engine capacity. As I mentioned earlier, you need to decide what type (mission) of airplane you want. Being in Brazil, it would seem logical that something that could operate from short grass strips would be desirable. Thats my thought, but you may want to travel long distances quickly rater than land short. Which type you select will determine the type of engine that you may utilize. You seem to have ideas running the gamut all the way up to very large cu in (608) aftermarket engines . After deciding what type of airplane, you need to determine how much weight you can actually place in the nose. Ben Haas has done a very credible job building a reduction drive Ford conversion. Ben apparently has exceptional experience and resources along with the talent to bring it all together.
I think he would be the first to tell you that you can only use a certain amount of power in a small airplane. There is no reason to think and dream of excessive power when applied to a small airplane. You can have too much of a good thing......then it becomes a BAD thing. Decide what is usuable without putting you and your plane in an untenable situation. Then start realistically looking for what can provide that power safely and reliably. All the other thoughts are just wasted brain waves. Look at it another way. Lets speculate that you need an engine which will produce 200/250 hp. If an engine is capable of doing this with direct drive, would there be any benefit to adding a redrive at 85 additional pounds and several thousand ($5K) dollars in cost so the engine can operate at 4000 rpms and produce 400 horsepower. The obvious answer is that it does not accomplish anything but adds weight and cost. Now look at what smaller and lighter engines can reliably produce similar horsepower by using a redrive...........and see how much the combination will weigh and cost. Considering things outside that realm only serves to confuse the issue. Ben Haas has pretty well proven his combination. If that satisfies your needs, why not emulate what he has. Remember, virtually any aluminum V8 can be used, its just a matter of how much the final costs will be, and how heavy or light the combination can be made per$. Its kinda like the cost of each sq ft in a house.............

The second point is the list of weights you provided in your chart. While I know your intentions are good, I think that some of them are somewhat higher than what can be assembled in practice. Keep up the good thread..............
Thanks for the encouragement, ekimnerbo.

Well, the thing is: all information that comes regarding auto conversions in general are worth looking at. When I started participating of this thread, I said that we are living in the best days the auto conversion comunity has ever seen so far, since there are miriads of experiences, either good or bad, tha can be used to come up with a succesfull outcome.

That said, I am more than happy to share the information I have gathered in my search for a viable DD V8 powerplant for airplanes in the Glasair Sportsman (and why not the RV???) range. And I do it even if a particular information is not closely related to my prospective powerplant.

Regarding the above chart, the aeronautical engine weights listed are quite representative of what, in general, you have in Lyc IO-360 and IO-540s. Regarding the auto conversion listed, I said "as for the auto engine proposed by EPI, well, every one has his/her own formula/recipe, and, therefore, it may be inaplicable". By saying this, what I actually tried to say, in a polite way, is that i also think that "somewhat higher than what can be assembled in practice".

So, altough the amount of information or the number of my posts on this thread leads one to think that I am somewhat dizzy and that I still don´t know what I want or to look for, I have long made up my mind on what path to follow regarding my project. I made that clear on my first post. Here are my choices, now only more streamlined/refined:

1. Airplane: Glasair Sportsman, for its good low speed flight characteritics, decent cruise speed, range and payload and, of course, its looks. In case I can´t afford it, an RV14 is my second choice;

2. Powerplant: DD inverted V8, small block, in stroker form, say, 427 or 454. I have seen that 240+hp/460+ft lb torque at 2800 revs is quite doable and, if coupled to a good FP propeller (CATTO!!!), it would make a good powerplant for either one of those airplanes, not necessarily a take-off-performance-beast, but one close to a 180/200 hp 360 Lyc with CS prop. Weight wise, I know that it is going to be heavier than the engines it is suposed to replace, say, Lyc 360/390 + CS prop, but based on Ben Hass´s experience, I am quite sure that the weight diference is going to be manageable;

Regarding my SBC- or-SBF-or-LSx dilema, my preference lies on keeping the overall appearence of the airplane with minimal departures from its Lyc powered counterparts. According to this, my "projections" favor both SBCs and SBFs. But if you look at the two drawings that I have posted some posts ago (## 411 and 416), you will see that an SBC/SBF installation would require minor cowling mods: lengthening, addition of an intake scoop and, maybe, a little reshaping of the front part of the lower cowling. Two 9X25X2 inches radiators on each sides of the engine, slightly tilted forward and cool air fed by plenuns attached to the cowling air inlets would do the job of cooling. So, cooling air circulations pattern in the cowling would not depart that much from a tipical air cooled engine. This idea is inspired by the cooling set up used on a Canadian Rover V8 powered Bearhawk: even though tight cowled, this set up have provided for more than 1000 hours of nonevent operation. Cooling is just right and that engine puts out some 230 hp at 4500 plus rpm (generating as much heat as my much lower reving prospective powerplant would).

