asa67_stang":3rqto7kn said:
Use it on a Diesel? :roll:
that just doesn't sound like it would work
what happens when the metal heats up and cools? either it's going to leak horribly till it gets to it's optimum temperature, or it would seize up when it got hot
at least as well as i understand it
and then there's the fact that these guys have been around for several years and i haven't seen one write up about them anywhere other than on forums
what happens when the metal heats up and cools? either it's going to leak horribly till it gets to it's optimum temperature, or it would seize up when it got hot
at least as well as i understand it
and then there's the fact that these guys have been around for several years and i haven't seen one write up about them anywhere other than on forums
The rotary valves have been tried and tried and tried. Only notable success was in some WWII aero engines. These compared to an auto engine are slow speed.
Valve shafts turn at 1/4 engine speed rather than 1/2 engine speed as a conventional poppet valve cam. The limiting design factor is valve shaft diameter which dictates valve timing limitations. To get valve timing similar to what is used for current performance engine, the shafts would have to be quite large. Also the port openings through the valve shaft would be large and airflow velocity would drop.
For the modern concept of variable valve timing, the shafts would have to run at varing speeds and the acceleraton/ decceleration of the shafts would cause an extreme load on the drive gear.
Valve shafts turn at 1/4 engine speed rather than 1/2 engine speed as a conventional poppet valve cam. The limiting design factor is valve shaft diameter which dictates valve timing limitations. To get valve timing similar to what is used for current performance engine, the shafts would have to be quite large. Also the port openings through the valve shaft would be large and airflow velocity would drop.
For the modern concept of variable valve timing, the shafts would have to run at varing speeds and the acceleraton/ decceleration of the shafts would cause an extreme load on the drive gear.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I agree with all of the objections. My own worry was scoring from carbon particles, etc.. I have run outboards with barrel-type rotary valves (disc valves are better), and have built carburetors with barrel-valves, but a barrel-valve in this application is a challenge. I wish 'em luck, and maybe with today's materials they can make a go of it. I wasn't promoting the idea, except to say that it would be the most exotic modification of a Ford six I can think of. For me, and I'm not criticizing the 4-valve project at all, 6bangerbill's pushrod aluminum 2-valve head is as far as I'd go with the Ford bottom end.
At the moment, its a jive turkey.
The Aussie Dunstan Rotary valve Grey and Red Holden engines of the 60's were standout performers. They were ised in power boats, and evn the old grey Holden, dating from a rejected Buick prepwar I6, gave over 220 hp on a 156 cube engine no problem, but NO TORQUE below 5000 rpm.
Same with BMW development engines for F2 racing in the 60's. Rev to the seventh heaven but no low end torque out of corners. Rotary valves are a total loss becasue of over lap. Running two barrel valves as separte items with variable valve timing would be a great idea. When hydrogen engines occur, the rotary valve engine will come of age.
The Aussie Dunstan Rotary valve Grey and Red Holden engines of the 60's were standout performers. They were ised in power boats, and evn the old grey Holden, dating from a rejected Buick prepwar I6, gave over 220 hp on a 156 cube engine no problem, but NO TORQUE below 5000 rpm.
Same with BMW development engines for F2 racing in the 60's. Rev to the seventh heaven but no low end torque out of corners. Rotary valves are a total loss becasue of over lap. Running two barrel valves as separte items with variable valve timing would be a great idea. When hydrogen engines occur, the rotary valve engine will come of age.
Though it's not a DOHC how about this as food for thought....Barry Grant is coming out with a 3 valve head 2-int/1 exh.Testing has shown that with the 2 smaller intake valves flow increased by around 40% and it flowed alot better at lower lifts.What if 6bangerbill got ahold of a set of those and worked his magic 
red(neck+truck)
Well-known member
highboy 74":28e1v6xb said:
red(neck+truck)
Well-known member
the only problem is getting them to not slap shut
There was a bunch of amazing things in the late 80's and early 90's. Things like Single OHC per bank conversions to the stock SBC heads, Dominion 32 valve V8 pushrod billet heads for Big Block Chevies, and the Hemi to RB Wedge block conversions. There were OHC conversions of Chevy L6's by Australian Duggan, who did rip-offs of the OHC Pontiac heads but for ChevY 250'S.
There were Hart Turbo engines based on the Ford BDA, itself based on the ancient Kent ohv engine still found today in Ford Ka's and thousands of Ford Stationary Engines used for street sweepers. Used in F1 racing, they outperfomed every other engine before they blew up. After that, funding was lost, and we never saw them again.
There was the Aussie 2 Valve per cylinder sohc Krogdahl designed HoldenL6 /Ford I6 unified casting, which could fit two kinds of engines from one casting.
