Landracing Forum
Tech Information => Technical Discussion => Topic started by: RichFox on October 31, 2011, 04:02:17 PM
-
Zenor has a Stude engine he wants to run in a Pickup at Bonneville. Last week Jack Vines left a broken Stude head at my house for him. What his idea is would be to make a raised port head much like the old Cleaveland kits. So we cut into it to see whats there. The plan at this time is to clean out the water jacket holes and make cast iron plugs to sort of fit in them and seal them with braze or JB weld. Then use heave angle iron and rectangular tubing to make a short runner following the existing angle of whats left of the port. To a flange onto which the headers will bolt. I did this once to a Pontiac head also. If you just wanted 4 exhaust ports without hitting water and maintaining the downward direction of the stock ports. Just cutting in as far as the boss for the center head bolt allowes you to greatly straighten out the center two ports and eliminate the Siamese center port.
-
Rich, Mike Zenor from the HAMB?
-
Rich, Wouldn't it be easier if you just mill the port out and leave a step, then you can machine some slugs to fit in with the raised port? Build an oven using firebrick and then gas weld all of it together. Also if you are going to do all this work, any plans on lowering the floor and changing the combustion chamber and plug angels around for better flame? This is a very cool project, looking forward to the updates! Tony
-
Zenor Lukasiewcz
Who is zendog on the HAMB. Ideas that include more work for me will please be filed in round file. I have enough with the Dodge Bros (if I ever get the cam gears) and the Bantam. I installed the kit port plates on a Cleavland Ford once and cut up a Pontiac head to try and get Larry Climbe to let me do a pair for his GTO. No luck. But afte I finish with this head I have to mill out the divider between #1 and 2 intake ports because Jack Vines thinks that will be better. Then he will flow it and I'm out of here until Zenor decides to do two heads for real.
-
Ironic that there are even two folks with similar names on the same forum!
-
Actually I have been calling him Zenor because I have kinown Evert Zenor for years. His real name is Zenon. The first and only Zenon I have ever known.
-
I thought you were calling me Zenor the other day while we were working on the heads.
-
Here is the head we started with
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000100.jpg)
-
Of course we realized we can't run this head in Production, since it is altered :?. But we like it so we are going to finish our little test.
Rich finished the last port during the week
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/SS854059.jpg)
Birds eye view of the exhaust valve seat
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/SS854061.jpg)
Center ports, notice the crud in the water passage?
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/SS854063.jpg)
Casting wire still in the head
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/SS854069.jpg)
I cleaned up the edges of water passages with a dremel and a grinder using various bits. The main goal was to clean away loose material
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/SS854077.jpg)
Notice the hole in the front corner, those were small pockets that were just peeping through. One for each port. I drilled them to 9/32 and tapped for 5/16 fine thread.
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/SS854079.jpg)
Here is the center plug shaped out of cast iron, and a bolt in the hole I described above ( sorry for the blurry photo )
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/SS854082.jpg)
Plugs and screws ready to glue in
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/SS854084.jpg)
Glued, next the head needs to be re-machined
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/SS854085.jpg)
Thats all for now. Zenon
-
Cool, thanks for the updates!
-
Rich, Zenor- Very cool project!
I'm real interested to see the flow numbers after the mods. Do you have, or will you have, 'before' numbers, for a comparison?
-
It's a cool project that is going nowhere. It was supposed to be for a E/ProPickup. Can't raise and separate your ports in Pro. I got an email that indicates you must run OEM heads in PRO. So I guess there are no Brodex or other after market heads on any of those Chevys in class.
-
so much for build diaries---if you could still bolt a factory exhaust manifold on it I would fight that battle
-
As I just wrote elsewhere. I am not surprised that we can't cut up the stock Stude head. I am disapointed. It seemed like hot roding to me. Buying a Brodex head seems like shopping. RF
-
So I guess there are no Brodex or other after market heads on any of those Chevys in class.
