Raised port Stude heads

[38flattie]

From the pics of the port that I cut the top off of I want to point out that instead, even preferable to, cutting off the top of the port, another route might be to fill the valley between the two pushrod holes with weld as well as the little "gap" above the intake ports ( below the valve cover gasket ) and port the intake as high as I have here. Then you could machine the weld above the intake ports flat and make your own intake. Does that make sense?

I wonder if, instead of filling the valley and gap with weld, if a good, high temp, epoxy might work? It would sure make the 'shaping' part of the job easier. I've been eyeing these epoxies, thinking about trying out the 3000 degree ceramic epoxy:

http://www.cotronics.com/vo/cotr/newprod.htm

Tech sheet: http://www.cotronics.com/vo/cotr/pdf/940.pdf

This is just for a flow test, I am not sure how I would go about making this modification for a running engine.

It has been cold here this week and the epoxy is taking its sweet time to harden.

It will all be clear soon but I want to make the back of the port come up steeper off the valve. I plan to  port into that epoxy I just put in.

I think I am going to use some steel tubing to form the top of the port for this test, which was Rich's suggestion.


You have done plenty of modifications to your current engine and you are taking them to the salt!

The above mentioned epoxy, along with some 'sheet metal tops', like Rich mentioned, might be an easy route, that would work even on a running engine. I'm curious to see what you come up with.

Oh, and when you guys get the Dodge powered roadster to the salt, I'll see you there!

[RichFox]

The first engine I ran in the roadster was a 2 liter Pinto on which the ports were raised. The bottoms of the intake ports were filled with Devcon. The exhaust brazzed. Made many runs. still looks fine. Al Liests FordOlay has a bunch of JBWeld around the intake ports.

[zenndog]

Playing around a little

[zenndog]

More pics



Here is the less cutaway next to the full cutaway



side by side



One more with the cardboard "top"



I like the view I am getting of the valve now, not sure if that translates to a good port but....

All for now.

[fastman614]

I have been following this thread for a while.... It just keeps getting more and more interesting!!!!!... BTW.... the last few pictures posted look like you are on to something here!

I am curious though.... will they be legal for production class?

[Tman]

I have been following this thread for a while.... It just keeps getting more and more interesting!!!!!... BTW.... the last few pictures posted look like you are on to something here!

I am curious though.... will they be legal for production class?

ask the Saltcat guys

[Milwaukee Midget]

I like what we're seeing, too.

Keep working on the port, but here's what I've figured out from working on the Midget.  Your valves are virtually perpendicular to the cylinder, like the A-Block.  You're working to gain a more direct port, but I'm thinking you don't have a lot more you can do in that arena, and you need to start looking at valve shape and combustion chamber shape.

Your valves are pretty shrouded in the chamber - I know, you haven't looked at that yet - but given the perpendicular orientation of the valves, a valve that is as flat as possible across the back side is likely to give you the best opportunity to fill those cylinders early in the intake event.  Start the fill early, and there's more to work with once the cam really opens up.

I'm thinking your valves are too close together to go with a 30 degree seat?

Do you guys have any idea how really cool this thread is? 

[SPARKY]

 

[zenndog]

The valves are angled 9 degrees, but 0 degrees in relation to each other. I had a picture with the gauge that implies 11 degrees but indeed it is 9. I haven't dealt with the combustion chamber yet, in regards to shrouding. I get a lot of ideas and tips from the Studebaker racing site.

To be honest I got a little discouraged for a while but now I feel like my initial thoughts were on the right track so I am glad everyone is enjoying the progress. I would love to get a port fabbed that I feel good about and hear the flow results. It is quite daunting really, but a fun challenge.

Besides some "smoothing" on my brothers 348 chevy, this is my first venture into any type of porting. Hope that doesn't spoil it for anyone, you know, because it is very possible that I am a crackpot.

Fastman- The person with the last say in Production Pickup says no. But I personally don't see the difference between this modified head and a Brodix. I guess I could challenge the ruling but I am not even a SCTA member yet. For now I am just glad to be having fun doing what I view as on the edge "hot rodding".

[fastman614]

ZENNDOG... just make some numbers.... flow rates, horsepower, tons of pictures, how many beers it took.... whatever.... a lot of us are out here cheering!... Bonneville has always been about innovating.... and when I see pics of something on a milling machine and I read words about what is the hoped for outcome... (or even not that optimistic).... I get interested fast!

hmmmmm.....    There is no BIG THUMBS UP  icon....