Another factor that favors a SBC400 or the SBF351 based stroker engine is that they have very beefy cranks, wich allows me to use a simple 5 to 6 inch long prop extension instead of a more elaborate-heavier-and-more-expensive crank isolating propeller coupling device. As for fuel system and ignition, a full EFI/Distributorless system is on order. There is an aftermarket chain timing cover for SBCs that mimics LSx, as cam and crank position sensor are mounted the same way LSx´s do. So Multi-coil ignition à la LSx is easy. And for oiling, I would use dry sump set up, one with a two stage oil pump mounted in place of the distributor (now unused), and a remote oil reservoir attachet to the firewall. Oil pump would be down low, very close to the valve covers (now temporary oil sumps). Oil pump would easily be gravity fed, with no riscs of filling the engine with oil.

So, this is what, basicaly, I am going to do.

No matter how confused I apparently am (only apparently...), I really like to share information and help others with their goals. So, I will keep posting info on things that may be of interest to anyone (even though not closely related to my project), just as I did when I posted information on Strokers and that RHS LSx aluminum block for Toobuilder (hope it is usefull for him). Or that "projection" drawing that I made mating an LQ4 engine to a Glasair (post # 411), for you to take a look at and estimate if that engine and its bulky intake manifold fits the cowling of your PEGAZAIR. That drawing is some posts behind. It is worth looking at, since few fellas seem to take this kind of consideration while choosing bits and pieces for their projects.

Cheers.

Last edited:

#### blainepga

##### Well-Known Member
You've done a good job reviving this thread, and obviously put a lot of work into searching for information. A couple of things seem to jump out which don't seem to be well thought out. One is the thoughts about engine capacity. As I mentioned earlier, you need to decide what type (mission) of airplane you want. Being in Brazil, it would seem logical that something that could operate from short grass strips would be desirable. Thats my thought, but you may want to travel long distances quickly rater than land short. Which type you select will determine the type of engine that you may utilize. You seem to have ideas running the gamut all the way up to very large cu in (608) aftermarket engines . After deciding what type of airplane, you need to determine how much weight you can actually place in the nose. Ben Haas has done a very credible job building a reduction drive Ford conversion. Ben apparently has exceptional experience and resources along with the talent to bring it all together.
I think he would be the first to tell you that you can only use a certain amount of power in a small airplane. There is no reason to think and dream of excessive power when applied to a small airplane. You can have too much of a good thing......then it becomes a BAD thing. Decide what is usuable without putting you and your plane in an untenable situation. Then start realistically looking for what can provide that power safely and reliably. All the other thoughts are just wasted brain waves. Look at it another way. Lets speculate that you need an engine which will produce 200/250 hp. If an engine is capable of doing this with direct drive, would there be any benefit to adding a redrive at 85 additional pounds and several thousand ($5K) dollars in cost so the engine can operate at 4000 rpms and produce 400 horsepower. The obvious answer is that it does not accomplish anything but adds weight and cost. Now look at what smaller and lighter engines can reliably produce similar horsepower by using a redrive...........and see how much the combination will weigh and cost. Considering things outside that realm only serves to confuse the issue. Ben Haas has pretty well proven his combination. If that satisfies your needs, why not emulate what he has. Remember, virtually any aluminum V8 can be used, its just a matter of how much the final costs will be, and how heavy or light the combination can be made per$. Its kinda like the cost of each sq ft in a house.............

The second point is the list of weights you provided in your chart. While I know your intentions are good, I think that some of them are somewhat higher than what can be assembled in practice. Keep up the good thread..............
I did my home work and came up with the combination I intend use in my Mustang II. That's what I tell people interested in doing the same. You have to evaluate each airframe and its requirements that will dictate a combination specific for that airframe. It might be a V8 or a 4 cylindar and what are the components that will make all work. Inovation comes from those willing to try.

Blaine

E

#### ekimneirbo

Thanks for the encouragement, ekimnerbo.

Well, the thing is: all information that comes regarding auto conversions in general are worth looking at. When I started participating of this thread, I said that we are living in the best days the auto conversion comunity has ever seen so far, since there are miriads of experiences, either good or bad, tha can be used to come up with a succesfull outcome.

That said, I am more than happy to share the information I have gathered in my search for a viable DD V8 powerplant for airplanes in the Glasair Sportsman (and why not the RV???) range. And I do it even if a particular information is not closely related to my prospective powerplant.