:roll: Of course not....er, hang on........ I won't say where it came from but I have a shot of an engine bay from a car in P, with nice etched "Brodix" rocker covers.........here's me thinkin' they're just for show :roll:
I see something of a herd mentality here though... It seems that a shelf item will be OK'd sooner because in the end anyone can go and get some.....whereas the wholesale modification of a cast item is out of the realm of most racers.Apologies of course to those who are busy right now with their own projects...Tony, Buddy et al.So when it comes to a showdown it's one bloke making a weird item out of something old versus the chequebooks and the bolt on upgrades, I know who I'd back but sheer force of numbers are against the dogged innovator and behind the bucket-list-bolt-on-boyo's
so much for build diaries---if you could still bolt a factory exhaust manifold on it I would fight that battle
That's the spirit....I mean in reality Rich aren't you just de-briding it?....getting rid of some casting dags?......remilling the gasket surface?
-
The use of OEM heads in Production is NOT mandatory. Check page 75, sentence at top of the page, 2011 rulebook. If you have aftermarket heads which meet the criteria you are OK.
Brodix have Studebaker heads in their catalog?
DW
-
I think Production should be limited to OEM blocks and castings. There is modified for all the NASCAR stuff. I know it won't happen, but it is fun to gripe about it, for a minute.
Maybe there can be a tax based on what you spend on your engine, added to the entry fee. Keep your reciepts in your log book. :evil:
-
This is a fight I would rather skip. The Stude heads are fun and maybe we will do them and run modified. Won't set any records, but what do you get for a record. A trophy. I already have a few. Maybe I would rather have satisfaction that we ran the Stude just because we wanted to.
-
In my opinion that's what it's all about. A stout run for what you have is recognized far more than a trophy by those who know and understand. As for those who don't, they can always continue to dial 1-800-...... Still a free country, their choice.
Ed
-
Maybe I would rather have satisfaction that we ran the Stude just because we wanted to.
The best reason, and the one that really matters.
:cheers:
-
In my opinion that's what it's all about. A stout run for what you have is recognized far more than a trophy by those who know and understand. As for those who don't, they can always continue to dial 1-800-...... Still a free country, their choice.
Ed
To quote my partners response to a competetor who proclaimed he would protest us if we broke his record because we did not have winshield wiper motors,
"we will know we went faster than you and you will know we went faster than you, nobody else cares"
-
I think Production should be limited to OEM blocks and castings. There is modified for all the NASCAR stuff. I know it won't happen, but it is fun to gripe about it, for a minute.
Maybe there can be a tax based on what you spend on your engine, added to the entry fee. Keep your reciepts in your log book. :evil:
I don't want to fight either, I went to bed wishing I hadn't even commented. I am disappointed but I think it is just the trend and what can you do.
-
The comment, especially with the manner and context it was posted, is very legitimate. A lot of us might still enjoy watching you play. :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
Pete
-
The part about the whole thing that kind of disappoints me is that there is more going on than the rules state in production.
I "feel" that if someone can run a Brodix head in production and sweep all the engine classes than anyone should be able to modify a OEM head to perform as well, if they can, which is a big if. I think that the wording of the rule "same number of valves and stock port configuration" should leave a lot of room for creative modifications. But I "feel" like if the head looks like Dr. Frankenstiens second unknown creation then you won't be able to run it.
EOR = end of rant
-
Zenor, I know Rich knows the procedure, but I'll point it out anyway.
If you're thinking about running it just for the satisfaction, why not submit the changes to the committee, and get a formal ruling. You may be surprised, if you can show the head, even with the changes, meet the intent of the rule.
Hell, it's always worth a shot!
-
Won't set any records, but what do you get for a record. A trophy. I already have a few. Maybe I would rather have satisfaction that we ran the Stude just because we wanted to.
Rich,
The Spirit you have is what attracted me to this sport.
Tom G.
-
Buddy and any interested. "If you can't accept the answer, Don't ask the question." I asked if the head would be legal in Production. The answer while not what I wanted, was what I expected. And it was the answer. The SCTA makes the rules. So Cal. It's their sandbox and we play in it. This is a done deal. When I think I can do better i will start the RFTA and you all will be welcome to run your cars there. You may not like the way I class SBC powered cars however.
-
I wonder if it would flow better than the Morton&Brett on your Dodge V4? :mrgreen:
Mike
-
It's a cool project that is going nowhere. It was supposed to be for a E/ProPickup. Can't raise and separate your ports in Pro. I got an email that indicates you must run OEM heads in PRO. So I guess there are no Brodex or other after market heads on any of those Chevys in class.
I understand. I didn't realize the email mentioned above was 'official'.
