How 'bout a little bit of inginuity....... I leave others to work out finer details, but what if......
1. You make up a large drum of sand slurry (sand selection would be important, not too fine, not too coarse), slurry consistency may need a bit of experimentation.
2. Keep said drum of slurry agitated so sand doesn't settle out.
3. Accquire, beg, borrow (steal??) a pump and motor capable of pumping the sand slurry.
4. Connect outlet of pump to inlet of head you want to hone.
5. You may need some way to regulate the flow through each individual runner (maybe fit old valves into the runners you aren't honing at that time)
6. Redirect flow of sand slurry from the inlet runner back into the sand slurry tank (maybe just sit the head over the tank)
7. Crank up the pump and run sand slurry through the inlet and port for 5-10 minutes then stop and repeat process for other ports. After all ports are treated, examine as best you can and repeat if necessary.
Its probably a highly unrealistic idea, and may not even work, but with some further (actually, a hell of a lot!!) refinement it might work like an extrude honing process. But where there's a will, there's a way! You often just need to think a little outside of the square. And a set up like this would surely cost less than the proper extrude hone process. I imagine you would only be doing this if you were going to install hardened valve seat into the head after the treatment, as the seats might get a little eroded during the honing.
Cheers,
Teddy
1. You make up a large drum of sand slurry (sand selection would be important, not too fine, not too coarse), slurry consistency may need a bit of experimentation.
2. Keep said drum of slurry agitated so sand doesn't settle out.
3. Accquire, beg, borrow (steal??) a pump and motor capable of pumping the sand slurry.
4. Connect outlet of pump to inlet of head you want to hone.
5. You may need some way to regulate the flow through each individual runner (maybe fit old valves into the runners you aren't honing at that time)
6. Redirect flow of sand slurry from the inlet runner back into the sand slurry tank (maybe just sit the head over the tank)
7. Crank up the pump and run sand slurry through the inlet and port for 5-10 minutes then stop and repeat process for other ports. After all ports are treated, examine as best you can and repeat if necessary.
Its probably a highly unrealistic idea, and may not even work, but with some further (actually, a hell of a lot!!) refinement it might work like an extrude honing process. But where there's a will, there's a way! You often just need to think a little outside of the square. And a set up like this would surely cost less than the proper extrude hone process. I imagine you would only be doing this if you were going to install hardened valve seat into the head after the treatment, as the seats might get a little eroded during the honing.
Cheers,
Teddy
ummm teddy, to me that kind of sounds liek a sand blaster? matybe I'm just retarded but a sand pump sounds an awful lot like a sand blaster?
If I'm not mistaken sand blaster's use air, I was suggesting the use of a liquid, that is, a slurry. Which when you get down to it, is a very aggressive environment, so materials have to be toughened to survive. We have a lot of liquid pumps on my work site, but the normal ones wouldn't survive for long with a lot of sand in the water. So I suppose the better description is a slurry pump, probably one with high volume, low head pressure, and open impeller design (that's if you go for a centrifical-style pump, there are other types that might work) The main thrust of the idea is that an appropriately selected slurry would have the abrasive qualities to smooth sharp edges, remove some of that unwanted casting crap that Hot 6t Falcon was showing us, and create a smoother, yet still textured surface for the inlet ports.
I did say the idea would need a little work though.....
Regards,
Teddy
I did say the idea would need a little work though.....
Regards,
Teddy
And why can't you use a sand blaster??
No way to direct the sand to go evenly everywhere where you want it to go.
Extrude Hone uses some goop that is slightly more viscous than toothpaste with carborundum or the like in it. Very, very abrasive.
Extrude Hone uses some goop that is slightly more viscous than toothpaste with carborundum or the like in it. Very, very abrasive.
Thanks, I was wondering.
madmaxetc
Well-known member
what if you pressurized the tank of slurry? Then it would force the slurry through the ports.
I am thinking a 5 gal bucket with a small gear reduced motor and mixer atachment sealed through the lid. Then a air line hooked up to the lid. Then have a nipple hooked to a plastic tube going to the port. then a return line going back into the bucket, with a check valve to prevent backwards flow.
This may sound odd but what about KY jelly and sand blasting midia for the slurry. If the KY is to thick then you just add a tad of H2O and tin it out.
What do you think?
I am thinking a 5 gal bucket with a small gear reduced motor and mixer atachment sealed through the lid. Then a air line hooked up to the lid. Then have a nipple hooked to a plastic tube going to the port. then a return line going back into the bucket, with a check valve to prevent backwards flow.