[zenndog]

I like what we're seeing, too.

Keep working on the port, but here's what I've figured out from working on the Midget.  Your valves are virtually perpendicular to the cylinder, like the A-Block.  You're working to gain a more direct port, but I'm thinking you don't have a lot more you can do in that arena, and you need to start looking at valve shape and combustion chamber shape.

Your valves are pretty shrouded in the chamber - I know, you haven't looked at that yet - but given the perpendicular orientation of the valves, a valve that is as flat as possible across the back side is likely to give you the best opportunity to fill those cylinders early in the intake event.  Start the fill early, and there's more to work with once the cam really opens up.

I'm thinking your valves are too close together to go with a 30 degree seat?

Do you guys have any idea how really cool this thread is? 

I have been thinking about the valve train and the issue of the valves being shrouded.

This has nothing to do with shrouding but I am looking at some Nascar Titanium 7mm valves.

I am trying to decide between the following combos

1.94 int, 1.55 exhaust (SBC int)
1.875 int, 1.55 exhaust (R3 int)
1.875 int, 1.62 exhaust (R3)

The valves would have a 7mm stem

The valves are at a 9* angle

I will inquire about the 30* seats

The combustion chamber can be worked a little to "unshroud" the valve. I guess I am hoping that will help flow at low lift enough to make a difference.

I have read that the R3 had a taper at the tops of the cylinders because the combustion chamber was larger, I assume that was to help with "shrouding " issues. Seems a little funky though.

[Buickguy3]

  Ah, yes, the ominous "Spirit of the rule". I think the wording that they gave on that question was "you have obliterated the port".  :evil
     Doug 

[Tman]

  Ah, yes, the ominous "Spirit of the rule". I think the wording that they gave on that question was "you have obliterated the port".  :evil
     Doug 

Like I said before, when they make a rule based on your success you know you made it!

[zenndog]

Some goodies I picked up

To be modified for use on the modified Studebaker head, still plan on picking up one more of each, intake and exhaust, for this test head.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/260964260757?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649#ht_500wt_1287

http://www.ebay.com/itm/260964264119?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649#ht_500wt_1287

http://www.ebay.com/itm/260961347312?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649#ht_500wt_1287

http://www.ebay.com/itm/260961380664?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649#ht_500wt_1287

Picked up a couple of other things when I visited Rich today

Some scrap tubing, exciting huh? For the port tops.



Rich lent me a throttle body from his collection, this is from a ford truck.  A little less than a 2” diameter each. Ball bearings on the shafts. Plan would be to use four, one butterfly per cylinder.







These run around $50 at the pick and pull, a bit of a rip if you ask me but….core charge? Give me a break. There is a single throat version that is a little cleaner but it still runs $50 so I pick this. Two ports with one Grant so to speak.

[zenndog]

I just wanted to post a quick reply. I picked up some heads this week from Bob Peterson in Hayward, CA. He is downsizing and if you are in the bay area and want to see what he has you should give him a call. A really nice guy and a pleasure to meet him and see his shop before he closes it up.



One thing that is nice about the heads is that since three have valves I get to see how the valves fit in the chamber when installed.

I picked up two matched pairs of heads, they are different casting numbers, I will post the numbers later. I just wanted to get an update posted. I have purchased some 2 3/8 tubing, a mandrel bent J bend to be specific, and will be experimenting with forming the intake ports

I bent a piece of the small tubing into an oval, 1" wide at the straight section. This formed a "port" with a cross section of 2.78" approx. The 2 3/8 OD exhaust tube has a cross section of around 3.97 before being reshaped. I was comparing these because Rich and I were talking about the transition from the throttle body to the intake passage. I think I will be using a throttle body that is different from the truck throttle I pictured above, the "new" throttle has a 2.250" diameter which is why I selected the 2 3/8" OD tube, the ID is 2.250". I was wondering how the transition of the 2.250 diameter with a 3.97" cross section to the "reshaped" tube cross section of 2.78" would work flow wise. I am fabricating a jig to shape the tubing with more control.

My goal is to create "ports" which are uniform and easy to replicate so if the port flows I can make 8. Also i want the intake port to match the throttle "manifold" without having to modify tubing if possible. I am not sure it makes sense to describe it but will make sense when I post pics, I hope.

I compared the difference of the two cross sections to a SBC Hilborn intake, the ratios were very similar. Meaning the throttle on the Hilborn intake was larger than the cross section of the intake at the head, and the ratios were close when I compared them.

All this is of course academic