Regarding the above chart, the aeronautical engine weights listed are quite representative of what, in general, you have in Lyc IO-360 and IO-540s. Regarding the auto conversion listed, I said "as for the auto engine proposed by EPI, well, every one has his/her own formula/recipe, and, therefore, it may be inaplicable". By saying this, what I actually tried to say, in a polite way, is that i also think that "somewhat higher than what can be assembled in practice".

So, altough the amount of information or the number of my posts on this thread leads one to think that I am somewhat dizzy and that I still don´t know what I want or to look for, I have long made up my mind on what path to follow regarding my project. I made that clear on my first post. Here are my choices, now only more streamlined/refined:

1. Airplane: Glasair Sportsman, for its good low speed flight characteritics, decent cruise speed, range and payload and, of course, its looks. In case I can´t afford it, an RV14 is my second choice;

2. Powerplant: DD inverted V8, small block, in stroker form, say, 427 or 454. I have seen that 240+hp/460+ft lb torque at 2800 revs is quite doable and, if coupled to a good FP propeller (CATTO!!!), it would make a good powerplant for either one of those airplanes, not necessarily a take-off-performance-beast, but one close to a 180/200 hp 360 Lyc with CS prop. Weight wise, I know that it is going to be heavier than the engines it is suposed to replace, say, Lyc 360/390 + CS prop, but based on Ben Hass´s experience, I am quite sure that the weight diference is going to be manageable;

Regarding my SBC- or-SBF-or-LSx dilema, my preference lies on keeping the overall appearence of the airplane with minimal departures from its Lyc powered counterparts. According to this, my "projections" favor both SBCs and SBFs. But if you look at the two drawings that I have posted some posts ago (## 411 and 416), you will see that an SBC/SBF installation would require minor cowling mods: lengthening, addition of an intake scoop and, maybe, a little reshaping of the front part of the lower cowling. Two 9X25X2 inches radiators on each sides of the engine, slightly tilted forward and cool air fed by plenuns attached to the cowling air inlets would do the job of cooling. So, cooling air circulations pattern in the cowling would not depart that much from a tipical air cooled engine. This idea is inspired by the cooling set up used on a Canadian Rover V8 powered Bearhawk: even though tight cowled, this set up have provided for more than 1000 hours of nonevent operation. Cooling is just right and that engine puts out some 230 hp at 4500 plus rpm (generating as much heat as my much lower reving prospective powerplant would).

Another factor that favors a SBC400 or the SBF351 based stroker engine is that they have very beefy cranks, wich allows me to use a simple 5 to 6 inch long prop extension instead of a more elaborate-heavier-and-more-expensive crank isolating propeller coupling device. As for fuel system and ignition, a full EFI/Distributorless system is on order. There is an aftermarket chain timing cover for SBCs that mimics LSx, as cam and crank position sensor are mounted the same way LSx´s do. So Multi-coil ignition à la LSx is easy. And for oiling, I would use dry sump set up, one with a two stage oil pump mounted in place of the distributor (now unused), and a remote oil reservoir attachet to the firewall. Oil pump would be down low, very close to the valve covers (now temporary oil sumps). Oil pump would easily be gravity fed, with no riscs of filling the engine with oil.

So, this is what, basicaly, I am going to do.

No matter how confused I apparently am (only apparently...), I really like to share information and help others with their goals. So, I will keep posting info on things that may be of interest to anyone (even though not closely related to my project), just as I did when I posted information on Strokers and that RHS LSx aluminum block for Toobuilder (hope it is usefull for him). Or that "projection" drawing that I made mating an LQ4 engine to a Glasair (post # 411), for you to take a look at and estimate if that engine and its bulky intake manifold fits the cowling of your PEGAZAIR. That drawing is some posts behind. It is worth looking at, since few fellas seem to take this kind of consideration while choosing bits and pieces for their projects.

Cheers.
Reply: Thats a very good explanation and it appears to me that you are heading in the right direction. You made your choice and I respect that. I realize that how you want to do it is just as valid a method as I hope mine is. While doing all of this I found some older info on a project called Major Mouse that has several sequential articles on building a low rpm rodent. It has 507ft/lbs 251 hp @ 2600 and 529ft/lbs 282hp @ 2800 so 2700 should be about 518/266 @ 2700. If there is some way to email you direct, I'll send the info to you if you want it.or see if you can find the April 2005 on line article in Super Chevy magazine.