This may sound odd but what about KY jelly and sand blasting midia for the slurry. If the KY is to thick then you just add a tad of H2O and tin it out.
What do you think?
A
Anonymous
Guest
All of the text below until the bold part is our written report that was handed into our teacher for the project. Just for reference all mentions of us or we refer to me, Todd Metz or my lab partner, Joshua Barveld. I told him any time I posted this information I would put our names so credit could be given where it was due. All the information presented is pretty self explanitory but I am more than willing to explain anything I posted. Thank you for reading and I appreciate any input you might have.
The head we started with was off with was a 1980 200 cubic inch Ford straight six. This cylinder head has a cast in, log type, intake manifold. When we received the head it already had a 45 degree cut on the valves, and the seats appeared to be in good condition. We dissembled the head and jet tanked to it prior to flowing it. We found that air was being drawn through the intake port adjacent cylinder; so we taped off the whole deck. The then found that air was being drawn through the adjacent cylinder’s exhaust port; so we taped it also. We then found that air was being drawn trough the valve guides: we then taped them also. The biggest lift diameter ratio we could open the intake valve to was .3. Conversely, the biggest lift diameter ratio we could open the exhaust valve to was .35. We could not measure velocity because the intake manifold was in the way to measure the intake port, and the Pitot tube would not fit in our tiny exhaust port. The objective of our project was to gain flow so we did not note swirl measurements.
Our initial measures are as flows.
INTAKE .05 L/D .1 L/D .15 L/D .2 L/D .25 L/D .3 L/D
Valve lift 0.0859 0.1718 0.2577 0.3346 0.4295 0.5154 Average Flow
Stock (CFM) 41 68.7 96 109.3 115.5 118.4 91.5
Potential flow (CFM) 56.68 105.98 147.2 166.25 178.12 185.07 139.9
Percent of potential flow 72.34% 64.82% 65.22% 65.74% 64.84% 63.98% 65.40%
EXHAUST .05 L/D .1 L/D .15 L/D .2 L/D .25 L/D .3 L/D .35 L/D
Valve lift 0.0687 0.1375 0.2062 0.2749 0.3436 0.4123 0.4810 Average
Stock 31.5 57.6 78.5 89.7 94.3 97.3 98.8 78.2
Potential flow 35.61 66.57 92.47 112.88 128.36 138.22 142.86 102.4
Percent of potential flow 88.46% 86.53% 84.89% 79.46% 73.47% 70.40% 69.16% 76.39%
For our first modification we back-cut the intake valve 30 degrees. Prior research led us to believe that this modification would have little effects on the exhaust valve. Therefore, we modified the intake valve only. Our results are as follows.
INTAKE .05 L/D .1 L/D .15 L/D .2 L/D .25 L/D .3 L/D
Valve lift 0.0859 0.1718 0.2577 0.3346 0.4295 0.5154 Average Flow
30 degree angle back cut on valve (CFM) 43.2 78.1 100.9 114 121.4 123 96.8
Potential flow (CFM) 56.68 105.98 147.2 166.25 178.12 185.07 139.88
Percent of potential flow 76.22% 73.69% 68.55% 68.57% 68.16% 66.46% 69.18%
CFM gained over stock 2.2 9.4 4.9 4.7 5.9 4.6 5.3
Because we gained CFM at all lifts, we feel this is a good modification.
For our second modification, we removed material from combustion camber to un-shroud the valves. Because of the proximity of combustion camber wall to the valves, we felt the wall was restricting airflow. The results are as follows.
INTAKE .05 L/D .1 L/D .15 L/D .2 L/D .25 L/D .3 L/D
Valve lift 0.0859 0.1718 0.2577 0.3346 0.4295 0.5154 Average Flow
Un-shrouded valves (CFM) 43 83 108.1 119.5 124.7 125.8 100.7
Potential flow (CFM) 56.68 105.98 147.2 166.25 178.12 185.07 139.88
Percent of potential flow 75.86% 78.32% 73.44% 71.88% 70.01% 67.97% 71.98%
CFM gained over stock 2 14.3 12.1 10.2 9.2 7.4 9.2
CFM gained over last modification -0.2 4.9 7.2 5.5 3.3 2.8 3.9
EXHAUST .05 L/D .1 L/D .15 L/D .2 L/D .25 L/D .3 L/D .35 L/D
Valve lift 0.0687 0.1375 0.2062 0.2749 0.3436 0.4123 0.4810 Average
Stock 31.5 57.6 78.5 89.7 94.3 97.3 98.8 78.2
Potential flow 35.61 66.57 92.47 112.88 128.36 138.22 142.86 102.4
Percent of potential flow 88.46% 86.53% 84.89% 79.46% 73.47% 70.40% 69.16% 76.39%
We feel this is a worthwhile modification because CFM was gained in the intake port. There was a loss in the exhaust port. However, we feel this modification will help increase exhaust flow with further modifications.