Either way, it's a cool concept that I hope comes to fruition some day.
-
Buddy; Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't you informed that putting bulkheads in your lifter valley to tie the right and left banks together was not an allowed modification? And now we see that there are 7 main bearing GMC engines in the same class? If that is true, don't you find that a bit of a burn?
-
No Rich, that isn't correct. In fact, we were allowed the top plate to tie the sides together, and the port mods-splitting the siamese ports- if we wished. We did the top plate, but time and money prevented the splitting of the ports, although we may look at that later.
We are also allowed to go to a 5 main crank, from the stock 3 main, if we wish. Again, time and money have hampered that effort, at least for now.
What we were not allowed to do, was make an adapter plate, to bolt OHV heads on- that is only allowed in the 4 banger class.
-
I knew you had the top plate. I thought that a welded bulkhead was your first thought and that was nixed. I am guessing you could run the OHV heads if you are under 325 cid?
-
No, I never asked about the welded bulkhead.
We can run the OHV under 325, IF we use the original head bolt locations- no sort of an adapter.
I submitted a plan for a 3 piece head, with the chambers as part of the bottom adaptor piece, but that didn't fly either. Upon reflection, I have to agree that it crossed the defined lines of the rules.
-
No, I never asked about the welded bulkhead.
We can run the OHV under 325, IF we use the original head bolt locations- no sort of an adapter.
I submitted a plan for a 3 piece head, with the chambers as part of the bottom adaptor piece, but that didn't fly either. Upon reflection, I have to agree that it crossed the defined lines of the rules.
But you get creativity points! :-D
-
That's a new one on me. No adapters. I guess you can't just drill into the deck? I'm pretty sure we can raise the ports if we want to. Just not in Production. But we wouldn't have an engine swap. Quick change or a nonstock supercharger. Or any supercharger. So I don't think it's a legal Mod. Pickup either. I'll work all this out when I get the RFTA rule book printed.
-
That's a new one on me. No adapters. I guess you can't just drill into the deck? I'm pretty sure we can raise the ports if we want to. Just not in Production. But we wouldn't have an engine swap. Quick change or a nonstock supercharger. Or any supercharger. So I don't think it's a legal Mod. Pickup either. I'll work all this out when I get the RFTA rule book printed.
Haha!
I do have a Frankland Champ QC sitting here, if it would help.....
-
It is possible to get conflicting answers out of SCTA.
-
Next phase
Head with patches machined flat, Rich did this during the last two weeks
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000277.jpg)
Rich also machined three pieces of angle iron flat on every side, one for each exhaust port.
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000279.jpg)
Here is a picture with all three in place
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000281.jpg)
The head is bolted to angle plates on the mill so the adapters can be mounted with machine screws
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000283.jpg)
Picking the spots to locate the holes for the screws
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000285.jpg)
First hole drilled, tapped and countersunk
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000288.jpg)
Second hole drilled, tapped. Starting on third mounting hole which turned out to be too close to where we planned to weld the port onto the angle iron. Mistake! Good thing this is a test
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000290.jpg)
Me, working on the center adapter
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000293.jpg)
All screws drilled tapped and installed, preparing to drill large holes for ports
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000294.jpg)
Large drill centered in exhaust port before drilling rough hole into adapter plate
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000295.jpg)
Drilling rough hole in adapter, now it has to be ground out and shaped
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000297.jpg)
Locating the head bolt holes, then we would reinstall the adapter and drill the hole for the head bolt. These were done one at a time.
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000298.jpg)
Head bolt holes all drilled
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000300.jpg)
Test ports, Rich is going to make the flange this week, or next. Thanksgiving is coming, we don’t plan to work next weekend.
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000301.jpg)
From the side
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000302.jpg)
-
Yummy!
-
Zenon wanted to do this after I told him about doing some Cleveland heads using the kit they used to sell for that. I showed him a Pontiac head that I had cut for the same modifycation. Pontiac and Oldsmobile engines are crying for raised exhaust ports. It sure couldn't hurt the Stude either and maybe lots of other engines would benefit from straightening out the exhaust flow. This is an experiment to see if JB weld will hold. I think it will. But brazing or welding will work for sure. And welding cast isn't the nightmare I thought it was. We also butchered the intake side. Two ports for Jack Vines to try his idea with and two for Zenon's curiosity. The head was already broken when Jack gave it to us for this.
