Budget stock 212 Hemi TORQUE MONSTER build!

Messages
143
Reaction score
6
I started the exhaust last night. I am going with another of my proprietary, super secret designs. It will be a 2-1/2 stage super transient, super-duper anti-revision big 'ol ugly header. :) The half stage won't be noticable. It should work well for scavenging, make decent torque low to mid range as well as good hp mid to high range. Since the clutches and torque converters don't engage until almost mid range there's no sense in targeting just off idle. I will shoot for just below mid range and up.

I finshed designing the intake and will start on that soon. I am looking to keep the same exhaust flow or make it better with the exhaust on and loose less than 3cfm with the intake on when flow testing with the intake and exhaust on, plus have very stable numbers with both. High goals?
 
Messages
143
Reaction score
6
New #'s

Altered stock valve, 88% throat, mid length
--------10"h2o-----28"h20-----------Full
Lift-----CFM--------CFM---------Depression
.025----na-------------na------------6.10
.050----na-----------11.22--------19.33
.075----na-----------22.20--------31.46
.100----18.23------30.55--------40.36
.125----22.20------37.90--------47.10
.150----25.03------42.84--------51.36
.175----27.13------44.56--------51.78
.200----26.94------44.59--------52.01
.225----26.61------43.75--------51.37
.250----26.37------43.35--------50.84
.261----26.61------43.30--------50.95

I didn't do 10"h2o below .100" lift because I can't get close enough to 10" and the #'s below .100" really don't interest me. I picked up some flow. It flows as well as most stock hemi heads now, just a smaller and much more efficient port. I lost a little bit of flow on the low lift but picked up flow from .125" on up. I might choke the port down a little more to see if I can get the same numbers with a smaller cross-sectional choke and get the low-lift flow back up while keeping or increasing the mid lift numbers.

2020-09-15 20.27.32.jpg2020-09-15 20.33.13.jpg
 
Last edited:

gegcorp2012

Member
Messages
371
Reaction score
9
Location
Alabama
Sorry if I missed the detail, but are you using epoxy to make the (short side?) of the runner smaller and change the shape ?

Nice work documenting your results.

I did some head work years ago on a set of 460 Ford heads and struck water, but must agree that basic tools and a steady hand can remove the material, but knowing exactly where to start and how deep to go is priceless.

I would definitely step up and build a flow bench if I ever attempt DIY head work again.

My question would be to better understand what I have read about normally aspirated IC engines operating at ~80% volumetric efficiency. Is your work showing you can approach 100% VE using a tuned port design ?
 
Messages
143
Reaction score
6
Sorry if I missed the detail, but are you using epoxy to make the (short side?) of the runner smaller and change the shape ?

Nice work documenting your results.

I did some head work years ago on a set of 460 Ford heads and struck water, but must agree that basic tools and a steady hand can remove the material, but knowing exactly where to start and how deep to go is priceless.

I would definitely step up and build a flow bench if I ever attempt DIY head work again.

My question would be to better understand what I have read about normally aspirated IC engines operating at ~80% volumetric efficiency. Is your work showing you can approach 100% VE using a tuned port design ?

Hi gegcorp. Yes, I am using epoxy to raise the short radius "Floor" as well as re-shape the valve bowl in an attempt to gain VE from a more efficient port design. I also raised the roof to be able to decrease the grade on the short turn radius and biased the port to help encourage swirl and set it up for a less turbulent transition filling the valve bowl as well as moving past the valve seat.

Thank you.

Yeah, running into water jackets is easy to do on water cooled heads, for sure. You can buy an electric probe that can tell you the thickness of a wall which helps in those situations. The water jacket repairs are tricky.

I encourage others to build their own flowbench. It's not that expensive or difficult and the benefits are pretty great.

I can only say that I am attempting to produce a more efficient engine by redesigning the ports and building a tuned intake and exhaust system to which my hopes are that I can improve VE (up to or exceeding 100% at times), fuel atomization, and overall better efficiency. But yes. It's my opinion that a smaller, more efficient port will improve VE much closer to 100%, or possibly even more than 100% at times, than the stock port.

