Back Pressure

7173Mustangs.com

Help Support 7173Mustangs.com:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
My mechanic tells me the Cleveland was designed by Ford to use

back pressure from the exhaust. Installing headers would not

really be a good idea.

mike
Wow. Never heard that before, and I've never come across it in the 335 Forum. :huh: I wonder what the purpose would be?

 
It was originally written in the engine builders Bible that BACK PRESSURE was necessary to help cool the exhaust valves and keep them from burning out.

Well, after thousands of miles with people driving headers instead of exhaust manifolds, the bible has been revised. No measurable valve wear can be attributed to headers.

Exhaust manifolds were also looked at as heat sinks. They were SO HEAVY they took a lot of energy to heat and kept the valvetrain cool. Again, this was looked on as necessary. However, there is no proof this is the case. Let's face it, castings were primarily used because they were cheap...heavy but cheap, reliable and lasted forever without maintenance.

I am still looking for THE Ford engineer(BY NAME) who designed the 351C 4v to hear what he/they were thinking. Until then, everything regarding their design is conjecture.

Follow my engine building rule: The louder the better.

 
This off a test site

One thing that I get tired of hearing is the concept that engines need back-pressure. Simply, there is no properly tuned engine where increasing exhaust back-pressure causes an improvement - in power, torque or fuel economy. One of the reasons that this idea has gained support is because when people change their exhaust they seldom check the air/fuel ratio or re-map the ignition timing to once again give optimal performance. For example, some MAP sensed cars drop substantially in power with a large exhaust fitted because they are then running lean.

Atmospherically inducted cars that use a tuned length system to improve cylinder scavenging (via extractors, for example) are sensitive to exhaust diameters within the tuned length part of the system. This means that the maximum effect of exhaust pulsing may come from an exhaust system that is small enough that some exhaust back-pressure is developed. However, that is a quite different concept to saying that engines "need" exhaust back-pressure! Turbocharged engines require as big an exhaust as possible, with the same applying for naturally aspirated cars once the tuned length part of the exhaust is passed.

Few tests have been done that clearly show the affect of changing back-pressure. Most muffler and exhaust comparison tests change more than one parameter simultaneously, making the identification of exhaust back-pressure as a culprit difficult. However, Wollongong (Australia) mechanic Kevin Davis is one who has done very extensive testing of varying back-pressure on a number of performance engines. These range from turbocharged Subaru Liberty [Legacy] RS flat fours to full-house traditional pushrod V8's. In not one case has he found any improvement in any engine performance parameter by increasing exhaust back-pressure!

The tests came about because Kevin has developed a patented variable flow exhaust that uses a butterfly within the exhaust pipe. He initially expected to use the system to cause some back-pressure at low loads "to help torque". However, he soon changed his mind when any increase in back-pressure proved to decrease torque (and therefore power at those revs) on a properly tuned engine! What increasing the back-pressure does do is dramatically quieten the exhaust.

One of the engine dyno tests carried out by Kevin was on warm 351 4V Cleveland V8. Following the extractors, he fitted a huge exhaust that gave a measured zero back-pressure. Torque peaked at 423 ft-lb at 4700 rpm, with power a rousing 441hp at 6300 rpm. He then dialled-in 1.5 psi back-pressure. Note that very few exhausts are capable of delivering such a low back-pressure on a road car. Even with this small amount of back-pressure, peak torque dropped by 4 per cent and peak power by 5 per cent. He then changed the butterfly position to give 2.5 psi back-pressure. Torque and power decreased again, both dropping by 7 per cent over having zero back-pressure!

And if you still believe that exhaust back-pressure improves performance, simply block off part of your exhaust outlet and see if your car goes any faster!

 
I have heard some good reasons not to install headers (i.e. ground clearance, leaks, Dad told me not to, fitment, etc.), but backpressure isn't one of them!

 
It was originally written in the engine builders Bible that BACK PRESSURE was necessary to help cool the exhaust valves and keep them from burning out.

Well, after thousands of miles with people driving headers instead of exhaust manifolds, the bible has been revised. No measurable valve wear can be attributed to headers.

Exhaust manifolds were also looked at as heat sinks. They were SO HEAVY they took a lot of energy to heat and kept the valvetrain cool. Again, this was looked on as necessary. However, there is no proof this is the case. Let's face it, castings were primarily used because they were cheap...heavy but cheap, reliable and lasted forever without maintenance.

I am still looking for THE Ford engineer(BY NAME) who designed the 351C 4v to hear what he/they were thinking. Until then, everything regarding their design is conjecture.

Follow my engine building rule: The louder the better.
My mechanic is pretty adamant about the issue. He has been

rebuilding Clevelands for going on 42 years now. Maybe he knew

some of those engineers or read something in a trade journal.

His most recent encounter is pictured below 'before/after'.

I can at least trust him to change my spark plugs :p

mike

BEFORE

HPIM2909.JPG

AFTER

HPIM3144.JPG

 
Destroying a myth.

Some say that "an engine needs backpressure to work correctly." Is this true?