-
Cool progress guys!
-
Very cool!
Are you going to be posting the intake ideas and work?
-
Very cool!
Are you going to be posting the intake ideas and work?
And I'm a bit curious as to the face of the head. I know this is just a prototype, but what can you do for valve sizes and shape?
Yeah, this falls into the "very cool" category.
-
All I wanted to do was try this to see if WB weld would work, and just to do it. Since doing the Ford heads I have wondered why more heads don't get this mod and why doing it with angle and tube wouldn't be as good as the aluminum pieces that came in the Ford kit. Zenon wanted to do the Stude head, which would never have occurred to me. But I now believe it is a good head for this. Jack and Zenon had different ideas about the intake side, so #1 & 3 got Jacks idea and #5 &7 got Zenon's. I personally hope nobody ever sees those ports unless Jack is right. At any rate the head is pretty much done now for what it was supposed to be and no more milling is planned.
-
Jack and Zenon had different ideas about the intake side, so #1 & 3 got Jacks idea and #5 &7 got Zenon's. I personally hope nobody ever sees those ports unless Jack is right.
Hmmm, if you're not going to post the intake side, on this thread, will you at least show them to me when I stop by? :-D
-
Well maybe Zenon will post the intake side and explane what is going on. He has the head at his place right now to do some grinding and blending. Hey Zenon! How about posting the other side?
-
Here are some pictures of the intake side. WARNING! If you are squeamish then stop reading now. This may not be for the weak of heart. Just kidding!
Intake mod requested by Jack Vines, he wanted the intake runner removed. I haven’t smoothed anything yet, this is as milled.
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000312.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000313.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000314.jpg)
Here is the start of my experiment. Cutting off the top of the ports to see if I could raise the ports up/open them up. There is more work to do on this side but if inquiring minds want to know…here it is.
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000317.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000316.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000311.jpg)
That’s all the stuff from the intake side so far. I look at this stuff as very experimental. I plan to rebuild the ports I am working on with wood and epoxy so the ports can be flowed.
There is a milder port modification that I would like to have done but it became more apparent only as the ports were cut open. It has to do with sleeving the push rod holes near each intake port and removing the material to the sleeve, this opens up a turn in the port as well as widening the port. I will explain more about it as I finish the ports off.
There you go Rich, for better or worse!
-
Am I reading this right? He's thinking he may want to set it up with shared intake ports?
What's the firing order?
I like the raised port idea a lot better.
Caution on the sleeve in the pushrod hole - you may limit the pushrod diameter, and depending on cam and rocker ratio, possibly have an interference problem.
And that WILL make you squeamish.
-
MM, you may want to look at a BMC Formula 3 head from the sixties. They just set the head up at an angle in the mill, bored 4 holes down toward the intake valves and then epoxied in 4 tubes. They were only allowed to use a single throat carburetor so they used one throat of a Weber. Just lettin' you think!
Pete
-
IMHO while this will raise the intake port, the cut doesn't reach back to the radius of the turn out of the valve bowl. And so gives the appearance of a raised port without the benefit. The BMC deal would be more to the point. But this experiment was trying to stay out of the water jackets. Jacks idea, I believe, is to follow the 360 degree intake manifolds single plane idea as far as possable. Especially with a supercharger, port runners are just taking up space. Maybe. He will flow it and draw his conclusions.
-
Sorta like this.
Doug :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
-
Almost exactly like that Doug. I really liked what you had done and was really annoyed (I have other words but they don't make it past the filter.) when it was ruled illegal. I really enjoy it when someone reads the rule book and does a good job of interpretation. :evil: :evil: :-D
Pete
-
I am with Pete, I don't want to get on SSS bad side. :-o Tony
-
Re: "the cut doesn't reach back to the radius of the turn out of the valve bowl. And so gives the appearance of a raised port without the benefit"
The way I described it to someone where we can't share a visual is "The roof of the new inserted tube should be tangential to the long side curve of the existing port. As the angle increases from horizontal, the intersection point goes closer to the bowl itself".
-
Tony, you get a bye on getting me ticked off -- as long as you keep putting up the photos of trackside girls.
-
Buickguy3-That was my original thought, but how did you seal the water jackets?