If you can build a smaller port that flows the same as a large port without going into sonic choke then the port velocity at all engine events will be greater and be able to allow the air/fuel into the combustion chamber quicker, which takes much more advantage of the pressure drop cause by the piston moving away from TDC as well as scavenging during any overlap. Also, a more energetic and responsive air/fuel mixture can help prevent the fuel droplets from falling out of suspension as well as it has a much better chance of reintroducing fuel back into the air when they do fall out of suspension. I have incorporated a fuel sheer in an attempt to create just enough of a pressure difference on the non-biased side of the port that should allow fuel to be reintroduced and further energize the fuel droplets to stay aloft. This feature not only does not degrade airflow, it actually improves flow thoughout the entire lift range as well as dramatically encourages swirl in the valve bowl and a center pressure to improve low-lift response.

So while I can't say definitively that I have improved VE without test results from a real-world running engine the general idea seems pretty sound that if you can design and incorporate a smaller, more efficient port that flows the same as a larger port, without introducing any sonic choke, you will effectively increase the engine's volumetric efficiency. If you can still flow the same amount of air at all valve lifts in a smaller port than the air will be moving faster to fill the cylinder quicker as well as a smaller port is much easier to get the charge moving after valve opening. The tuned intake can strengthen that by providing a supercharged effect at its tuned resonance. And by the port being smaller and more responsive it can recover from non tuned fazes.

Going from ports that are too large to ones that are smaller, more efficient and can supply the same amount of air at all lifts normally results in a power gain at all rpms as well as being more responsive.

Time will tell.
 
Last edited:

gegcorp2012

Member
Messages
371
Reaction score
9
Location
Alabama
OK, so I admit I was not really curious about this thread until I saw some pictures about what you are up to.

I actually read a few pages and saw where when questioned about modding a 212 instead of buying a larger engine, you presented your point of view about what I call "why I DIY"... to summarize - once you learn how something really works you can use that knowledge on other projects.
I liked that enough to commend and learn something today.

So i admit to not being familiar with the term sonic choke and I looked that up. A few clicks in and I find a 7 page paper that presents the concept, the cause and effects and the math, along with modeling and experiment results on a 600cc I4 engine using mass flow measurements.

FWIW, most of the math is over my head, and my eyes started glazing over, but I studied nozzles and venturi design for a project where I needed to build or make an ejector. (Yeah, I built one). The pictures caught my eye about page 5 and 6 and I started reading the test section again.

I thought you might enjoy the read and get some ideas about how you can set up your engine tests.

<edit - poor behaving nested link from a Google search deleted, see link to the pdf in post below>
 
Last edited:
Messages
143
Reaction score
6
OK, so I admit I was not really curious about this thread until I saw some pictures about what you are up to.

I actually read a few pages and saw where when questioned about modding a 212 instead of buying a larger engine, you presented your point of view about what I call "why I DIY"... to summarize - once you learn how something really works you can use that knowledge on other projects.
I liked that enough to commend and learn something today.

So i admit to not being familiar with the term sonic choke and I looked that up. A few clicks in and I find a 7 page paper that presents the concept, the cause and effects and the math, along with modeling and experiment results on a 600cc I4 engine using mass flow measurements.

FWIW, most of the math is over my head, and my eyes started glazing over, but I studied nozzles and venturi design for a project where I needed to build or make an ejector. (Yeah, I built one). The pictures caught my eye about page 5 and 6 and I started reading the test section again.

I thought you might enjoy the read and get some ideas about how you can set up your engine tests.
[/URL]

Thank you. I am humbled that you actually became interested in my thread and the fact that you fought through the walls of text is a testament to your resistance to boredom. lol I am not really a forum type of guy and tend to feel that if I decide to write things out that it's better to give a full description, reasons, forward thinking ideas and tend to think about what I could share to help others so it tends to be long winded.

I actually read a few pages and saw where when questioned about modding a 212 instead of buying a larger engine, you presented your point of view about what I call "why I DIY"... to summarize - once you learn how something really works you can use that knowledge on other projects.
I liked that enough to commend and learn something today.

