Additional port work (finally completed)

The motor is out right now and it seems that each time it comes apart I end up porting the heads a little more.

I've did a couple of unconventional things to the heads in the past so I really don't mind experimenting on them. The main difference is the shape of the combustion chamber....this was done in attempt to unshroud the valves as much as possible and to eliminate as many hot spots as possible.

After doing this the big concern was how the quench area would respond but there would be no way to know until it was run. I did the exhaust ports and a very minimal amount on the intake side the first time around.
The motor ended up making 450 to the ground on straight 93 octane so I'm willing to spend a little more time in the ports to see what improvement if any can be made.

This is just an experiment so don't do this to your heads because I really don't know what may be the potential down side may be yet.


View attachment 270157
View attachment 270158
View attachment 270159
View attachment 270160 View attachment 270161
Are your goals to make as much power as possible on 93 octane? There's a boat load of power to be had in regard to the turbo, CR, cam lobe and timing. It's nice to see someone trying something different since most of the community is stuck in the dark ages


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Bison I don't have one particular goal but 10's on 93 would seem to be obtainable. I'm trying to look at the heads with no preconceived ideas..........trying to do simple and basic stuff.

Another thing I've been looking at is the intake runner, you could open it up to biggest gasket that felpro makes but to me it seems as if the first true choke point would be at the pushrod tubes. I'm considering staying with the port match to the stock type felpro valley style gasket that still gives a good size runner and allows the turn around the push rod tubes to be straightened quite a bit without breaking through the tubes.
 
Bison I don't have one particular goal but 10's on 93 would seem to be obtainable. I'm trying to look at the heads with no preconceived ideas..........trying to do simple and basic stuff.

Another thing I've been looking at is the intake runner, you could open it up to biggest gasket that felpro makes but to me it seems as if the first true choke point would be at the pushrod tubes. I'm considering staying with the port match to the stock type felpro valley style gasket that still gives a good size runner and allows the turn around the push rod tubes to be straightened quite a bit without breaking through the tubes.

The stock style gasket size will outflow by far the real choke point which is the throat under the valve.
This areas flow is determined by valve size, throat size, valve job/angles, length and shape of the short side radius and the long side shape, valve guide protrusion has some impact as well.....bigger valve allows bigger throat and maybe a taller SSR for a better turn in.
Most of the gains in a ported head are from a 2 inch area....the 1/2 inch after the valve and the 1 1/2 inch before the valve. Get this right and its payday.
The gasket match at the intake port which is the easiest place to port is unfortunately the place that needs the least help.
 
I'm seeing it exactly as you are fastblack. The port work has been done in stages and the throat work along with larger valves was done the first time around. Even though a ton of material was taken from the throat area it was still by comparison a little smaller/restriced than the runner as cast (excluding the turn around the pushrod tube). This is why very little time was spent in the runner first and second time around. I'm sure there is a point for the large runner but my combo has not reached it yet.

An obvious problem that I should have corrected long ago was the port match itself. I just took a WAG at it since everything really needs to be assembled and torqued down with the correct gaskets. This bit me because there was over hang during final assembly.

Sometimes I'll blow compress air past a surface to get an idea how it may react to a questionable surface or turn ....not scientific by any standard but it gives me an idea of what may be going on.
 
96d4d9d8b290a0f7f856960b027b272d.jpg
I've been having a play for a while now with a few heads on the later ln3 3800 basic flowbench sure shows bigger isn't better real fast [emoji4]
 
[=Mike T, post: 3624397, member: 42988"]I'm seeing it exactly as you are fastblack. The port work has been done in stages and the throat work along with larger valves was done the first time around. Even though a ton of material was taken from the throat area it was still by comparison a little smaller/restriced than the runner as cast (excluding the turn around the pushrod tube). This is why very little time was spent in the runner first and second time around. I'm sure there is a point for the large runner but my combo has not reached it yet.

An obvious problem that I should have corrected long ago was the port match itself. I just took a WAG at it since everything really needs to be assembled and torqued down with the correct gaskets. This bit me because there was over hang during final assembly.

Sometimes I'll blow compress air past a surface to get an idea how it may react to a questionable surface or turn ....not scientific by any standard but it gives me an idea of what may be going on.[/QUOTE]

Another helpful air flow tool that I have used is the shop vac.
Rig it up so it can flow whatever you are working on and use a smoke stick on the other end
to give you a visual as you watch the flow.
 
96d4d9d8b290a0f7f856960b027b272d.jpg
I've been having a play for a while now with a few heads on the later ln3 3800 basic flowbench sure shows bigger isn't better real fast [emoji4]



It took me a minute to see how your setup works. The GM flow meter was an ingeniuous idea!
 