No. It would be more correct to say, "a perfectly stock engine that cannot adjust its fuel delivery needs backpressure to work correctly." This idea is a myth. As with all myths, however, there is a hint of fact with this one. Particularly, some people equate backpressure with torque, and others fear that too little backpressure will lead to valve burning.

The first reason why people say "backpressure is good" is because they believe that increased backpressure by itself will increase torque, particularly with a stock exhaust manifold. Granted, some stock manifolds act somewhat like performance headers at low RPM, but these manifolds will exhibit poor performance at higher RPM. This, however does not automatically lead to the conclusion that backpressure produces more torque. The increase in torque is not due to backpressure, but to the effects of changes in fuel/air mixture, which will be described in more detail below.

The other reason why people say "backpressure is good" is because they hear that cars (or motorcycles) that have had performance exhaust work done to them would then go on to burn exhaust valves. Now, it is true that such valve burning has occurred as a result of the exhaust mods, but it isn't due merely to a lack of backpressure.

The internal combustion engine is a complex, dynamic collection of different systems working together to convert the stored power in gasoline into mechanical energy to push a car down the road. Anytime one of these systems are modified, that mod will also indirectly affect the other systems, as well.

Now, valve burning occurs as a result of a very lean-burning engine. In order to achieve a theoretical optimal combustion, an engine needs 14.7 parts of oxygen by mass to 1 part of gasoline (again, by mass). This is referred to as a stochiometric (chemically correct) mixture, and is commonly referred to as a 14.7:1 mix. If an engine burns with less oxygen present (13:1, 12:1, etc...), it is said to run rich. Conversely, if the engine runs with more oxygen present (16:1, 17:1, etc...), it is said to run lean. Today's engines are designed to run at 14.7:1 for normally cruising, with rich mixtures on acceleration or warm-up, and lean mixtures while decelerating.

Getting back to the discussion, the reason that exhaust valves burn is because the engine is burning lean. Normal engines will tolerate lean burning for a little bit, but not for sustained periods of time. The reason why the engine is burning lean to begin with is that the reduction in backpressure is causing more air to be drawn into the combustion chamber than before. Earlier cars (and motorcycles) with carburetion often could not adjust because of the way that backpressure caused air to flow backwards through the carburetor after the air already got loaded down with fuel, and caused the air to receive a second load of fuel. While a bad design, it was nonetheless used in a lot of vehicles. Once these vehicles received performance mods that reduced backpressure, they no longer had that double-loading effect, and then tended to burn valves because of the resulting over-lean condition. This, incidentally, also provides a basis for the "torque increase" seen if backpressure is maintained. As the fuel/air mixture becomes leaner, the resultant combustion will produce progressively less and less of the force needed to produce torque.

 
Destroying a myth.

Some say that "an engine needs backpressure to work correctly." Is this true?

No. It would be more correct to say, "a perfectly stock engine that cannot adjust its fuel delivery needs backpressure to work correctly." This idea is a myth. As with all myths, however, there is a hint of fact with this one. Particularly, some people equate backpressure with torque, and others fear that too little backpressure will lead to valve burning.

The first reason why people say "backpressure is good" is because they believe that increased backpressure by itself will increase torque, particularly with a stock exhaust manifold. Granted, some stock manifolds act somewhat like performance headers at low RPM, but these manifolds will exhibit poor performance at higher RPM. This, however does not automatically lead to the conclusion that backpressure produces more torque. The increase in torque is not due to backpressure, but to the effects of changes in fuel/air mixture, which will be described in more detail below.

The other reason why people say "backpressure is good" is because they hear that cars (or motorcycles) that have had performance exhaust work done to them would then go on to burn exhaust valves. Now, it is true that such valve burning has occurred as a result of the exhaust mods, but it isn't due merely to a lack of backpressure.

The internal combustion engine is a complex, dynamic collection of different systems working together to convert the stored power in gasoline into mechanical energy to push a car down the road. Anytime one of these systems are modified, that mod will also indirectly affect the other systems, as well.

Now, valve burning occurs as a result of a very lean-burning engine. In order to achieve a theoretical optimal combustion, an engine needs 14.7 parts of oxygen by mass to 1 part of gasoline (again, by mass). This is referred to as a stochiometric (chemically correct) mixture, and is commonly referred to as a 14.7:1 mix. If an engine burns with less oxygen present (13:1, 12:1, etc...), it is said to run rich. Conversely, if the engine runs with more oxygen present (16:1, 17:1, etc...), it is said to run lean. Today's engines are designed to run at 14.7:1 for normally cruising, with rich mixtures on acceleration or warm-up, and lean mixtures while decelerating.