Thank you. I have always thought that learning a new skill or building a knowledge base is much more valuable thantaking a short-cut to the end goal. Plus I have always been deeply driven to have an understanding of how things work as well as a passion for improving something or building something to my exact needs, making things more efficient, getting more out of less, making things have multiple purposes and building unique things.

So i admit to not being familiar with the term sonic choke and I looked that up. A few clicks in and I find a 7 page paper that presents the concept, the cause and effects and the math, along with modeling and experiment results on a 600cc I4 engine using mass flow measurements.

Great job. Being familiar with or knowing something, a term in this case, is only an end process of having the curiosity about something enough to allocate enough effort and time to research and gain an understanding. There is very few things that we can know without the process of learning. So, to me, you not being familiar with the term carries zero weight on my opinion of your intelligence, it just means that you haven't been introduced to the term and/or have had a reason to learn about it yet. However, the fact that you took the time to look it up impresses me as well as tells me about your character. As for sonic choke itself there are some great sources available. It's a little bit difficult to push to a point of sonic choke where it greatly affects the performance. If you are diligent and do some math then you can avoid it. Sonic choke is more about relationships between events and the theoretical factors and physics involved are still being explored, just like 90% of the things out there. In fact, a brief sonic choke can sometimes be more beneficial than a no sonic choke event. It gets very deep the more you dive into the latest research. It's kind of similar to a boat going through the water. You would think that the least amount of resistance would provide the fastest or quickest travel. However, if you provide well designed initial resistance you can build more pressure, which in turn lifts the boat making for less wetted surface as well as provide small bubbles that will travel along the hull both providing even less wetted surface as well as reducing the suction type effect between the hull and surface tension of the water. The end result could actually be one that will get up to speed faster as well as carry more top-end speed, all by properly adding a more resistant and less smooth area. But, get it wrong and the quickness, top speed and overall efficiency will suffer. So those who first did tests might have seen more positive results by a more smooth surface. It's only with a better understanding of the physics involved, willingness to experiment and understanding the compromises that they have succeeded. I have witnessed an engine who's port velocity regularly exceeded Mach and it was a very impressive machine. He understood the compromises and it was very well designed. With that said, most cases result in a turd so it's best to avoid the headache and keep it in mind during the design faze! Lol

FWIW, most of the math is over my head, and my eyes started glazing over, but I studied nozzles and venturi design for a project where I needed to build or make an ejector. (Yeah, I built one). The pictures caught my eye about page 5 and 6 and I started reading the test section again.

Yeah, math tends to seem to be beyond the scope of most people until it gets broke down to more digestible bits where an understanding of each of the pieces of formula can be had and the relationships of the constants and variables be realized. Then it becomes much easier to process and isn't so intimidating. The more you delve into math on different things the less intimidating the next math problems become. It's especially true if you don't have a great need or desire to put forth a substantial amount of effort to have an understanding of the "why" behind all the numbers. It's just not worth it and eyes glaze over quickly! Lol

Nozzles and venturi design... Interesting. That can get pretty in depth with the different sciences that are involved. What was that for and how did it work out for you? I have dipped my toe in that well a little too. Any insights that you can share that most people probably miss?

The pictures caught my eye about page 5 and 6 and I started reading the test section again.

Great. I am happy that I could peak your interest :)

I thought you might enjoy the read and get some ideas about how you can set up your engine tests.

Thank you. I went to check it out but It says that it is an invalid link.
 
Messages
143
Reaction score
6
I investigated a bit and found my way to the document that you linked to.

(For future readers)
http://www.ep.liu.se/ecp/132/018/ecp17132181.pdf

Thanks. I think I came across that one when it was recently published but I don't have it saved. This engine doesn't have enough piston speed or engine speed to concern me too much about sonic choke. While it is always something to keep in mind when creating a higher velocity situation within an engine you can get a pretty good idea if you will get close enough by evaluating the engine dynamics, port area and intake area, cross-sectional choke areas, etc and figure out a some-what decent peak velocity at given engine events to see if the air speed might approach a sonic choke condition. I roughly calculated that I am atleast 28% in the good from being close from the conservative side of a possible sonic choke situation at even the most extreme circumstances. It's just something that I touched on to make others aware of the concern as well as the fact that I was aware of the possibility. While the slow initial piston speed might lead to reversion that could start to introduce sonic choke I feel that the port speeds are not high enough to cause sonic choke. While the port speeds will be higher then stock they only fall into a moderately high speed when compared to overall design with engine events taken into account. My port really isn't a "high velocity" port, it's more of a more appropriate and proper velocity situation. I could definitely gain more velocity and push closer to the limits between the more efficient or sonic choke line that can come into play.