On the intake ports where I cut off the top I tried to avoid going into the water jacket. If you look at the photo I think you can see what Rich is referring to. Without cutting into the water jacket you have a narrow section so i assume it negates any or most any benefit you gain by opening up the first part of the intake port.
Midget- good point, I will measure the pushrod hole. I think it might be possible to "move" the hole away from the port and use an offset lifter and rocker? With that kind of change I think you could make the port much wider towards the pushrod hole and not raise them so they would conform to the difficult to interpret Production Pickup head rules.
Rich-No mater what Jacks flow results are, seems like it will have to be run to know for sure if it is an improvement.
-
I think it might be possible to "move" the hole away from the port and use an offset lifter and rocker?
I was thinking that very thought today at work.
Yeah, this thread is a great distraction!
Is there enough meat around the lifter bores to do that?
Press on, guys. :cheers:
-
Zenndog,
Old plumber's trick. Stuffed the holes in the water jacket with 1 1/2 loaves of "Wonder Bread". Then backed them up with nearly a gallon of industrial epoxy. Then opened the new ports back up with a die grinder and applied epoxy as the tubes were inserted in the new ports. Then everything was sealed [more epoxy] and time. Frank spent many hours sealing and grinding. Hope this makes sense.
Doug :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
-
As far as the pushrod tubes go. Most have seen tunnel port 427 Fords and 421 Pontiac's. Among other engines. So in this case I don't think it would be a problem. As Zenor suggests you could use offset lifters and rockers as do many SBC engines for just this reason
-
Almost exactly like that Doug. I really liked what you had done and was really annoyed (I have other words but they don't make it past the filter.) when it was ruled illegal. I really enjoy it when someone reads the rule book and does a good job of interpretation. :evil: :evil: :-D
Pete
Yeah, sometimes even when you get permission before hand it still is illegal, figure that out!
I drove around Santa Cruz all day today trying to find carbide die grinder bits, finally did after 4 hardware stores and two welding supplies.....Jeeze! Should get some stuff done this week and post pics after Thanksgiving.
-
... tunnel port 427 Fords and 421 Pontiac's...
Clarification (not that anyone other than us Pontiac folks care)- tunnel-port Pontiac heads were Ram-Air V. These were over-the-parts-counter-only pieces, unlike most 421 engines.
-
I believe the same was true of the Ford tunnel port heads.
-
Sleeves in the intake ports are factory for Triumph Bonneville 650, frequently exposed by ambitious porting.
-
I went out to the scrap pile and dug out the old Pontiac head that I cut up to try and convince Larry Climbe to let me cut his heads. Larry had what at the time, I thought of as major bucks in the intake side of his #16 400 heads. But the very restrictive exhaust. I thought that for little or no money I could improve on the down turn Pontiac ports. In the same way as Zenon's Studebaker. At that time I wanted to use one full length angle iron. Larry wouldn't go for it, and eventually bought Eledbrock heads but never ran the car with them. It sits today in his driveway.
-
Rich,
Has Bob D. contacted you yet about doing a set for his early Olds? :-D
Just kidding Bob.
Tom G.
-
The Saga continues
Here is one of the exhaust ports cleaned up with the adapter flange mounted. This will probably be the only one I will finish off so Jack can test it. There are two pics.
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000324.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000326.jpg)
Here is the port with the tubing held in place, another two pics. Now I have to weld it in place, Rich is going to machine a flange to weld on the top. Again two pics. ( I was originally considering doing something like this on the intake side, coming in under the rocker arms straight towards the valve, tried the pictured way instead. I became a little timid, for some reason, about the water jackets. )
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000327.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000330.jpg)
Now I need to go, Happy Thanksgiving.
-
I went out to the scrap pile and dug out the old Pontiac head that I cut up to try and convince Larry Climbe to let me cut his heads. Larry had what at the time, I thought of as major bucks in the intake side of his #16 400 heads. But the very restrictive exhaust. I thought that for little or no money I could improve on the down turn Pontiac ports. In the same way as Zenon's Studebaker. At that time I wanted to use one full length angle iron. Larry wouldn't go for it, and eventually bought Eledbrock heads but never ran the car with them. It sits today in his driveway.
When that head was laying on the ground I assumed those were the water jackets that you had cut into, but those are the combustion chambers aren't they?
-
No. Thats water.
-
Well, it LOOKS like it should help the flow.
Does Jack do his own flow work, or have it done? Any chance that we'll see the results posted here?
-
This deal is pretty much between Jack and Zenon. But jack did say he wanted the head shipped to some flow guy he knows. I guess the numbers will be here. At least the improvement on the exhaust side, if I get it.
-
No. Thats water.
Yeah, I should have looked closer, thought I saw the leaves on the ground but it is clearly a rusty water jacket
-
I second Rich, if Jack shares the info, then it will be posted. Of course I don't have the stock flow numbers, I will see if I can find any info. Z
-
I found a you tube video that shows a Stude R1 head being flowed which is what the head we used is supposed to be. The head was flowing 127cfm at .500 lift on one of the end (single) ports.
http://youtu.be/Ri9iCX9T8rE
-
In what way does the pressure variable affect (or not) the CFM readings?
-
Tom, I actually have a set of Jocko Johnson raised port Olds heads that were intended for top fuel. I will try to shoot some pictures of them and post them ( I think I have figured out how to do it). Bob
-
Stan- I wondered the same thing. Seems a little funky. I am certain someone may chime in who knows better.
-
Here are some albums by Mike on the racing Sudebakers forum showing his Studebaker port work which has been done in a very methodical way
http://public.fotki.com/-Mike-/stude_head/
http://public.fotki.com/-Mike-/050-intake-move-porting/
http://public.fotki.com/-Mike-/white-paper-photos/
Here is a thread on porting and flowing an R3 head? This thread is also very informative
http://www.racingstudebakers.com/foo...php?f=9&t=2261
-
In what way does the pressure variable affect (or not) the CFM readings?
Darn near a linear relationship. Flow values should always specify the pressure differential; however, 28 inches-water is almost universally used these days.
-
Trying to port, realize that I need to get some more tools, specifically the longer ones. Either way, here it goes. These are rough still.
Jack’s intake so far, two pics
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000387.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000389.jpg)
Notice the difference in the top of the port, two pics
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000392.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000395.jpg)
Looking down the intake
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000403.jpg)
The intake and exhaust seats, Mikes pictures helped show where I might want to go and also how far I am still falling short, and needing much, much more practice
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000405.jpg)
In one of the pics of the intake port above you can see the lip behind the valve seat, I filled it with JB Weld for the flow test.
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000408.jpg)
That is all for now.
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?
-
Long Awaited.....perhaps
Here we go. Well....in my mind today was a very straight forward cut a step around the ports, fit the aluminum block, and tap some screws to hold the aluminum block in place kind of day.
Started off like this
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000819.jpg)
Block fits, so far so good
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000822.jpg)
Little more milling....
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000823.jpg)
Nice!
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000824.jpg)
Another view
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000825.jpg)
Good right? Well Rich came over from working on his 26 Dodge engine and we talked a little about the head. I mentioned that I wished I could push it a little farther.....to try to get over the valve more. Rich said, just do it on one of the ports, it is now or when?
Point taken
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000828.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000830.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000832.jpg)
New end mill in mill, cut on sir, cut on
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000843.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000844.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000845.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000849.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000850.jpg)
At around this point I started forming the notion that if actually doing this modification to a head to run, the block would go longways, and probably incorporate the rocker shaft monut/headbolts. This block wasn't long enough and I decided to keep it "simple" ( :lol:, simple..yeah right ).
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000853.jpg)
More cutting, the cut is moving farther back toward the valve
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000854.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000856.jpg)
That is as far as I could move it, the spring pad is right there now, and I think some guys here are cutting larger spring pads for their valves so they can use larger springs right?
I machined the aluminum block to fit, needs just a little more.
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000857.jpg)
That is it for now. May be a week or two before more updates.
-
You guys are nuts.............in a good way!
-
This is mainly an expirement
I am not certain I would do this to a head for a car unless the flow results are just fantastic. I would also do it a little differently, but it is nice to be able to let go of the restraints and just push the limits.
I am not so happy with how the intake is coming out. My fantasy would be to have a view if the valve like on the exhaust side. So far the angle is wrong, I am going to do some JB Welding, trimm the aluminum block some more to get it to fit all the way back against the spring pad, and then see if I can get the angle ground to were there is a smooth transition at least.
