FK-45 & 1914

[louisb]

You guys think an FK-45 is too much for a 1914? Engine will be running some UD non-welded 40x35 heads, 1 5/8 exhaust, 44 IDFs, 8.5-9 CR, stock gears. This engine is more of a cruiser than a bruiser and will see some long distance driving in the Manx. My original plans were for a w120 but I happen to have a FK-45 already that I dont have a use for atm.

edit:

Here are the specs on the cam and a few others for comparison:

FK-45   295º   263º   0.401"   10.19   108º   
W-120   294º   253º   0.397"   10.08   108º   
W-125   301º   262º   0.418"   10.62   108º   
FK-8   298º   266º   0.382"    9.70   108º   

Its a little bigger than the w-120. The FK-8 has also been recommended.

Thanks,

--louis

[louisb]

After running the numbers I think the FK-45 is too big. It looks like the w-125 w/ stock ratio rockers might be the best choice.

--louis

[John Rayburn]

Ask Jeff.

[Jim Ratto]

The K8 with 40 x 35 heads and big-ish carbs is a winner recipe for pump gas thrasher motor. I've driven a few 1914's with 125 cams and they didn't have the wall of power that the K8 motors did. No disrespect to 125, as it rates up top in my scale of favorite cams, but I think the K8 works better with the 69mm crank.
1835 w/ K8 and above combo is pretty visceral too. 1776 with the same can work, although, it's getting on the ragged edge.

[Jim Ratto]

You guys think an FK-45 is too much for a 1914? Engine will be running some UD non-welded 40x35 heads, 1 5/8 exhaust, 44 IDFs, 8.5-9 CR, stock gears. This engine is more of a cruiser than a bruiser and will see some long distance driving in the Manx. My original plans were for a w120 but I happen to have a FK-45 already that I dont have a use for atm.

edit:

Here are the specs on the cam and a few others for comparison:

FK-45   295º   263º   0.401"   10.19   108º   
W-120   294º   253º   0.397"   10.08   108º   
W-125   301º   262º   0.418"   10.62   108º   
FK-8   298º   266º   0.382"    9.70   108º   

Its a little bigger than the w-120. The FK-8 has also been recommended.

Thanks,

--louis

I think the duration @ .050 shown for K8 is wrong. From memory, it's 258.
It would be my choice for what you're doing.

[louisb]

Your right its listed as 258 on the Engle web site. That just seems like a lot of cam for such a small motor. Thought it looks to be smaller than the w-125 if I am reading it right. If the motor makes 120 - 130 HP I will be happy.

Thanks,

--louis

[Shubee2 (DSK)]

put an engle 140 in it   

[louisb]

put an engle 140 in it   

Er, no thanks. I am trying to keep this engine from getting out of control.    Rotating assembly has been bought except the cam. Now I just need to sell a kidney so I can buy some carbs and those heads.

Thanks,

--louis

[Jim Ratto]

Your right its listed as 258 on the Engle web site. That just seems like a lot of cam for such a small motor. Thought it looks to be smaller than the w-125 if I am reading it right. If the motor makes 120 - 130 HP I will be happy.

Thanks,

--louis

K8 to me is perfect cam for 1800-2000cc. For bigger motors, i.e. 2100cc+, it works well as a Bus cam.

[Donny B.]

K8 sure works well in Darrell Bomgarrs 2165.  It made 180 at the rear wheels and is very driveable!

[lawrence]

Louis the fk45 does not seem big when the specs are compared between the cams you listed. They all read very similar to me. I say run the 45.

[Jim Ratto]

Thing is, the specs louis posted only show part of the picture. We see advertised duration and duration @ .050 but nothing in between. I ran the FK45, and with 1.4's it was too hard on my valvetrain. And, relative to other cams I have run, it didn't impress.

[Jim Ratto]

louis, if you're only after 130hp you could build a replica of the 1914 John Holleran built earlier that made 139 @ the wheels on Kadrons. Nothing magic in that motor.

[John Rayburn]

Ask Jeff.

[Jim Ratto]

how adult

[louisb]

louis, if you're only after 130hp you could build a replica of the 1914 John Holleran built earlier that made 139 @ the wheels on Kadrons. Nothing magic in that motor.

What were the specs on that motor? My main goals is to have an engine that will push the buggy to freeway speeds, 70 mph, for hours on end and be peppy to drive around town. It doesn't need to be the fastest car in the valley and if it never sees the low side of 15s, that's fine. I want it to be low compression, reliable, and smooth. I want to be able to drive it across town or across country without any fuss or having to replace valve springs every 10,000 miles. This is just a little pusher motor that is designed to get the Manx on the road as quickly as possible for the least amount of cost. It doesn't have to get 100,000 miles but I would like it to be reliable enough to drive to Baja or Resume Speed, North Dakota without any worries and keep up with modern traffic on the way. The engine I imagine falls some where in between a daily driver and the fire breathers we are most used to build around here. I am also trying to keep the cost down as I still have the '66 to build as well. Any input is appreciated.

Thanks,

--louis+

[Jim Ratto]

louis, if you're only after 130hp you could build a replica of the 1914 John Holleran built earlier that made 139 @ the wheels on Kadrons. Nothing magic in that motor.

What were the specs on that motor? My main goals is to have an engine that will push the buggy to freeway speeds, 70 mph, for hours on end and be peppy to drive around town. It doesn't need to be the fastest car in the valley and if it never sees the low side of 15s, that's fine. I want it to be low compression, reliable, and smooth. I want to be able to drive it across town or across country without any fuss or having to replace valve springs every 10,000 miles. This is just a little pusher motor that is designed to get the Manx on the road as quickly as possible for the least amount of cost. It doesn't have to get 100,000 miles but I would like it to be reliable enough to drive to Baja or Resume Speed, North Dakota without any worries and keep up with modern traffic on the way. The engine I imagine falls some where in between a daily driver and the fire breathers we are most used to build around here. I am also trying to keep the cost down as I still have the '66 to build as well. Any input is appreciated.

Thanks,

--louis+

dude, a 1915 in a Manx is more than enough. Trust me. My friend had a stock cam, stock valve, Kadron motor in his buggy and it scared me ghost white. I know you're case is bored for 94mm, so you're stuck going with some derivative of 94 bore. Honestly, you don't need to go wild... you'll end up with a real handful with that short wheelbase and no weight. Make it all cc, no need to wind the crap out of the thing if you just want to cruise it.

I bet stock valved heads, Kadrons, and a mild cam would keep you smiling.
Ask Jeff.

[louisb]

That is what I am getting at, I don't think I need that much motor. So I am back to the w-120 or maybe even a w-110. Kads would help keep the costs down.

Thanks,

--louis

[javabug]

LOL I've been reading this all day thinking "that combo in a Manx in gonna be a HOOT."  Doesn't take much in those little cars.

[John Rayburn]

Mark Herbert's stuff always ran good with Jeff's non welded heads and W120's and 125's.

[lawrence]

Thing is, the specs louis posted only show part of the picture. We see advertised duration and duration @ .050 but nothing in between. I ran the FK45, and with 1.4's it was too hard on my valvetrain. And, relative to other cams I have run, it didn't impress.

Very true and louis says that he does not want to change springs every 10k miles. I imagine that my 1914, which is a moderate hot rod engine, would be crazy in a manx. John is right as well. Talk to the head porter, he will have a good opinion.

[louisb]

Mark Herbert's stuff always ran good with Jeff's non welded heads and W120's and 125's.

I was trying to find the material Mark wrote about his 1915 combo but it seems to have disappeared. I seem to remember he was a big fan of the w-120. I think that is what I have decided to go with. Thanks for all the input from everyone. Unless you build a lot of engines, there are so many variables its some times hard to make a decision. No wonder everyone runs around with cookie cutter engines these day.

Thanks,

--louis

[Martin Greaves]

Mark Herbert's stuff always ran good with Jeff's non welded heads and W120's and 125's.

Also had stuff run good with a FK46.

[j-f]

I've read a lot's of things about 1915. It seemed to be the best engine for bucks you can build for now.

A french engine builder advice to use a webcam 218 with a 108LC, "cleaned" 041 semi heads with 8*1cr, kadrons with 34 vents and a merged exhaust to reach something like 120hp @ 5300rpm and lot's of torque from 2500 to the top.

A wilder combo is to use a w125 with ported and polished 044heads 40x35 valves 9*1 cr, dual 40 mm carbs with 34vents (Dellorto seems to be a good choice as their idle circuit is better than weber and don't get clogged so quickly), 41mm header. Power until 7.000rpm and good reliability.

[louisb]

A french engine builder advice to use a webcam 218 with a 108LC, "cleaned" 041 semi heads with 8*1cr, kadrons with 34 vents and a merged exhaust to reach something like 120hp @ 5300rpm and lot's of torque from 2500 to the top.

Here are the specs on that cam. I have heard good things on that cam as well. The split duration seems to work well with smaller carbs.

218/119   280º   242º   0.455"   11.56   108º   Dual lobe; off-road competition; Class 1/2 1600
   276º   240º   0.422"   10.72   108º   Excellent torque!


Thanks,

--louis

[j-f]

A french engine builder advice to use a webcam 218 with a 108LC, "cleaned" 041 semi heads with 8*1cr, kadrons with 34 vents and a merged exhaust to reach something like 120hp @ 5300rpm and lot's of torque from 2500 to the top.

Here are the specs on that cam. I have heard good things on that cam as well. The split duration seems to work well with smaller carbs.

218/119   280º   242º   0.455"   11.56   108º   Dual lobe; off-road competition; Class 1/2 1600
   276º   240º   0.422"   10.72   108º   Excellent torque!


Thanks,

--louis

The 218 and 218/119 are not the same cam. I think the dual lobe is good for an engine with stock heads, stock CR and small carb.

[nicolas]

sorry to say this JF but i run a 218/119 and heads are not stock and CR is 8.5 carbs are 42DCNFs. the cam has a lot off potential and i know people running 1776's and 1914's with it and those people run high 14's and the engine is dead-reliable and can get you everywhere. from what i heard it might be a 'better' w110.

[j-f]

sorry to say this JF but i run a 218/119 and heads are not stock and CR is 8.5 carbs are 42DCNFs. the cam has a lot off potential and i know people running 1776's and 1914's with it and those people run high 14's and the engine is dead-reliable and can get you everywhere. from what i heard it might be a 'better' w110.

That's what I've understand about this cam.

And you are right, it's a better w110.

[ugly duckling]

the 43 would be my pick with the low rated 1.4s. UD  

[javabug]

I was trying to find the material Mark wrote about his 1915 combo but it seems to have disappeared.

Here?  http://www.cal-look.com/tech_building_fast_reliable_engines1.shtml

One of my fav's.