I did my home work and came up with the combination I intend use in my Mustang II. That's what I tell people interested in doing the same. You have to evaluate each airframe and its requirements that will dictate a combination specific for that airframe. It might be a V8 or a 4 cylindar and what are the components that will make all work. Inovation comes from those willing to try.

Blaine

#### MARCVINI

##### Well-Known Member
Reply: Thats a very good explanation and it appears to me that you are heading in the right direction. You made your choice and I respect that. I realize that how you want to do it is just as valid a method as I hope mine is. While doing all of this I found some older info on a project called Major Mouse that has several sequential articles on building a low rpm rodent. It has 507ft/lbs 251 hp @ 2600 and 529ft/lbs 282hp @ 2800 so 2700 should be about 518/266 @ 2700. If there is some way to email you direct, I'll send the info to you if you want it.or see if you can find the April 2005 on line article in Super Chevy magazine.
Thanks a lot for the hint, ekimneirbo!!! I´ve just found those articles on the web. That is exactly what I am looking for. That particular engine has 11.1/1 compression ratio, so I can presume that with a 10:1 CR can reach the 480 ft lb torque at 2800 rpm, wich is enough for my project. Actually, Smmeding Performance´s Mighty Mouse Motor is exactly within those specs.

This is the advantage of SBCs: performance clues and hints are easy to find. Another great magazine article is this: http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/1306_19_single_plane_small_block_chevy_intakes_test/viewall.html
19 INTAKE SBC INTAKE MANIFOLD WERE PUT TO TEST!!! INCLUDES DYNO CHARTS AND DIMENSIONS OF THE INTAKE MANIFOLDS THAT WERE TESTED!!!

By the way: I also respect your LSx choice!!!

Cheers

Last edited:

#### MARCVINI

##### Well-Known Member
This is something that most SBC/BBC builders must have been looking for: a timing chain cover for EFI and "real" distributorless ignition, one that suports LSx EFI/Ignition set up.
Further details can be found at EFI Connection, LLC - Welcome to www.eficonnection.com

Hope it helps anywone looking for such a device.

Cheers.

E

#### ekimneirbo

This is something that most SBC/BBC builders must have been looking for: a timing chain cover for EFI and "real" distributorless ignition, one that suports LSx EFI/Ignition set up.
Further details can be found at EFI Connection, LLC - Welcome to www.eficonnection.com

View attachment 31623

Hope it helps anywone looking for such a device.

Cheers.
Are you going to run a throttle body on a carb intake, a tune port set-up, or something else ? The tune ports were good for engines at low rpm due to runner length, and they can be had very cheaply. Have you looked at the FAST self programming set-ups. They have retro fit ones that work with existing factory injection, and if you change something in your combination, it allows you to make a simple update and then it starts recomputing for you. The factory computers are very good but you either have to have someone make guesswork changes for you or purchase one of the tuning programs.

#### MARCVINI

##### Well-Known Member
Are you going to run a throttle body on a carb intake, a tune port set-up, or something else ? The tune ports were good for engines at low rpm due to runner length, and they can be had very cheaply. Have you looked at the FAST self programming set-ups. They have retro fit ones that work with existing factory injection, and if you change something in your combination, it allows you to make a simple update and then it starts recomputing for you. The factory computers are very good but you either have to have someone make guesswork changes for you or purchase one of the tuning programs.
Hi, ekimneirbo,

I intend to use a throtle body on a carb intake, as well as SDS-EFI. More specifically: carb intake + intake albow + tb, in order to have a forward facing injection. An intake scoop, à la those already used in Lyc powered RVs would have to be fabricated.

I like SDS´s leaning feature, so I intend to use their hardware too.

I intend to do this because I would have a more compact instalation. By the way, the final result is predictable to a certain extent, since I believe that an EFI system wouldn´t depart that much from the caburetor set up results that those Major Mouse developers have reached, or even the result Smedding Performance reached with their carbureted "Might Mouse" 427 SBC, wich is my favorite, since it achieves respectable performance with mild compresson ratio, 9,5:1, I believe.

Here you can have an idea of what I intend to do:

I have considered those tuned port injection set ups, but they are quite bulky and heavy. I would have problems acomodating things inside the cowling. In fact, in order for it not to interfere with the nose gear leg, I would have to place the engine further forward, wich would cause weight and balance issues. This wouldn´t happen with the set up I described above. In fact, those tuned port injection manifolds would be just as bulky as, say, a LQ4 intake manifold (even if it were mounted with the tb facing forward). Here are (again!!!) the projections I have made in order to study this issue:

Regardless of that, thanks for the sugestion.

Cheers.