For our third modification, we did a four-angle valve job. The reason we did not do five angles was there was not a 75-degree stone to fit our head. We ground our seats to 15, 30, 45, and 60 degrees. Our results are as follows.
INTAKE .05 L/D .1 L/D .15 L/D .2 L/D .25 L/D .3 L/D
Valve lift 0.0859 0.1718 0.2577 0.3346 0.4295 0.5154 Average Flow
Valve seats (CFM) 42.5 81.2 107.5 119.8 124 125.2 100.0
Potential flow (CFM) 56.68 105.98 147.2 166.25 178.12 185.07 139.88
Percent of potential flow 74.98% 76.62% 73.03% 72.06% 69.62% 67.65% 71.51%
CFM gained over stock 1.5 12.5 11.5 10.5 8.5 6.8 8.6
CFM gained over last modification -0.5 -1.8 -0.6 0.3 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6
EXHAUST .05 L/D .1 L/D .15 L/D .2 L/D .25 L/D .3 L/D .35 L/D Average
Valve lift 0.0687 0.1375 0.2062 0.2749 0.3436 0.4123 0.4810
Valve seats (CFM) 30.3 54.1 74.7 86.6 93 96.3 98.0 72.5
Potential flow (CFM) 35.61 66.57 92.47 112.88 128.36 138.22 142.86 102.4
Percent of potential flow 85.09% 81.27% 80.78% 76.72% 72.45% 69.67% 68.60% 70.78%
CFM gained over stock -1.2 -3.5 -3.8 -3.1 -1.3 -1.0 -0.8 -5.7
CFM gained over last modification 2.1 2.1 2.4 -1.3 -1.9 -1.3 -1.2 0.4
Because our seats were in such good condition, we feel this modification was not needed. If our valve seat were in bad condition this modification would be necessary. We believe the apparent loss was due to a margin of error, not an actual gain or loss.
For our next modification, we ported the bowl area, which includes the valve guide and short side radius. Our results are as follows.
INTAKE .05 L/D .1 L/D .15 L/D .2 L/D .25 L/D .3 L/D
Valve lift 0.0859 0.1718 0.2577 0.3346 0.4295 0.5154 Average Flow
Bowl work (CFM) 43.8 81.9 108.6 125.4 136.5 138 105.7
Potential flow (CFM) 56.68 105.98 147.2 166.25 178.12 185.07 139.88
Percent of potential flow 77.28% 77.28% 73.78% 75.43% 76.63% 74.57% 75.56%
CFM gained over stock 2.8 13.2 12.6 16.1 21 19.6 14.2
CFM gained over last modification 1.3 0.7 1.1 5.6 12.5 12.8 5.7
EXHAUST .05 L/D .1 L/D .15 L/D .2 L/D .25 L/D .3 L/D .35 L/D Average
Valve lift (CFM) 0.0687 0.1375 0.2062 0.2749 0.3436 0.4123 0.4810
Bowl work (CFM) 31.1 57.1 78 93 104.6 111.1 113.9 79.2
Potential flow 35.61 66.57 92.47 112.88 128.36 138.22 142.86 102.4
Percent of potential flow 87.34% 85.77% 84.35% 82.39% 81.49% 80.38% 79.73% 77.28%
CFM gained over stock -0.4 -0.5 -0.5 3.3 10.3 13.8 15.1 0.9
CFM gained over last modification 0.8 3.0 3.3 6.4 11.6 14.8 15.9 6.6
We feel this is the best modification, due to the large gains in flow. Again, there is an apparent small loss, compared to stock, in exhaust flow at low lifts. Again, we believe this is due to a margin of error: not an actual gain or loss. Conversely, there is a large gain at large lifts on the exhaust side and large gains at most lifts on the intake.