It's just that the stock port leaves a lot of room to play with if you are keeping it close to a stock condition once you are free from the many origional design compromises.
 
Last edited:
Messages
143
Reaction score
6
I am thinking of re-doing the port once again. I am thinking that I can gain some more efficiency with a slightly different design. I am not sure that I am in the sweet spot for this engine configuration and my specific needs yet. There might be something left on the table.

To get a pretty accurate idea of possible HP output by taking into consideration max CFM flow at Delta P 28"h2o:

Max flow × .25714 × # of cylinders.

At the current state that would approximate hp around 11.46hp. These numbers are a good estimate if your engine is built well and tuned well. I have used this formula before and it was just slightly conservative on other builds, meaning I made slightly more power than the formula suggested. Others have used it and the formula is pretty spot on.

I am not sure if this combination can actually meet the qualifications to actually make 11.5hp. I would guess the actual hp number would be less. The formula points to a max hp if the engine criteria is well suited for the flow and engine specs are designed well. The current engine specs are probably a little too conservative to reach the peak hp number and still have good guts below the curve. I'm more interested in the guts below the curve supporting enough oomph to get it to the upper range where the peak hp numbers live.

I would rather have a very stout mid-range that peaks at 9.5hp than a lazy mid-range that wakes up only to pull strong in the last 1,500rpm to peak at 10.75hp. Currently it seems pretty balanced. Good usable hp lives in the mid-lift range, especially with a conservative cam and lower compression ratio. I have pretty good flow between .100" and .200" and then it drops off slightly but I lost low-lift flow. I won't gain a ton with overlap because there is very little overlap with this cam but with the current flow numbers I doubt that I would have any benefit from scavenging at all. I got caught up in searching for peak flow at .175"-.200" and lost low-lift flow. Now I have to try to decide whether going back in search for the low-lift flow I had would be worth the compromise of time and possible loss of peak flow at .200".

Just to give others a little bit of an idea of what you can look for when searching for the right balance and a good design I will share a few things that I am focusing on to zero in on what I want. Like anything else that envolves many different physics certain things can work well in one specific design but not so well on another design. Proper research and a solid scientific method should be incorporated into your efforts. I am only sharing my own data, observations and opinions in an attempt to help others. I am not suggesting the following in absolutely correct.

A couple of things that I have noticed with all of the data that I have collected is that if I push the choke point closer to the valve bowl it bumps low-lift flow with a compromise to stability in the flow between .175" and .200". Also, the stall ramp on the low-flow side of the valve bowl greatly effects flow numbers. If the ramp is at a sharper angle it improves low-lift flow but can kill flow at .175"- .200". You can move the ramp closer to the port to improve this some, however. A more gradual ramp helps peak flow, especially at .175" on up but degrades low-lift flow from .100" on down. A tighter choke area improves low-lift flow dramatically but can produce turbulence at .150" on up as well as limits peak flow.

As you can see there are a number of ways to affect flow and it's through trial and error where you can learn what works best and how to target your specific goals. This only works for sure with dry air at a constant Delta P... It's guesswork on whether it will provide satisfactory atomization and balance in a running engine. I am searching for a safe design that would lend itself to allow forgiveness. The more you get to the edge of optimization on the flowbench the more dramatic the changes can be when you include fuel and a real-world running environment. It can greatly help or hurt overall engine characteristics.

