It goes
without saying, that the components (cam, head, gears, etc.) you select for your
car will affect its performance. However,
many enthusiasts select the wrong components because they do not fully
understand the interrelationship of power, torque and vehicle performance.
The information presented here will help you make better selections for
your car.
What do the
power and torque curves mean, and what do they tell you about your cars
performance? For example, two
performance curves are shown in the figure below.
One was measured by Ford in 1918. The
other is from a simulation (ref. 1) for a popular reground camshaft.
Which
Cam
is Better?
The reground
cam obviously makes more power, but is it a better cam for your car?
The answer depends on your objectives for your cars performance. You must
have a good understanding about the type of driving you plan to do.
Combining
the performance curves with a little high school physics can give a much clearer
picture. Given some basic
information about the car (weight, gears, drag coefficient, etc.), the power
requirements can be calculated (see ref. 2 and Physics101.pdf) and
compared to the power available from the engine.
By knowing the power required and the power available we can determine
how the car will perform. During the
past five years, several power curves have been measured on the Cam Project
Tudor (see Dyno Tests under Model T Heads and Cam
Project).
We also ran a dyno test on Steve Coniff’s Montana
500 car. Most of these tests have
been incorporated into a spreadsheet to perform the calculations. You
may download the spreadsheet if you
would like to do your own calculations.
Before we
get started, we need to say a few words about dyno tests.
The two basic types of dynos are an engine dyno and a chassis dyno.
An engine dyno normally measures power at the flywheel, but on a Model T
it would be at the output of the transmission.
A chassis dyno (see photo) measures the power at the rear
wheels.
The two should differ by the drive train friction losses, which are
normally approximated by a simple multiplying factor.
It appears that 20 percent is a reasonable estimate for friction losses
in a Model T. We have used two
different types of chassis dynos in our testing.
We were told that the two would not produce the same results, but we were
not given a satisfactory explanation for the reasons why.
In our calculations, we’ve tried to make the results comparable by
using different scaling factors for the two dynos.
The accuracy of the dyno results are questionable at low (less than 700
RPM) and high (greater than 2000 RPM) speeds.
You should take these uncertainties into consideration when evaluating
the results presented here.
Are
the Calculations Valid?
First,
let’s establish that the calculations produce meaningful results.
We are aware of one road test for a Model T (ref.
3).
The car used was a 1912 roadster with a laden weight of 1875 lbs and a
standard 3.64 rear axle. We’ve
made calculations using a drag coefficient of 0.8 and frontal area of 25 sq ft,
giving the same drag as a Model A (ref.4). A
value of 0.01 was used for the coefficient of rolling resistance (ref.
2).
The two figures below compare the calculations to two dyno test results:
the 1918 test from Ford and a chassis dyno test of our Tudor in 1999.
At that time, the Tudor had a rebuilt engine with approximately 2000
miles of use. Other than aluminum
pistons and modern valves, it was completely stock.
The first
figure is in terms of horsepower while the second shows the same calculations in
terms of torque. The light dashed
red lines are the power (or torque) required to climb various grades at a given
speed. Of course, the power required
increases with both the grade and speed. Since
the curves are based on rear wheel power, the dyno curves are plotted after
adjustment for drive train friction losses.
This adjustment is not necessary for chassis dyno curves.
The curves cross at points where the available power equals the required
power, so the car can climb that particular grade at the speed shown on the x
axis. Notice that neither power
curve crosses the line for a 10% grade, because there is not sufficient power in
high gear. On a long 10% grade, the
car would slow down until you would be forced to shift to a lower gear.
The rate of deceleration is proportional to the difference between the
available power and the required power. Correspondingly,
if the car were traveling at 20 mph on a 4% grade, the rate it could accelerate
would be proportional to the difference between available and required power.
The road
test (ref. 3) listed top speed (0% grade) and speeds on various grades.
Values obtained from the graphs are compared to the road test values in
the table below. Considering all the uncertainties, the agreement is excellent.
Incidentally, the top speed for the Tudor was about 44 to 45 mph, which
also agrees with the calculations. Now
that we have established the validity of the calculations, let’s see what they
can tell us about how we should equip our car.
Which
Cam
is Best?
Let’s now
revisit the question originally posed. Which
of the two camshafts is better? The
graphs below combine the two power and torque curves with the calculations.
In this case, the total weight is 2200 pounds, since that is more
representative of a typical Model T with two passengers.
Note that the 325 lb weight difference has decreased the maximum grade
from 8.1% to 6.9% based on the 1918 curves.
We all know that a light roadster performs better than a sedan.
By comparing
the results, we can get a good idea of the performance tradeoffs for these two
camshafts. The greater horsepower
increases the top speed by about 1.5 mph. However,
due to the reduced torque, the maximum grade in high gear drops from 6.9% to
about 5.4%. The reground cam is a
good choice if you are primarily interested in top speed and you encounter few
hills when driving. The reground cam
would perform well with a 4:1 rear axle ratio.
We will discuss gears later.
The results
above are based on performance curves from a computer simulation.
What about real data? In
1999, we removed a 290 lift reground camshaft from our Tudor and replaced it
with a NOS cam. The car was dyno
tested before and after the swap. The
dyno curves are compared with the calculations in the two figures below.
Again, there was little difference in top speed, but the maximum grade
dropped from 8% to 7%. The feel of
the car agreed well with the calculations. The top speed did not change
appreciably. The performance was noticeably better with the stock cam, similar
to the difference with two passengers rather than four.