Our final modification was to port the remaining exhaust runner. The intake runner cannot be ported due to the cast-in intake manifold. Our results are as follows.
EXHAUST .05 L/D .1 L/D .15 L/D .2 L/D .25 L/D .3 L/D .35 L/D Average
Valve lift 0.0687 0.1375 0.2062 0.2749 0.3436 0.4123 0.4810
Runner ported (CFM) 30 57 78.6 95.5 111.1 120.9 125.1 82.2
Potential flow (CFM) 35.61 66.57 92.47 112.88 128.36 138.22 142.86 102.4
Percent of potential flow 84.25% 85.62% 85.00% 84.60% 86.55% 87.47% 87.57% 80.24%
CFM gained over stock -1.5 -0.6 0.1 5.8 16.8 23.6 26.3 3.9
CFM gained over last modification -1.1 -0.1 0.6 2.5 6.5 9.8 11.2 3.0
Increasing the size of the exhaust port turned out to be a worthwhile modification. There was a gain in CFM at larger lifts.
The gains in intake flow were moderate in our opinion. We feel the restriction in this head is not in the valve area but in the cast-in manifold. While a gain of max 21 CFM is not huge, it is our belief more gains would be possible in the intake was somehow removed. Given the nature of this head, we feel the exhaust flows very well. We gained max 26.3 CFM to raise our max CFM to a125.1 CFM. After all modifications, the percent of potential flow was raised to 87.57 percent.
READ THIS PART!!
These numbers are KINDA off. What we didnt realize at first is what I put into the first bit. The intake sucks MAJOR butt. We were pulling air in through the intake of the adjacent cylinder. We realized this about halfway through everything. We made one final test in the end. We taped EVERYTHING up and flowed it. The intake with stuff open flowed 138, taped off the deck, exhaust ports, and valve guides. The intake then only flowed 124 CFM. The stock log with all it's restrictions and turns is a SEVERE restriction. We noticed a 5CFM increase simply by allowing air to flow in through the valve guides. If we could have cut off the log and ported the rest of the intake port I know we could have easily seen 145+ CFM out of the intake. Bigger valves with no log and we could have easily flowed the snot out of this thing.
I managed to save that cylinder So at a future date I can experiment with no log, ported intake runner, and bigger valves. The other half of that side of the head is cut apart. I have intake and exhaust runner side views. I also have the 3 and 4 exhaust runner cut right in half so the width of the head bolt hole is exposed too. They really are nice cutaways. I have them here in the room with me and have a few pictures. If someone could host them I could give some pictures to them to be posted up. I also am trying to find my own host so sometime soon they will be posted.
I have quite a few theorys on what could really help this head. They come based on my knowledge of airflow and also with what I seen from the flowbench. Ask any questions at all and I will answer them to my very best knowledge. I will be more than willing to explain anything posted above also any of my results I would love to elaborate on to anyone interested.
Thank you for reading my mini novel and hopefully someone can find this information as useful as I have in trying to figure out how to build one of these heads for power.
Again I also welcome any and all input anyone has.
Todd
The head we started with was off with was a 1980 200 cubic inch Ford straight six. This cylinder head has a cast in, log type, intake manifold. When we received the head it already had a 45 degree cut on the valves, and the seats appeared to be in good condition. We dissembled the head and jet tanked to it prior to flowing it. We found that air was being drawn through the intake port adjacent cylinder; so we taped off the whole deck. The then found that air was being drawn through the adjacent cylinder’s exhaust port; so we taped it also. We then found that air was being drawn trough the valve guides: we then taped them also. The biggest lift diameter ratio we could open the intake valve to was .3. Conversely, the biggest lift diameter ratio we could open the exhaust valve to was .35. We could not measure velocity because the intake manifold was in the way to measure the intake port, and the Pitot tube would not fit in our tiny exhaust port. The objective of our project was to gain flow so we did not note swirl measurements.
Our initial measures are as flows.
INTAKE .05 L/D .1 L/D .15 L/D .2 L/D .25 L/D .3 L/D
Valve lift 0.0859 0.1718 0.2577 0.3346 0.4295 0.5154 Average Flow
Stock (CFM) 41 68.7 96 109.3 115.5 118.4 91.5
Potential flow (CFM) 56.68 105.98 147.2 166.25 178.12 185.07 139.9
Percent of potential flow 72.34% 64.82% 65.22% 65.74% 64.84% 63.98% 65.40%
EXHAUST .05 L/D .1 L/D .15 L/D .2 L/D .25 L/D .3 L/D .35 L/D
Valve lift 0.0687 0.1375 0.2062 0.2749 0.3436 0.4123 0.4810 Average
Stock 31.5 57.6 78.5 89.7 94.3 97.3 98.8 78.2
Potential flow 35.61 66.57 92.47 112.88 128.36 138.22 142.86 102.4
Percent of potential flow 88.46% 86.53% 84.89% 79.46% 73.47% 70.40% 69.16% 76.39%
For our first modification we back-cut the intake valve 30 degrees. Prior research led us to believe that this modification would have little effects on the exhaust valve. Therefore, we modified the intake valve only. Our results are as follows.
INTAKE .05 L/D .1 L/D .15 L/D .2 L/D .25 L/D .3 L/D
Valve lift 0.0859 0.1718 0.2577 0.3346 0.4295 0.5154 Average Flow
30 degree angle back cut on valve (CFM) 43.2 78.1 100.9 114 121.4 123 96.8
Potential flow (CFM) 56.68 105.98 147.2 166.25 178.12 185.07 139.88
Percent of potential flow 76.22% 73.69% 68.55% 68.57% 68.16% 66.46% 69.18%
CFM gained over stock 2.2 9.4 4.9 4.7 5.9 4.6 5.3
Because we gained CFM at all lifts, we feel this is a good modification.
For our second modification, we removed material from combustion camber to un-shroud the valves. Because of the proximity of combustion camber wall to the valves, we felt the wall was restricting airflow. The results are as follows.
INTAKE .05 L/D .1 L/D .15 L/D .2 L/D .25 L/D .3 L/D
Valve lift 0.0859 0.1718 0.2577 0.3346 0.4295 0.5154 Average Flow
Un-shrouded valves (CFM) 43 83 108.1 119.5 124.7 125.8 100.7
Potential flow (CFM) 56.68 105.98 147.2 166.25 178.12 185.07 139.88
Percent of potential flow 75.86% 78.32% 73.44% 71.88% 70.01% 67.97% 71.98%
CFM gained over stock 2 14.3 12.1 10.2 9.2 7.4 9.2
CFM gained over last modification -0.2 4.9 7.2 5.5 3.3 2.8 3.9
EXHAUST .05 L/D .1 L/D .15 L/D .2 L/D .25 L/D .3 L/D .35 L/D
Valve lift 0.0687 0.1375 0.2062 0.2749 0.3436 0.4123 0.4810 Average
Stock 31.5 57.6 78.5 89.7 94.3 97.3 98.8 78.2
Potential flow 35.61 66.57 92.47 112.88 128.36 138.22 142.86 102.4
Percent of potential flow 88.46% 86.53% 84.89% 79.46% 73.47% 70.40% 69.16% 76.39%
We feel this is a worthwhile modification because CFM was gained in the intake port. There was a loss in the exhaust port. However, we feel this modification will help increase exhaust flow with further modifications.
For our third modification, we did a four-angle valve job. The reason we did not do five angles was there was not a 75-degree stone to fit our head. We ground our seats to 15, 30, 45, and 60 degrees. Our results are as follows.
INTAKE .05 L/D .1 L/D .15 L/D .2 L/D .25 L/D .3 L/D
Valve lift 0.0859 0.1718 0.2577 0.3346 0.4295 0.5154 Average Flow
Valve seats (CFM) 42.5 81.2 107.5 119.8 124 125.2 100.0
Potential flow (CFM) 56.68 105.98 147.2 166.25 178.12 185.07 139.88
Percent of potential flow 74.98% 76.62% 73.03% 72.06% 69.62% 67.65% 71.51%
CFM gained over stock 1.5 12.5 11.5 10.5 8.5 6.8 8.6
CFM gained over last modification -0.5 -1.8 -0.6 0.3 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6
EXHAUST .05 L/D .1 L/D .15 L/D .2 L/D .25 L/D .3 L/D .35 L/D Average
Valve lift 0.0687 0.1375 0.2062 0.2749 0.3436 0.4123 0.4810
Valve seats (CFM) 30.3 54.1 74.7 86.6 93 96.3 98.0 72.5
Potential flow (CFM) 35.61 66.57 92.47 112.88 128.36 138.22 142.86 102.4
Percent of potential flow 85.09% 81.27% 80.78% 76.72% 72.45% 69.67% 68.60% 70.78%
CFM gained over stock -1.2 -3.5 -3.8 -3.1 -1.3 -1.0 -0.8 -5.7
CFM gained over last modification 2.1 2.1 2.4 -1.3 -1.9 -1.3 -1.2 0.4
Because our seats were in such good condition, we feel this modification was not needed. If our valve seat were in bad condition this modification would be necessary. We believe the apparent loss was due to a margin of error, not an actual gain or loss.
For our next modification, we ported the bowl area, which includes the valve guide and short side radius. Our results are as follows.
INTAKE .05 L/D .1 L/D .15 L/D .2 L/D .25 L/D .3 L/D
Valve lift 0.0859 0.1718 0.2577 0.3346 0.4295 0.5154 Average Flow
Bowl work (CFM) 43.8 81.9 108.6 125.4 136.5 138 105.7
Potential flow (CFM) 56.68 105.98 147.2 166.25 178.12 185.07 139.88
Percent of potential flow 77.28% 77.28% 73.78% 75.43% 76.63% 74.57% 75.56%
CFM gained over stock 2.8 13.2 12.6 16.1 21 19.6 14.2
CFM gained over last modification 1.3 0.7 1.1 5.6 12.5 12.8 5.7
EXHAUST .05 L/D .1 L/D .15 L/D .2 L/D .25 L/D .3 L/D .35 L/D Average
Valve lift (CFM) 0.0687 0.1375 0.2062 0.2749 0.3436 0.4123 0.4810
Bowl work (CFM) 31.1 57.1 78 93 104.6 111.1 113.9 79.2
Potential flow 35.61 66.57 92.47 112.88 128.36 138.22 142.86 102.4
Percent of potential flow 87.34% 85.77% 84.35% 82.39% 81.49% 80.38% 79.73% 77.28%
CFM gained over stock -0.4 -0.5 -0.5 3.3 10.3 13.8 15.1 0.9
CFM gained over last modification 0.8 3.0 3.3 6.4 11.6 14.8 15.9 6.6
We feel this is the best modification, due to the large gains in flow. Again, there is an apparent small loss, compared to stock, in exhaust flow at low lifts. Again, we believe this is due to a margin of error: not an actual gain or loss. Conversely, there is a large gain at large lifts on the exhaust side and large gains at most lifts on the intake.
Our final modification was to port the remaining exhaust runner. The intake runner cannot be ported due to the cast-in intake manifold. Our results are as follows.
EXHAUST .05 L/D .1 L/D .15 L/D .2 L/D .25 L/D .3 L/D .35 L/D Average
Valve lift 0.0687 0.1375 0.2062 0.2749 0.3436 0.4123 0.4810
Runner ported (CFM) 30 57 78.6 95.5 111.1 120.9 125.1 82.2
Potential flow (CFM) 35.61 66.57 92.47 112.88 128.36 138.22 142.86 102.4
Percent of potential flow 84.25% 85.62% 85.00% 84.60% 86.55% 87.47% 87.57% 80.24%
CFM gained over stock -1.5 -0.6 0.1 5.8 16.8 23.6 26.3 3.9
CFM gained over last modification -1.1 -0.1 0.6 2.5 6.5 9.8 11.2 3.0
Increasing the size of the exhaust port turned out to be a worthwhile modification. There was a gain in CFM at larger lifts.
The gains in intake flow were moderate in our opinion. We feel the restriction in this head is not in the valve area but in the cast-in manifold. While a gain of max 21 CFM is not huge, it is our belief more gains would be possible in the intake was somehow removed. Given the nature of this head, we feel the exhaust flows very well. We gained max 26.3 CFM to raise our max CFM to a125.1 CFM. After all modifications, the percent of potential flow was raised to 87.57 percent.
READ THIS PART!!
These numbers are KINDA off. What we didnt realize at first is what I put into the first bit. The intake sucks MAJOR butt. We were pulling air in through the intake of the adjacent cylinder. We realized this about halfway through everything. We made one final test in the end. We taped EVERYTHING up and flowed it. The intake with stuff open flowed 138, taped off the deck, exhaust ports, and valve guides. The intake then only flowed 124 CFM. The stock log with all it's restrictions and turns is a SEVERE restriction. We noticed a 5CFM increase simply by allowing air to flow in through the valve guides. If we could have cut off the log and ported the rest of the intake port I know we could have easily seen 145+ CFM out of the intake. Bigger valves with no log and we could have easily flowed the snot out of this thing.
I managed to save that cylinder So at a future date I can experiment with no log, ported intake runner, and bigger valves. The other half of that side of the head is cut apart. I have intake and exhaust runner side views. I also have the 3 and 4 exhaust runner cut right in half so the width of the head bolt hole is exposed too. They really are nice cutaways. I have them here in the room with me and have a few pictures. If someone could host them I could give some pictures to them to be posted up. I also am trying to find my own host so sometime soon they will be posted.
I have quite a few theorys on what could really help this head. They come based on my knowledge of airflow and also with what I seen from the flowbench. Ask any questions at all and I will answer them to my very best knowledge. I will be more than willing to explain anything posted above also any of my results I would love to elaborate on to anyone interested.
Thank you for reading my mini novel and hopefully someone can find this information as useful as I have in trying to figure out how to build one of these heads for power.
Again I also welcome any and all input anyone has.
Todd
A
Anonymous
Guest
Todd,
GOOD JOB!!!
Quite an interesting read!!!
In your opinion, would having the head extrude honed help with the flow especially with the intake area? I was quoted $450 a while back.
I can host them and your article on my inline fever website if you would like??
If you want to, e-mail them to me @ mustang_man_1966@yahoo.com
And I'll get them up on my website this weekend.
Thanks,
Doug
GOOD JOB!!!
Quite an interesting read!!!
In your opinion, would having the head extrude honed help with the flow especially with the intake area? I was quoted $450 a while back.
I can host them and your article on my inline fever website if you would like??
If you want to, e-mail them to me @ mustang_man_1966@yahoo.com
And I'll get them up on my website this weekend.
Thanks,
Doug
A
Anonymous
Guest
Mustang_Geezer":7crep8lk said:
Doug,
Thank you very much for the kind words, I tried to make it interesting and not just some boring numbers noone could read.
Ok onto your question. I differ from a few people but I'll be dead honest. Extrude honing your head would be EXCELLENT!! HOWEVER, there is not enough material in the log that I feel doing it just to make the log larger is worthwhile. Doing it to try and enlarge the intake runners however is a most excellent idea. Due to the shape of the intake port and the angles it's at is is impossible to put a proper short side radius into the port. You cannot get the grinder bit in at a good enough angle to work properly. Well you cannot get any of the ones I had at my disposal, short common ones and long shank common ones. These include balls, acorn, tapered, straight that sort.
For $450 if you are looking for a really good street/strip head I would say to go ahead and do it. You will smooth out the intake which will be good for some flow, you will make the intake ports larger which will increase flow, and you will also smooth out the intake ports and remove alot of casting flash which will really help flow. I think if you were to do a extrude hone and follow that with a good 5 angle, back cut intakes, slightly larger valves, and some good port work on the bowls that would be a killer head for mild performance use.
By mild I mean what most people are going to do not a really high hp build that you should cut the log off for anyways.
I will work on finding the photos I think they got lost upon switching computers. I have a laptop now and my desktop has the photos so I have them I just have to get them off that computer I belive. I will however email ya the excel and the Word document. Both of which should be a whole lot easier to read if presented in their original format. I really appreciate the hosting!!
I will email you those documents and try to get you the pictures by the end of the day. When you see an email from 79zeph it's me
Thank you for the kind words and keep the input comin guys!!
Todd
Awesome work! Not sure of all the jargon, but from what I understand getting the air from the intake hole where the carb mounts down to the intake valves is the biggest restriction. I would love to know what difference it would make if you had the Offenhauser triple setup on the log.
A
Anonymous
Guest
69Falcon":1p7vz8ge said:
You are absolutely correct on the log being the restriction. I don't know exactly what numbers would be produced but I can absolutly without doubt say a triple setup would flow many MANY more CFM.
What on the "jargon"
is confusing? I'd be more than happy to explain any of it for ya, also if you ask someone else I'm sure is confused too I can help out lots of people.I really am doing this to help out as many people as possible so feel more than free to ask for clarification on anything and I will help as much as possible!!
Completely fascinating, learned a lot. Keep it up, I think it's worth it. Alex
Zeph, great job done, you had better see an "A" for your deticated job.
As observing your flow #'s thats why I saw a decrease in performance just by going from 1.65 rocker arm ratio to a 1.6 rocker ratio.
That means I need more camshaft duration to help compensate for the weak flow of the intake log.