Last edited:
It took me a minute to see how your setup works. The GM flow meter was an ingeniuous idea!
Yeah ls1 airflow meter with delco ecu doing the measuring. Has 6 vacuum motors now and can pull more than enough to hold v6 ports at 28" water.learnt a lot
 
So do you guys think it actually hurts airflow if the intake ports were widened at the intake manifold mating surface? I did that to mine, but mostly so there wouldn't be a ledge from my stock ported champion intake to the heads.
 
So do you guys think it actually hurts airflow if the intake ports were widened at the intake manifold mating surface? I did that to mine, but mostly so there wouldn't be a ledge from my stock ported champion intake to the heads.
Well that's the beauty of a turbocharged engine. It makes up for a lot of induction inadequacy especially our 8445's. But IMO there is no way what you did hurt power it could only have benefited from a smooth transition from intake to head.
 
Measuring every 10 mm down the port is your friend. My good heads that outflow all the rest are measured for port x section area every 5mm and there are no sudden changes in area.they flow better at all lifts than all my other heads
 
Yes. I have my flow sheet at the machine shop. Monday I'll be there and hopefully have my hands on a pair of champion irons. I've wondered this and looked so long, I will have a definitive answer soon.


The publish numbers are pretty low on the 8445 head..... I would like to see what the numbers would be at 20 psi or so and a Champion iron tested the same way.

Besides flow under boost I've always wondered how much flow decreases in the real world where the incoming air encounters the piston and cylinder wall.
My thinking may be off but I picture spraying a water hose into a bottomless coffee can where there is zero resistance, now put the bottom back in and see what happens.
 
So do you guys think it actually hurts airflow if the intake ports were widened at the intake manifold mating surface? I did that to mine, but mostly so there wouldn't be a ledge from my stock ported champion intake to the heads.


I think you did the right thing and your 9 second time slip agrees :)
 
So do you guys think it actually hurts airflow if the intake ports were widened at the intake manifold mating surface? I did that to mine, but mostly so there wouldn't be a ledge from my stock ported champion intake to the heads.
I think you did the right thing and your 9 second time slip agrees :)

Was not saying that porting the intake port opening past the valley pan gasket size to eliminate the pushrod bulge is wrong or detrimental.....
It just does not give you any gains or very little at best due to the real restriction being the intake valve/throat area.

On the champion or ta heads with there bigger intake valve that is less restrictive having the port bigger all the way back to the gasket area will show improvements.

Current trends in cylinder head porting try to limit the air speed in the intake port speed to .5-.55 mach or slightly under which is 563 feet per second.We are talking flow bench numbers here.
This is important because as the air speed goes up the air can no longer follow the turns in the port near the valve and the air goes turbulent
causing the max flow capability to drop. [ Thanks for the link jerryl ]

Smaller valves/ Higher rpms/Bigger cylinder size cause the air flow speed to go up and once the port is maxed out the HP the engine is making starts to drop due to the port/valve size not being able to keep up and fill the cylinder efficiently.

And as far the air crashing into the piston and cylinder wall you have to look at like this....the air that is stacked up in the port is at a higher pressure than the cylinder that has the piston going down and the intake lobe opening.....the air flows into this low pressure area and as the pressure drop from the intake port air going into the cylinder happens the air starts to decompress and expands filling the cylinder and with our turbo boost at some point the air in the cylinder will begin to pressurize again if the valve is open long enough....
Engines work on pressure Differentials...higher pressure air flows into a lower pressure area both on the intake and the exhaust side.

And absolutely the combustion chamber or cylinder wall or anything else that can impede the air flow will lesson the cylinder fill but it is what it is.
There are certain obstacles that can not be totally overcome.

Now picture all of this going on at 6000 rpm which means 3000 intake port/cylinder fills per minute or 50 times per second.
That means less then .02 seconds [2 milliseconds] to fill the cylinder. And less than this if you factor in camshaft duration=valve open time.

What we are ultimately trying to do is have the port flow enough air to fill the cylinder at max air velocity....if the port is too small velocity goes up air is turbulent and the port struggles to fill. If the port is to big for the engine the velocity slows and does not fill the cylinder as well as a higher velocity proper sized port will. Bigger is not better and smaller is not better...but get it right and it is payday. Our ability to turn the boost up makes
these things not as apparent as it would be on N/A engine.

*Side note:This also shows why a little detonation is a big deal....if you hear the rattle and it takes you 2 seconds to lift your foot of the gas..
well that cylinder just took 100 hits. Picture a champion boxer hitting someone 100 times in 2 seconds.

Here is a good picture of the port and its terminology.
Lots going on in a intake port in less than 2 millisecond.


Port_parts.GIF
 
Last edited:
If I've used the calculator correctly...a stock stroke, .20 over motor with a 1.77 intake valve would be done before 6000 rpm. Worked out to .655 on a stock stroke so a stroker or a large bore motor would really be out of the ideal range.

upload_2016-1-3_19-3-8.png
 

Attachments

  • mach index.jpg
    mach index.jpg
    335.2 KB · Views: 125
Last edited:
Top