Recently, the 5.0 Windsor V8 was shown with a Perth engineer effort...variable valve lift and duration set-up, using stock heads and plantery gearsets from an C4 automatic.
If you can follow through, and don't give up, you'll get funding and hopefully make any good sound idea a commerical sucess.
The stratified charge engine was a case in point. In the late 70's Ford bailed on a paternship with Honda to build one. It was seen as too hard to productionize on Detroit engine lines. Honda sold 3 years worth of stratfied charge engines to prove it did work. It remained idle until Alfa Romeo's 147 JTS came out. To avoid patent infringemnts, its only stratified charge at a certian range of engine speeds. Guess where the idea came from?
Answer. An Aussie. Who would have thought a quiet Aussie called Ralph Sarrich, with no engineering qualifcations, would design a swash plate Orbital engine and fit it to a Ford Cortina in the 1970's, and have it operational. It was never a promising engine. On the way to making it work, he invented Jet Stream Stoichometic injection, and then patented the Orbital Combustion Process engine, a 2-stroke engine which passed emissions tests. It was released by Ford of Europe in a Fiesta. Today, Alfa Romeo and others dart around the patent issues becasue someone followed through on the idea.
We've got a guy from 40 miles south in Balclutha, NZ. He did his time servicing of heavy farm equipment. Good bloke, handy with tools, not a real fireball, but applied. He looked at ancient Wilson preselector transmissons, and then realised that engineers were stupid. All gearchanges cause calamities, so why not engage them all at once? Patented the idea, now Toyota are getting in to Paul Goatley's gearbox.
http://goatley.co.nz/How_it_works.htm
If you really want to do it, don't give up, make it happen.
There were Hart Turbo engines based on the Ford BDA, itself based on the ancient Kent ohv engine still found today in Ford Ka's and thousands of Ford Stationary Engines used for street sweepers. Used in F1 racing, they outperfomed every other engine before they blew up. After that, funding was lost, and we never saw them again.
There was the Aussie 2 Valve per cylinder sohc Krogdahl designed HoldenL6 /Ford I6 unified casting, which could fit two kinds of engines from one casting.
Recently, the 5.0 Windsor V8 was shown with a Perth engineer effort...variable valve lift and duration set-up, using stock heads and plantery gearsets from an C4 automatic.
If you can follow through, and don't give up, you'll get funding and hopefully make any good sound idea a commerical sucess.
The stratified charge engine was a case in point. In the late 70's Ford bailed on a paternship with Honda to build one. It was seen as too hard to productionize on Detroit engine lines. Honda sold 3 years worth of stratfied charge engines to prove it did work. It remained idle until Alfa Romeo's 147 JTS came out. To avoid patent infringemnts, its only stratified charge at a certian range of engine speeds. Guess where the idea came from?
Answer. An Aussie. Who would have thought a quiet Aussie called Ralph Sarrich, with no engineering qualifcations, would design a swash plate Orbital engine and fit it to a Ford Cortina in the 1970's, and have it operational. It was never a promising engine. On the way to making it work, he invented Jet Stream Stoichometic injection, and then patented the Orbital Combustion Process engine, a 2-stroke engine which passed emissions tests. It was released by Ford of Europe in a Fiesta. Today, Alfa Romeo and others dart around the patent issues becasue someone followed through on the idea.
We've got a guy from 40 miles south in Balclutha, NZ. He did his time servicing of heavy farm equipment. Good bloke, handy with tools, not a real fireball, but applied. He looked at ancient Wilson preselector transmissons, and then realised that engineers were stupid. All gearchanges cause calamities, so why not engage them all at once? Patented the idea, now Toyota are getting in to Paul Goatley's gearbox.
http://goatley.co.nz/How_it_works.htm
If you really want to do it, don't give up, make it happen.
A
Anonymous
Guest
There also were, in the '70s, the Moser 4-valve heads for SBCs, belt-driven, sold by Crane Cams. And there were the 4-valve heads by Weslake (I think), pushrod-actuated. Those darn Ch*vy guys get all the neat stuff!!
A
Anonymous
Guest
Hey guys newbie here. Dont want to step on any toes being new and all but I dont think a 300 could spin the ol' crank fast enough (rev high enough) to need a DOHC head. Too much for only 3000 or so rpm. If it were a 302 Id say how big can I make the valves before they touch (ie my boss 302) the motor works well at high rpms. Personally I would love to see it work and would love to have a truck with one in it but not very realistic. Keep me posted on your progress 
Who said anything about it being a truck engine? FTF has one in his altered turning up to 7000 rpms, and nckwiencek has a 300 in his '68 Mustang 
. This is all about bucking the trend and doing something new. It's about experimenting and thinking outside the box. 