For instance, if your port/valve bowl/valve curtain design does not atomize fuel properly (not enough or too much) it is greatly enhanced in the very hostile and dynamic engine that is cycling hundreds and up to many thousands of times per minute. Also, if you design an intake that seems stable when you run it at a constant 28"h2o pressure drop it can become very unstable and turbulent when it is encountering very fast and dramatic pressure cycles. This is why I chart out the flow from 10" to dynamic (wide open vacuum) to see if I can detect any hiccups that might show a dramatic difference in flow. I have noticed several times where the design became turbulent and caused less flow with more lift under the same Delta P than it should have and then less flow than it should at a higher Delta P at the same valve lift. If I just flowed at the constant 28" it would appear that the flow just maxed out because of the port. But I adjusted a few areas in the valve bowl and gained flow at the valve range and above where it started to show the hiccup before and I gained 3.8cfm. Thats a lot on a little port like this, especially since I did not open the cross-sectional area at all, I only adjusted the way the valve bowl interacted with the air.

Some other things that can have an effect is the size of the valve bowl, valve bowl wall slope, valve bowl wall length, short turn radius slope/height/radius/placement, valve throat area/radius/length/angles, etc. Tons of things, obviously, effect the flow but I would argue that it's just as important to understand how each area relate to one another than it is to search for a certain "go-to" design or set of parameters. You can really dial in certain characteristics of how the air flows by understanding the relationships of the different areas. Not all engines are used in the same way. If you are looking for more torque at the low end for an engine that will be used for grunt work you can dial that in. If you want decent grunt but also decent mid-range and high rpm you can focus on that. If you want a race engine that will have a high-rpm engagement and you want to stay in the high rpm range then you can dial that in. The intake and exhaust system should be designed around the specific goals as well as proper cam specs, stroke, compression, fuel, valve, valve seats, etc. It's all about knowing what compromises to make and knowing the relationships between the components and putting them together to harmonize the entire engine as a whole for your specific goals. A huge part of that is getting the proper intake flow. The valve bowl and seat area are crucial and the port is very important as well.

Once you know what you want your engine to do and get the right components picked out the first place you should focus on is the intake system and port to provide the right amount of air at the right velocity, then the valve bowl and seat area to be as efficient at getting the air/fuel into the combustion chamber as efficiently as possible with the best atomization as possible targeted towards your rpm goals. Then harmonize everything to be as efficient as possible to burn and evacuate the burned fuel as efficiently as possible.
 

IsItBroken?

New member
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
TheInspiredFool, never discontinue a project because members of the forum are apparently uninterested. I have created an account on here to comment on this, and there are likely many who either did not log in to read or do not have an account here yet. I have the port design info extremely interesting, and you do a great job of simplifying it just enough that I can understand 95 percent of it without making the information seem "dumbed down".

Based upon what you said in the last post, it sounds like you have the choke point dialed in pretty well. Just thinking about the information you have given us so far, it seems like your choke point is well dialed in to promote efficiency without restricting the top end, so I think (I have very limited knowledge in port design, etc., so take this with several grains of salt) that it would be best to leave the choke point alone and make a moderately sized stall ramp and put it close to the port to lower the negative effects. My thought process is the choke point seems to be good, and if you sacrifice a slight amount of high lift with the stall ramp, but improve the low lift decently, you could still have an overall improvement.

If I am wrong, pleas say so, and explain why! Also, maybe pick up another engine so that you can actually use the cart. Then put the better flowing engine in and be blown away by the difference! :D
 
Messages
143
Reaction score
6
TheInspiredFool, never discontinue a project because members of the forum are apparently uninterested. I have created an account on here to comment on this, and there are likely many who either did not log in to read or do not have an account here yet. I have the port design info extremely interesting, and you do a great job of simplifying it just enough that I can understand 95 percent of it without making the information seem "dumbed down".

Based upon what you said in the last post, it sounds like you have the choke point dialed in pretty well. Just thinking about the information you have given us so far, it seems like your choke point is well dialed in to promote efficiency without restricting the top end, so I think (I have very limited knowledge in port design, etc., so take this with several grains of salt) that it would be best to leave the choke point alone and make a moderately sized stall ramp and put it close to the port to lower the negative effects. My thought process is the choke point seems to be good, and if you sacrifice a slight amount of high lift with the stall ramp, but improve the low lift decently, you could still have an overall improvement.