Getting back to the discussion, the reason that exhaust valves burn is because the engine is burning lean. Normal engines will tolerate lean burning for a little bit, but not for sustained periods of time. The reason why the engine is burning lean to begin with is that the reduction in backpressure is causing more air to be drawn into the combustion chamber than before. Earlier cars (and motorcycles) with carburetion often could not adjust because of the way that backpressure caused air to flow backwards through the carburetor after the air already got loaded down with fuel, and caused the air to receive a second load of fuel. While a bad design, it was nonetheless used in a lot of vehicles. Once these vehicles received performance mods that reduced backpressure, they no longer had that double-loading effect, and then tended to burn valves because of the resulting over-lean condition. This, incidentally, also provides a basis for the "torque increase" seen if backpressure is maintained. As the fuel/air mixture becomes leaner, the resultant combustion will produce progressively less and less of the force needed to produce torque.
On the subject of valve burning my mechanic says you can burn the

valves by advancing the timing too much. How would this figure in

with a lean mixture? This is not a rhetorical question just a darn

interesting subject.

mike

 
My mechanic is pretty adamant about the issue. He has been

rebuilding Clevelands for going on 42 years now. Maybe he knew

some of those engineers or read something in a trade journal.

His most recent encounter is pictured below 'before/after'.

I can at least trust him to change my spark plugs :p

mike

BEFORE

AFTER
I fully disagree with your mechanic. Leaning a motor out can burn things and increase exhaust temp beyond normal temps to where things burn up. If the engine is running properly, temps will be fine and not cause any issues. When running my fresh engine in, the EGR plate was leaking causing a lean condition and we saw exhaust temps at 800 degrees. Fixed the lean condition and they dropped to 375 where they should be.

One of the 4 engineers that designed the 351 Cleveland engine was Wayne Gapp. He later joined with Jack Roush for the Gapp and Roush drag race team of the '70's. Ford commissioned the engineering team to create an engine that could compete at Nascar with the big block 427's and live at high rpm. Thus the 351C was born. Smaller mains so you don't have tremendous bearing speed which equals heat. Big breathing ports so it can turn 7000 RPM and make the HP on par with the big blocks of the day.

Here's a good read on a Pantera site:

http://pantera.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5650045562/m/4131047336

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Clevelands like a lot of advance and like to breath easy. However, like TnFastbk said, you can't do one thing without it having an effect on something else, expect to have to adjust the carb. When you start running more air through the engine and not increase the fuel, it will run too lean, it won't perform right, and may burn the exhaust valves.

 
I fully disagree with your mechanic. Leaning a motor out can burn things and increase exhaust temp beyond normal temps to where things burn up. If the engine is running properly, temps will be fine and not cause any issues. When running my fresh engine in, the EGR plate was leaking causing a lean condition and we saw exhaust temps at 800 degrees. Fixed the lean condition and they dropped to 375 where they should be.
{Thumbs up} And a motor runing lean is way harder on your motor than it runing a bit rich...lol

 
Great thread! So, guys, what are the risks of breaking in my newly rebuilt 351C with open headers and no mufflers? Should I worry about burning the exhaust valves?
None for break in...a lot if you decide to put some miles on the engine.

As noted, an engine properly tuned for ALL FACTORS should not risk burning the exhaust valve.

Case in point, NASCAR with virtually open headers. After 500 miles of 9000 RPM racing(ok, 300 miles after factoring in crashes), the engines generally have more power than they did at the beginning of the race...maybe only 3-5 HP more. But when you are trying to shave .01 seconds off a lap, every little bit counts. And, you don't develop that horsepower by burning up the exhaust valve and killing your compression.



My mechanic is pretty adamant about the issue. He has been

rebuilding Clevelands for going on 42 years now. Maybe he knew

some of those engineers or read something in a trade journal.

His most recent encounter is pictured below 'before/after'.

I can at least trust him to change my spark plugs :p

mike

My most trusted engine consultant and I discuss issues like these all the time. I have put together 1 motor, he has put together dozens...I think the last 2 with his eyes closed. We don't always agree, and it is difficult because he is outstanding in so many regards. But, there are times where I can present overwhelming evidence contrary to his opinion. Then I get to decide who do I trust.

The final word will be with the motor after you get 12000 miles on it and look at the plugs...and after 120k when you pull the heads.




When running my fresh engine in, the EGR plate was leaking causing a lean condition and we saw exhaust temps at 800 degrees. Fixed the lean condition and they dropped to 375 where they should be.
What do you use to measure exhaust temps?

At what exhaust point do you measure?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The final word will be with the motor after you get 12000 miles on it and look at the plugs...and after 120k when you pull the heads.
Problem being I don't want to look at the plugs after 12,000 miles

and discover I have been doing the wrong thing.

mike



My most trusted engine consultant and I discuss issues like these all the time. I have put together 1 motor, he has put together dozens...I think the last 2 with his eyes closed. We don't always agree, and it is difficult because he is outstanding in so many regards. But, there are times where I can present overwhelming evidence contrary to his opinion. Then I get to decide who do I trust.
If I start calling my mechanic an "Engine Consultant" he is going to want more money :huh:

My guy tunes the Cleveland using his ears; then we attach the guages and they are always dead on.

When I do disagree with his opinion it almost always pertains to aesthetics and rarely to the engine and drive train.

mike

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If I start calling my mechanic an "Engine Consultant" he is going to want more money.
Mine is looking for an excuse to get out of the house...

 
Back
Top