And welcome to the forum. We'd love to hear some of your crazy ideas, that's what this forum is for.
. This is all about bucking the trend and doing something new. It's about experimenting and thinking outside the box. And welcome to the forum. We'd love to hear some of your crazy ideas, that's what this forum is for.
A
Anonymous
Guest
duely noted that this isnt a truck only motor. Sixes are very common in mustangs as well as many other ford cars from the day. How streetable would a 7000rpm 6 be? Im all for wild and crazy. Heres something to toss around in the ol' noggin what about a head off a Lamborgini V12? If you could afford to buy one Im sure you could manage to make it fit. If I remember right those things are in the 500 in range so one head might work. Anyone here runnin a 6 on a mud rail or tractor pull sled? Id actually love to see 4 inlines mounted on a sled doing a full pull with the front tires 4 feet off the ground.
Sorry If my previous post was a little too conservative.
I love this site. My buddies at Ford-trucks sent me over
Sorry If my previous post was a little too conservative.
I love this site. My buddies at Ford-trucks sent me over
Streetable? Not at all. He's also running the FS1 aluminum head, which is 2 LS1's chopped and joined together at about 13:1 compression ratio. In real life, the 300 will stop making power around 4500. But get enough torque, and run a low-geared rear and revs don't matter as much.
I knew a guy who ran a 300 in a mudder. He mounted it a couple feet back to make the weight distribution better. The rear shaft was well over a foot shorter than the front!
The main issue with fitting a head is bore diameter and spacing. It has to be at least somewhere in the neighborhood. I have no idea about the Lambo but it would be cool and very unique.
EDIT: Well, I was curious so I looked it up...couldn't find anything so calculated it myself from some pictures...about 95mm or 3.74" bore spacing for a '79 model. Not gonna work. But it would've been cool.
I knew a guy who ran a 300 in a mudder. He mounted it a couple feet back to make the weight distribution better. The rear shaft was well over a foot shorter than the front!
The main issue with fitting a head is bore diameter and spacing. It has to be at least somewhere in the neighborhood. I have no idea about the Lambo but it would be cool and very unique.
EDIT: Well, I was curious so I looked it up...couldn't find anything so calculated it myself from some pictures...about 95mm or 3.74" bore spacing for a '79 model. Not gonna work. But it would've been cool.
I-6, V-6, I-8, V-8, V-120 whatever.
Max rpm is a function of breathing ability, stroke and flame speed of the fuel being burned.
DOHC, maximum breathing ability, then remaining limiting factors is stroke and flame speed. The piston can not move faster than the fuel can burn.
Remember the sbc 283 and the Ford 289, both V-8, same size, both with about the same breathing ability. Same fuel, so same flame speed. And the 289 would out wind the 283.
WHY? The 289 had a shorter stroke.
If all holds together a 4.0" inch stroke on good gas IIRC could make 7200 rpm or a little more. & mains and forged rods the 300 should, the limiter is breathing
Somebody lay the formula on us.
Max rpm is a function of breathing ability, stroke and flame speed of the fuel being burned.
DOHC, maximum breathing ability, then remaining limiting factors is stroke and flame speed. The piston can not move faster than the fuel can burn.
Remember the sbc 283 and the Ford 289, both V-8, same size, both with about the same breathing ability. Same fuel, so same flame speed. And the 289 would out wind the 283.
WHY? The 289 had a shorter stroke.
If all holds together a 4.0" inch stroke on good gas IIRC could make 7200 rpm or a little more. & mains and forged rods the 300 should, the limiter is breathing
Somebody lay the formula on us.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Dont forget about rotating mass weight. Thats also a big problem with stroker kits. Longer stroke = more weight spinning around. Strokers make much of their power down low, like our 6s. So I guess you would have to de-stroke a 300 and bore it out larger to achieve higher rpms and maintain roughly the same cubic inches. A wise man once said "theres no replacement for displacement." Im guessing allum rods and much lighter crank. That would help. Then maybe an induction system like a super charger that makes more power at high rpm than lower. I dont know. Im not experienced with building bad a$$ 300s. I do know 302s. One thing I can say for the ol' 300 how many people can say they can double their motors stock horsepower, from like 120 to 240, for about $1000-1500 give or take. Im talking intake 4bbl headers cam and alittle valve work. Rather easy if you ask me. Try doubling the hp on a 302, 290 to 580, for that kind of money.
Similar threads
All Small Six
A BRAND NEW CYLINDER HEAD FOR THE FORD STRAIGHT 6?
All Small Six
Intake manifold on a cross flow head