If I am wrong, pleas say so, and explain why! Also, maybe pick up another engine so that you can actually use the cart. Then put the better flowing engine in and be blown away by the difference! :D
Thank you for your kind words. I am honored and hunbled. I am not much for getting involved with forums and putting too much energy into something that is not much appreciated so it is a little discouraging to take the time to put my thoughts and progress down without much feedback or a way to let me know I'm not wasting my time. So thank you for your encouragement. It is appreciated.

I am not a professional so I only offer my opinion and data for reference. I have done other builds and been raise with an engine builder/master mechanic as a father as well as been around other very highly accomplished builders and gained knowledge that way as well. I might just have enough knowledge to share to be useful as a guide to others with less knowledge/experience. With that said, I have done more testing and data collection than I have shared on here and I just get the feeling that this port is most efficient using the top (opposite of the short turn radius run) of the port for the vast majority of flow and control. I think I might have too much room and slope on the choke break/short turn radius.

Since this is a biased swirl port with a stall I am thinking too much air from the short turn radius could cause turbulence when interacting with the swirled air and disrupt the balance of the relationship between the swirled high flow air and stalled air making the overall flow suffer. If I increased the slope of the short turn radius I could get a stronger swirl stream as well as a more stable and predictable stall side as well as have less air coming down the short turn radius and interacting with the swirl flow. In turn, this would make for a more efficient valve bowl to valve curtain transition allowing me to further choke down the port more to enhance the above situation even further. If I can decrease the choke point by 2mm but pick up flow at low and high valve lift while maintaining my current peak flow then it would be perfect.

It's just a theory though. A feeling, actually. So far it seems like the thought process in my head has been pretty much spot on in testing so I am considering taking the time to make the changes just to see if it works. That is really the main reason behind this build/project. I just don't want to waste even more time just to end up screwing things up and having to try to get it back to where it's at now. On another note I was thinking about trying to make it to the 55cfm mark and swapping in a cheap mild cam but I think I will finish doing this stock build with some comparative numbers against a shock head first. Then swap cams and reflow the system for higher than stock numbers but still with smaller than stock ports and see what kind of power it can make with a decent little cam.

The smart thing will probably end up being to just do what you said. I just have a hard time leaving things alone and not try out all of my ideas. In the end, however, I will have successfully learned many ways that wasn't the most optimal combination atleast. The process of trial and error is not only a good way to find the best outcome but also to gain insight as the intricacies of the way it works and fundamental relationships between all of the different components involved.

I am still thinking about building a micro-controller based automated brake dyno that I can hook my laptop to to get some accurate tq/hp comparisons between a stock head and my head.
 

65ShelbyClone

Member
Messages
496
Reaction score
3
Location
SoCal
Know also that the further you get into uncharted waters, the less feedback others will have to give.

I'm about to embark on an adventure of porting at least one head for my turbo car. There are guides online for doing it yourself and picking up 10-15% more flow, but nobody gives out their secrets for reaching 30-40%. For a DIYer that is the uncharted water. So is knowing how far you can go without hitting water.
 
Messages
143
Reaction score
6
Know also that the further you get into uncharted waters, the less feedback others will have to give.

I'm about to embark on an adventure of porting at least one head for my turbo car. There are guides online for doing it yourself and picking up 10-15% more flow, but nobody gives out their secrets for reaching 30-40%. For a DIYer that is the uncharted water. So is knowing how far you can go without hitting water.
Thanks. That's true. It just got to be like I was wasting my time posting to myself... which is worse than talking to yourself lol

Sweet. Turbos and porting. Sounds like a blast. When porting for pressure vs pressure drop the air moves a tad different. The secret is that the magical extra flow is in the valve curtain area... that is where you pick up the extra flow. You can only hog out a port so much before the valve curtain becomes the choke point. But a big cam is usually the wrong solution. It's in the seat angles and valve bowl. What engine are you porting?
 