Last edited:

#### rv6ejguy

##### Well-Known Member
Using such short intake runners will cost a lot of power down at 2700 rpm but you may not have room to run the most efficient lengths for this rpm range... I'd also question the area of the runners on this manifold for such low rpms. It will work with enough cubic inches of course.

#### MARCVINI

##### Well-Known Member
Using such short intake runners will cost a lot of power down at 2700 rpm but you may not have room to run the most efficient lengths for this rpm range... I'd also question the area of the runners on this manifold for such low rpms. It will work with enough cubic inches of course.
The most ideas I get, the better the final result. Thanks for your input.

Another set up, wich looks sweet:

This one is very low profile, and It may allow an intake manifold with as long as possible runners.

Money and God allowing, I intend to "validate" my engine set up on the dyno, in order to order the best suiting FP prop. CATTO may do it for me.

Cheers.

#### stol

##### Well-Known Member
GREAT discussion guys..... It is comforting to see such a indepth and detailed investigation of all avenues... You have restored my faith in auto engine conversions.. And their future...:speechles

#### MARCVINI

##### Well-Known Member
GREAT discussion guys..... It is comforting to see such a indepth and detailed investigation of all avenues... You have restored my faith in auto engine conversions.. And their future...:speechles
You can be sure that you and your "Flying Orange Clockwork" are the inspiration behind all this!!! You can be proud of your accomplishments.

Cheers.

#### MARCVINI

##### Well-Known Member
Just a little food for thought for Labour Day. I would like you guys to read with attention:

These are the oficial dyno figures of GM´s ZZ350:

Engine ID# ZZ4
Rocker Arm Ratio 15
Cylinder Head 12556463 Chevy Performance: High Performance Racing Parts | Chevrolet
Intake Manifold 10185063
Camshaft 10185071
Carburetor Holley 770CFM
Rocker Arm PN 12495490
Speed Corrected Torque Corrected Power
Rpm Lbs-Ft Hp
1500 330 94
1600 332 101
1700 342 111
1800 353 121
1900 356 129
2000 359 137
2100 358 143
2200 357 150
2300 353 155
2400 354 162
2500 363 173
2600 379 188
2700 388 200
2800 392 209
2900 398 220
3000 405 231
3100 409 241
3200 413 252
3300 416 262
3400 416 270
3500 417 278
3600 418 287
3700 416 293
3800 413 299
3900 411 305
4000 409 312
4100 407 318
4200 404 323
4300 401 328
4400 397 332
4500 392 336
4600 386 338
4700 381 341
4800 378 345
4900 372 347
5000 367 350
5100 362 352
5200 357 354
5300 352 355
5400 346 355
5500 337 353
5600 330 352
5700 322 349
5800 314 347

The first thing that has caught my attention is the torque range between 1500 to 2800 rpm, that is 330 ft lb to 392 ft lb. Altough not being flat, this torque variation is not steep either. Actually, in my humble opinion, I think that this variation is quite acceptable by aeronautical standards, specially if one considers that it corresponds to a horsepower variation from 94 to 209hp, this being represented by a really steep curve.

Another point of interest is that those 392 ft lb torque and 209 hp at 2800 rpm are quite better marks than Lyc 360´s 350 ft lb torque and 180 hp at 2800 rpm. Or almost on par with Lyc 390 figures. AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CHEVY ZZ350, a 350 CI ENGINE!!!

One also has to consider the fact that those power numbers were reached with NO FANCY INTAKE MANIFOLD, NO FANCY IGNITION, NO FANCY FUEL INJECTION SYSTEM, NO FANCY NOTHING, but, in fact, only off the shelf parts!!!

What I am trying to show is that good performance, EVEN AT VERY LOW REVS, one that is quite acceptable by aeronautical standards, can be reached in a V8 auto conversion with no fancy parts, but with hardware that is readily available on the market.

This is the reason why I believe that the final result of a DD V8 instalation, be it SBC, SBF or LSx based, is predictable and, more importantly, is acceptable - actually, quite good by aeronautical standards, even if, I will say it again, one uses parts that are readily available on the market.

That said, I believe that custom grinded cams and proper ignition and fuel injection settings (mappings...), wich are not dificult things to be achieved, would add a lot to what already is predictably quite promissiong, performance wise. I can only imagine what such goodies would do to this beautifull dyno curve, from my beloved Smedding Performance´s Mighty Mouse 427 SBC:

By the way: those figures were reached with NO FANCY ANYTHING either! Only off the shelf parts!!! And the same or even better results can be acheived with SBF or LSx derivative engines!!!

Wish all of you guys a nice and prolific Labour Day!!!

Cheers from Brazil.

Last edited: