Welding and gas-flowing Log headed exhasts

xctasy

xctasy

5K+
VIP
Jack just touched on something very special. He's always maintained the exhast flow of the six is fairly bad. After looking at my 66 200, I'd have to say it is too.

The bosses that hold the exhast manifold are back-cut, so any he-man grind-it out to the jackets mods will make your die grinder see air.


One idea. How about welding and filling in the iron exhast flange, filling in all the gaps with steel, and then grinding it out further? The shape is more important than the size, but since its so small, any increase in size will help a whole heap. The area at cylinder 3 and 4 is huge, and with a port divder, it could flow brilliantly. Work needs to concentrate on the exhasts for the remaining cylinders. If you could just improve the total size by 1/8 th of an inch in port outlet height and width, then the engine would think it had hit an power vaccumm.

A similar approach was done with the Alan Root/TFS Windsor heads. They just re-placed the studs furter out to suit. If we came up with a header to flange design which could be posted on the'net, we could all have a go at hogging out some more material.

I aggree that the Log head has really good intake profiles, and that the non-removable intake is the only nasty part. Even the early 170 heads have heaps of potential here, as the ports past the log manifold are ski-jumps.

Thats why I've looked at screw in injector and velocity tube stacks which allow the air to flow like a rat down a drain pipe. With a MAP sensored EFI, no throttle butterflies would be needed, you could control air metering further back over the rocker cover like on 5.0's, 4.6/5.4's.

I think the el cheepo log can be turned into one sweet flowing head.

The exhast is the area to work on. Its not what you eat that makes you thin or fat, its what comes out. We need to do a Zenical, hone out the exhast, and get the log flowing out!

(Eeeewwww)
 
I say cut the flanges off completely. If you run the head thru a bandsaw, you get rid of the log and the exhaust flanges at the same time. The 3&4 ports then end up the same as the rest.
 
You end up with a high intake port head that looks a lot like this:

head.jpg
 
Jeep?

I saw with excitement Al's last Sawzall Experience with the later log on a post back in Dec 2002. I was interested in how the dowels and head face could be tapped to suit the newly dressed face. I couldn't see how the ports could seal.

200intake5.jpg
 
That's a mirror image of a Jeep. The pic you posted is close, but Al didn't cut enough.

If you slice the ford the same way you end up with a very flat face that you could bolt a flange to. There is enough area and metal to make that feasible. Or furnace brazing is a possibility. However you do it, you'll find a silk purse inside that sow's ear. :)
 
Not trying to be a greasy a$$, but your onto another winner, Jack. We need to wire your brain upto a Cray supercomputer, and get it to take some lessons!
 
You could use a large port plate like the nascar guys used on the clevland heads in the 70s. the plates they used raised the exh port about 1 1/2 inches!
Jim
 
The Hi-Port conversion. Know all about that one. Where you shove an alloy plate on the ground out and rasied exhast ports to stop the 120 deg bend all 4v's had from the valve poket to the header out let.

(Those spring tower braces have a lot to answer for in compacts and intermediate Fords. They ruined all 335 and 385 family V8's on the exhast area. When you shove a Big Block or Cleveland in a separate chassis car like a NASCAR or 56 Customline, you wonder why Ford even wanted to go coil over A-arm)

Hmm. It's not a lot different, is it.

There are no new Ideas, just old ones re-heated.

This is a cool idea to re-heat Jack!

x-flow Mustang, x-flow 200, Hi ported Log.

Lookes like a Merry X-mass to me!
 
Ok

I guess my question, directed at Jack-

It looks like Al pretty much cot perpendicular to the intake ports if I'm reading the picture well enough.

Your comment was "Al didn't cut enough.". Should he have gone deeper perpendicular to the intak ports, or were you suggesting he cut the exhasut face deeper and pick up the intake ports, albeit at an angle. New inatke manifold would then have it's face non-perpendicular to the port.

Am i understanding this correctly?
 
+.020, I think he is saying that the cut perp to the deck face should have come closer to the spark plug side. A plate would be at least 5/8" thick, more likely 3/4". So you'd need to allow for this thickness.

Furnace brazing here has gone up; I know this job would cost me about $150 to have the plate made and $300 to have it set to the head, if I pre-mill. Then it requires custom manifolds (Argentinian?) and the valve work...

Not that it wouldn't be interesting, but probably as Jack says, a little redundant in the face of other options. My old LYNX manifold requires an angled cut perpendicular to the intake tubes for the 3/4" brazed on mount plate.

Regards, Adam.
 
If you cut just a little further, perpendicular to the deck, the 3&4 port separate. There is still a lot of metal for the freeze plugs, but you'll end up with a great deal of flat surface to mount a flange and those puny exhaust ports open way up. The dogleg downward turn that they had to make is now eliminated, as is the tiny little port runner.

The trick to making it easier, I think, is to deal with the intake and exhaust at the same time, with the same cut. One flat face, one flange.

The hard part of all this is manifolding. Now you not only need an intake, but the exhaust is going to need a custom header.
 
Someday if I'm ever bored, I'll take this D7 head, mount it on a mill and with either a nice carbide-tipped fly-cutter or large roughing end mill, I'll make a big mess. I'm sure I can do quite a bit of damage in an hour :)

Someday :roll:

Al
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top