We’ve also
compared a stock cam to a new 280 lift billet camshaft from Bill Stipe.
These new cams are very close in performance to a stock cam, producing
essentially the same peak torque and slightly more peak power.
See the Dyno
Results for a detailed description of our camshaft testing.
What
About High Speed Gears?
Many Model T
owners have installed so called “high speed gears” (3:1 rear axle) thinking
that it will have a dramatic effect on their top speed.
Let’s take a look at gear ratios and how they impact performance. The
figures below show calculations for a stock Model T with various gear ratios:
3.64:1 (standard), 4:1 (10 tooth pinion), 3:1 and 5.6:1 (3.64 in Ruckstell low).
The graphs show that top speed increases just a bit more than one mph
with 3:1 gears, i.e. not much. However,
performance in the hills suffers dramatically.
In high gear, the maximum grade drops from 8% to 6%.
For speeds below 30mph, the acceleration will be much worse with 3:1
gears. A 3:1 rear axle makes sense only if you have auxiliary gears, e.g.
Ruckstell, a light car with low wind resistance and an engine which has been
modified for more power. Even with a
high compression head, a standard Model T with 3:1 gears gains only about 2 mph
top speed, but can barely pull an 8% grade.
If you have a heavy car or live in a hilly area, a 4:1 rear axle makes a
lot of sense. Ford knew what he was doing when he selected axle ratios.
Notice that
the curves for different axle ratios resemble the curves for different cams.
Consider the combination of a reground cam and 3:1 rear axle.
In this case, the car can barely pull a 5% grade in high gear.
If you run a reground cam, you can get back much of the lost performance
by installing a 4:1 rear axle. When
our Tudor was running the reground cam with 3.64 gears, there were some hills on
Talimena Drive
that it could not pull in Ruckstell low.
How
About a High Compression Head?
High
compression heads are also a popular modification.
In 2002, several members of our local club tested four different Model T
heads. At that point in time, the
Tudor was running a Stipe 280 cam and an antique Bosch 600 distributor equipped
with an electronic ignition module. We
have not done a detailed comparison of stock ignition versus a distributor.
One test made with our Cheapo Dyno showed an 8 to 10% improvement with a
distributor, and the car did seem to perform better on Talimena Drive.
The graphs
below compare the calculations with performance curves for a stock head and Z
head. The performance improvement
with the Z head is truly wonderful. The
top speed increased about 6 mph and agreed very well with actual high speed
runs. The car can easily maintain
the minimum speed on most expressways. The
calculations predict an increase in maximum grade from about 8.5% to 11%.
Talimena Drive
is reported to have grades of 13%. It
seems that the steepest grades are encountered when traveling east.
When traveling west with the Z head, the car can pull every hill in high
gear except for a short stretch on one hill.
That is pretty good performance for a sedan that weighs over 2400 lb with
two passengers.
Do
You Want a Good Touring Model T?
What have we learned by combining the engine
power and torque curves with the calculations for power requirements? In
summary, the calculations show that if you are interested primarily in top speed
then you should concentrate on peak horsepower. If you are more interested
in being able to pull the hills in high gear, then you should look at peak
engine torque, gearing and weight.
Here are
some guidelines based on the information presented here and other calculations
with the spreadsheet. Obviously, a
good cam and high compression head will help your car’s performance.
Either a new Stipe cam or an original stock cam with good lift will do
nicely. In the case of our Tudor, the
cam and head accounts for most of the increase in maximum grade from about 7% to
more than 11%, a huge improvement.
Use gears
that are appropriate for your car. As a rule of thumb, for every 10 percent you
increase or decrease the rear axle ratio, the maximum percent grade will change
by about one percentage point. For the example presented the maximum grade with gears of
4:1, 3:64:1 and 3:1 was 9%, 8% and 6%, respectively. Consequently,
a 3:1 rear axle is not recommended unless you have a lightweight speedster with
a good strong engine and a Ruckstell rear axle or other auxiliary transmission.
Weight is
very important. We estimate that for
every 150 to 200 pounds the weight is reduced, the maximum percent grade will
increase by about one percentage point. It
doesn’t matter where the weight reduction comes from.
Reduced passenger weight, less luggage, fewer spare parts all work just as well as removing
weight from the car. Ruckstell axles
and auxiliary gearboxes are heavy. A
car with a good strong engine should not need one.
Since a new billet cam and Z head costs about half as much as a Ruckstell
axle, this approach is also cost effective.
Many Model T
owners use distributors instead of the original vibrator coils.
We have only limited and not very systematic data concerning this
modification. In one test, we found
that a distributor may give an 8 to 10 percent increase with peak torque
improved more than peak horsepower.
We have not considered alternate carburetion either.
Since we can achieve very good performance without this modification, we
see no need for it. Unlike the cam
and head, changes to the ignition and carburetion will alter some of the unique
features and the original appearance of the engine.
Click on
the link if you would like a copy of the spreadsheet (VehDynamics.zip)
so you can make your own calculations.
- Sigworth,
Larry: “Camshaft Testing – Part 2”, Secrets - The Ford Speed and
Sport Magazine, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp 1-15, July, 1999.
- Bosch
Automotive Handbook, 4th
edition, pp 330-334, Robert Bosch GmbH,
Stuttgart
(1996).
- Model
T Times, No. 314, July-Aug, 2001,
p.15, reprinted from The Motor.
- Cannon,
Bill: “Effects of Rear Axle Ratio on Antique Car Performance – Part
1”, Skinned Knuckles, pp. 9-13,
Sept. 2000