65ShelbyClone

Member
Messages
496
Reaction score
3
Location
SoCal
It's the Ford 2.3T originally out of an '86 Thunderbird. Just bowl work can take it from about 175cfm to 190-200 on the stock valves at 0.500". There are a lot of design limitations that play into what can be done and how. They are reltively lift-limited, so big valves get back some curtain area without using a giant cam and springs, which would also increase risk of the cam towers breaking off. It's amazing what can be coaxed out of them, but they really are hobbled by the cylinder head design.
 

vpd66

Member
Messages
147
Reaction score
10
Location
Wisconsin
Take this post with a gain of salt. I'm not trying to offend you or sound negative just telling the truth. Your post is loosing interest because its getting to dragged out. Your updates are too long and your contradicting your work making it not very interesting. Most of the readers here are not from engine building backgrounds or are very highly skilled mechanics, so its easy for them to get lost in your posts and loose interest. Most people here are looking for that quick and easy modification to make their go kart or minibike go faster. When you start going into the theory and testing of how to make improvements I think you loose people's interest. Also after 6 pages no one can take anything worth doing from this post yet. Like I said at the beginning take this with a grain of salt. I'm not trying to put you down just tell you the truth.
 

chimmike

Member
Messages
46
Reaction score
3
I am quite interested in the process and results but the science of it is way, way over my head. I was a business major :banana:

That being said I do like reading it, but I have to go back and spend time looking up terms and then realizing I have no idea what the definitions mean 🤣🤣
 
Messages
143
Reaction score
6
It's the Ford 2.3T originally out of an '86 Thunderbird. Just bowl work can take it from about 175cfm to 190-200 on the stock valves at 0.500". There are a lot of design limitations that play into what can be done and how. They are reltively lift-limited, so big valves get back some curtain area without using a giant cam and springs, which would also increase risk of the cam towers breaking off. It's amazing what can be coaxed out of them, but they really are hobbled by the cylinder head design.
Nice. I agree about the head design being a challenge and the limiting factor. Let me know how you come out on it.
 
Messages
143
Reaction score
6
Take this post with a gain of salt. I'm not trying to offend you or sound negative just telling the truth. Your post is loosing interest because its getting to dragged out. Your updates are too long and your contradicting your work making it not very interesting. Most of the readers here are not from engine building backgrounds or are very highly skilled mechanics, so its easy for them to get lost in your posts and loose interest. Most people here are looking for that quick and easy modification to make their go kart or minibike go faster. When you start going into the theory and testing of how to make improvements I think you loose people's interest. Also after 6 pages no one can take anything worth doing from this post yet. Like I said at the beginning take this with a grain of salt. I'm not trying to put you down just tell you the truth.
Thanks for your feedback. I understand where you are coming from and agree with you on most things except for my contradicting my work... not sure about how that is meant or in what way. When doing custom port work and sharing as you go, if your being honest, it has a way of humbling you and some of the results contradict your theories. I could just keep going until I get the results I want and then build a theory on why and never contradict myself or my work but I wanted to provide the actual process so when this is done people can learn from my mistakes and help them to determine what they would do different. I know that I am long winded and I am not really a very good forum poster in the way to keep interest... which is why I don't start build threads or write in forums much. I figured that since I had not seen anyone do this before that I would make a build thread for others. I figure the more thoughts and explanations I put in the more I might help someone that happens upon my thread looking for ideas, answers or whatever. They can pick thru and pull out what they want. I have had a ton of other things going on so I haven't gotten as far as I wanted. I thought this would be done and running long ago. Oh well. I will just keep plugging away when I can, finish it up, move on and go back to being a forum lurker. I feel more comfortable not sharing and doing a build a forum anyway. Thanks for your feedback. You rightly pointed out most of the reasons why I do not engage in forums lol
 
Messages
143
Reaction score
6
I am quite interested in the process and results but the science of it is way, way over my head. I was a business major :banana:

That being said I do like reading it, but I have to go back and spend time looking up terms and then realizing I have no idea what the definitions mean 🤣🤣
Lol I am glad that your interested. Thank you. I hope to help some people out and will try to make it more interesting and easier to follow along.
 

jbmatth

New member
Messages
1
Reaction score
1
I know it has been almost a month since you have posted in this thread but wanted to say how thankful I am for the work you are performing and the way you have documented it. I do not have the time to do research and test the many theories you have done and presented for us. Being able to spend a few minutes and get to the "payoff" or final results is hugely beneficial for me. I'll now be more likely to take a head and perform this work and toss it on a frame to blast around rather than just settle for stock or redneck engineering and porting work. So again, thank you,

JB
 
Top