This is a great learning curve for the forum.
Just demonstrates the need for a good aftermarket head & intake manifold to support the needed flow for gains in performance.
Since the argie head is no longer available & the aussie head is near impossible to find only Mike @ FSPP can provide the necessary componets.
The only resort right now is to turbo charge to force air into this engine.
Again great job. William
As observing your flow #'s thats why I saw a decrease in performance just by going from 1.65 rocker arm ratio to a 1.6 rocker ratio.
That means I need more camshaft duration to help compensate for the weak flow of the intake log.
This is a great learning curve for the forum.
Just demonstrates the need for a good aftermarket head & intake manifold to support the needed flow for gains in performance.
Since the argie head is no longer available & the aussie head is near impossible to find only Mike @ FSPP can provide the necessary componets.
The only resort right now is to turbo charge to force air into this engine.
Again great job. William
A
Anonymous
Guest
Todd,
Does this look allright??
http://www.geocities.com/mustang_man_1966/flowtest.html
For some reason I couldnt actually open the files....I could only preview them so I cut and pasted them onto my website.
If you can find the pictures off your other computer send them to me and I'll put them up too!
Do you still have access to the flow bench??
Now that you flowed the head with a single carb, drill another hole (1"-1.25" diameter) next to the stock opening like you were going to mount a Holley 2 bbl carby on it and reflow it to see what improvement their is?
Thanks again!!
Doug
Does this look allright??
http://www.geocities.com/mustang_man_1966/flowtest.html
For some reason I couldnt actually open the files....I could only preview them so I cut and pasted them onto my website.
If you can find the pictures off your other computer send them to me and I'll put them up too!
Do you still have access to the flow bench??
Now that you flowed the head with a single carb, drill another hole (1"-1.25" diameter) next to the stock opening like you were going to mount a Holley 2 bbl carby on it and reflow it to see what improvement their is?
Thanks again!!
Doug
A
Anonymous
Guest
I UPDATED MY RESULTS POST DUE TO ME BEING STUPID AND FORGETTING THE EXHAUST DATA
A
Anonymous
Guest
wsa111":2rv0ahb5 said:
I got 91 out of 100. My teacher didn't like the way I left a few data things out. The last modification we made was the runner on the exhaust. We didn't include the intake numbers because we couldn't modify that. He docked us points for not including the intake numbers for that test.
As far as the rockers losing power I can't comment much as I don't know the specs of the cam.
I do however believe that a long duration mild lift cam would really open up the head for performance. Something with about .450 lift would be about the max I would go. Problem though is finding the right point of duration. Too much and you raise the power band too high, too little and it craps out way to early.
I do feel this demonstrates the massive short coming in our engines. The short block is so indestructable in stock form we just can't really find the limits with our poopy head. With like you said the diminishing supply of good heads I feel like I am going to be helping our community out alot with the future research I want to do with these heads. I just need to get my hands on some more samples to try some of the stuff I want. I learned some stuff and I really want to try a few of my theory's out further. I think I can honestly find a way to get flow up to at least a respectable level. I feel I could figure out how with minimal modifications. I just have to figure out a way to get the air into the log at optimal positions.
Like I said I have a few ideas just need to try and find some spare heads and I need some more time.
Oh and just as a FYI I am going to try to reverse some thinga and try to see if blowing air into the log gets more flow.
The thing is it will be next semester before I can get my hands on the flowbench again. I am hoping to make a deal with my professor so I can get on the bench early and REALLY get some indepth numbers on these heads. I still have the chamber I modified and I hope to cut the intake off and play with the intake runner some more.
I also am going to be switching to a welding major and hope to make an intake manifold flange and intake manifold that I can possibly market to the DIY people.
I have big ideas and hopefully this is going to help me build up a reputation for being able to build some good stuff and use some of my brain power. I plan to start doing some wonderful things with these heads. If anyone in the Mid Michigan area wants to help out and has no need for these heads lemme know!!
Thanks again for all your positive comments.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Mustang_Geezer":3fyn3d2j said:
Doug,
It looks great. I just need to email ya the final copy I have. The one I sent you donsn't have the exhaust data. I also found the pictures. I will email them all to you tomorrow again as it is really late tonight.
I will have access again soon to the flow bench and I plan on trying quite a few ideas about inlet holes. I will definitly have to try your idea about doing like a direct mount two barrel.
No problem, thank you for hosting everything.
Todd
