Take the Falicon chalange.

Message

wistech · #1 Post by **wistech** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:45 am

As it keeps coming up for some reason the falicon equipt engines just are not performing like the stock based stroker cranks and some stock crank engines. Well I now have my chance to make an all out effort to build a falicon ,stock piston engine and am looking for suggestions and ideas on what to do to get the most out of the package. The engine will have an hmf and be required to have an airbox. Some have suggested the short rod is the culprit. Is there any way to compensate in the porting ,mapping ,cam timing,ignition curve,chamber design ? Personally I dont see this engine getting above 48hp unless there is a breakthrough. If anyone has the time dig up some info on what the stroker car guys are doing different . We are missing something here,just need to find it. Thanks.

383astro · #2 Post by **383astro** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:52 am

I have built a few SBC strokers(hence the username) and I do know that the longer the rod the less side load on the cylinders and less stress on the crank and rods.

wistech · #3 Post by **wistech** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:58 am

Yes I agree . But the the low performance cannot be just from frictional losses ? I mean we are talking around 3 hp and a chunk of torque.

Maybe cyllinder filling is an issue with the rate of deceleration change. Perhaps a cam timing change will help. Im shooting in the dark here.

cdale55 · #4 Post by **cdale55** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:03 am

Psychosis · #5 Post by **Psychosis** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:02 am

Well this has got me thinking. I was looking at putting together a Falicon superstroker since they are quick to get and no wait. But I'm also going to have atleast a 97mm piston, possibly 98mm, Tim's porting, looks like no airbox, just to get an idea. I'd rather not wait more than 3-4 weeks due to racing season to get it together but from what I'm hearing it may be wiser in the long run. I've got 2 cranks at the moment that are just lying here needing to have Z400, minus the already 2 good ones I have and only 3 quads.

So though I know I'm hacking this thread; what's the suggestion guys? Are the Falicons just not performing? I know the Timbo crank I've got has done flawless work for many hours and definately not afraid there. Just looking to shave some time for race season.

timbomoose · #6 Post by **timbomoose** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:01 am

John,the shorter rod will change the rate at where the cylinder fills with air and how much leverage the rod has.I played around with the timing quite extensively on the dyno and did have some luck but not much.See what the customer is looking for the power band.If he's looking at revving the snot out of he motor retard the cams.If he's looking for some bottom end torque keep the cams at stock especially on the 449.If he's looking mostly at bottom end torque then advance the cams.I do believe with the stock bore and stock compression you will have trouble making more bottom end power than stock if you retard the cams.My recomendation would be leave them at stock.I honestly don't understand why there is a noticable difference but there is.Weight is close,rod length just a little shorter,maybe just the combination together is what is causing it or even the weight if the rod.I'm still baffled.Finding the exact cause could lead to more power gains if the reason for this was figured out.There's definate power gains from it but I can't understand why there's a difference between the 2 strokers.I think stock cam timing would be best for this motor setup.Another thing that might help the bottom end, if it is from the rate at which it pulls the air, not taking as much material out on the intake side by the valves on the d-port.This should keep velocity from falling off where the piston speed is slower,but more than likely make it fall off a little sooner on top end.Its a trade off but might give a better overall usable powerband. Again it depends on what you're looking for.

cannondale27 · #7 Post by **cannondale27** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:35 pm

I think it has to do with rate of acceleration within the strokes.They may be balanced and all but do to the round design alot more wieght has to be at bottom to compenste for extra metal at top of halves by the pin.Think about it where does more mass want to go.Down.Well that forces piston up.I would rather have my piston be forced down faster than up faster cause when going down it sucks fuel and air and also is power stroke.Just a guess but I think Wayne Schofield may find something when doing his torsional vibration testing since crank speeds at different degrees will have to be measured.Would be a cool comparison to do both styles.

wistech · #8 Post by **wistech** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:21 pm

This will be a mx engine.

Happyboy · #9 Post by **Happyboy** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:52 pm

Ok darnit. I found my dyno sheets last night.

I hit 50.5 hp with my Falicon 450cc, full port, open airbox quad. This is the exact setup i used for XC racing so its not an obscure setup. I will post it tonight. I promise this time!!

haydug · #10 Post by **haydug** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:17 pm

QUOTE (Happyboy @ Jan 30 2007, 10:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok darnit. I found my dyno sheets last night.

I hit 50.5 hp with my Falicon 450cc, full port, open airbox quad. This is the exact setup i used for XC racing so its not an obscure setup. I will post it tonight. I promise this time!!

NO WAY!!!! I have read it from the "all mighty, all godly, all wisdom, all cannondale knowing" crew that 50 h.p. is NOT possible from an engine with a falicon crank. And you must know that anything they say/believe must be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If you prove them wrong, you will be sentenced to 20 lashing, and 1 week in the corner with NO cannondaleriders priveliges!