Pictures explain better:
INTAKE
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000854.jpg)
EXHAUST
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000330.jpg)
-
You've asked, and are pursuing an answer to a question I would have never had asked, and I am finding it fascinating.
Thanks for sharing this!
-
I'm just curious and we know what that did to the cat, but wouldn't you be better using a steel plate rather than aluminum in a real world application or even cast iron if you could acquire it? I'm thinking of the coefficient of expansion which is just about double for aluminum over cast iron. I know the drag racers have used aluminum for similar applications but their engines run for such short durations and minor leaks don't seem to matter to them particularly.
Pete
-
Cast iron "billets" are available
this is an experiment
I didn't want to fork out for the cast iron, although it is easy to cut.
I had the aluminum for free. And it is easy to cut as well
There are a couple of milder mods that I surpassed, since this is a test of how far it can go, at least in my mind.
If the resulting port shows some very, very promising flow numbers. A big if. And I decided I wanted to actually try to make a pair ( :-o ) of heads to run on an engine, in the least the plate would probably be large enough to be bolted under the three head bolts around the ports. One on eache side and the one in the center towards the middle of the head.
Look how thin the port walls are. The guys who ran the Buick straight 8 used wonder bread and epoxy to build up the areas where they went through water jackets, then they machined again and epoxied in new intakes. I think in the least some work along those lines would be needed around the back of the intake around the valve. I am thinking about filling the "pocket under the spring pad with epoxy because I want to raise the top of the port a little.
I have divorced myself from "feasible" and just want to finish this and see what happens. It just needs to have a port that will hold up for testing on a flow bench. The ideas about how to make it work are for another day if the results warrant going forward.
-
Found some time to tinker today
First off, here is the valve angle, hardly scientific with my $10 angle gauge but......
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000864.jpg)
Looking down the port before starting. I finally pulled out my carbide bits with the 6" shafts, the one I think I needed to use the most was bent and useless, but onward we go
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000869.jpg)
I took a minute and trimmed the back of the aluminum block to fit into the cutout area of the head snug
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000880.jpg)
I ground off the guide and shaped the top of the port the way I want it to be headed when it meets the part of the port that will be in the aluminum block. here is a view looking down the port
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000901.jpg)
Then I placed the aluminum in the head and sprayed some primer in the port to mark roughly the area I will need to cut out on the next visit to the mill
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000894.jpg)
I simply wiped the primer out of the port with a rag, here is a view with the painted block in place
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000899.jpg)
It was a little disappointing that the small "pinecone" carbide pit was bent, but I will do some work during the week with the other bits which seem to work fine.
-
Just went out and took these pics. I will need to fill again as it sank in.
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000912.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000913.jpg)
The nice thing is that since the JB Weld was still a little soft I could take a plastic razor and clean the machined surfaces
-
Couple more pics
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000914.jpg)
Here is the area above "Jack's port"
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000921.jpg)
The cardboard keeps the JB Weld from running out.
-
Zennog, this is pretty cool. I really like these projects that are a 'little out there'! :cheers:
I wish you were closer, for when I start the port/block mods for the next Flatcad!
-
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!
-
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!
-
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.
-
Playing around a little
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000926.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000929.jpg)
-
More pics
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000931.jpg)
Here is the less cutaway next to the full cutaway
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000932.jpg)
side by side
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000937.jpg)
One more with the cardboard "top"
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000938.jpg)
I like the view I am getting of the valve now, not sure if that translates to a good port but....
All for now.
-
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?
-
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 :roll:
-
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? :cheers:
-
:cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
-
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".
-
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....
-
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? :cheers:
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.
-
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 :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
-
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 :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
Like I said before, when they make a rule based on your success you know you made it!
-
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.
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000943.jpg)
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.
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000945.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000944.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1000946.jpg)
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.
-
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.
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010025.jpg)
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
-
In addition to the obvious "how much room have we got", have you considered what part your static CR plays in intake/exhaust size bias?
For those not familiar, Vizard goes into detail on why it's safe to compromise exhaust valve size on a high compression engine.
-
Panic- What is Visard? I was thinking of leaving the exhaust the stock size and enlarging the size of the intake as much as I could and not alter the guide location. The Nascar engines seem to run small exhaust valves compared to the intakes.
-
Here are a couple pics.
Here is the tube I bent or "squashed" I am making a tool to make the ends a clean 1" diameter half circle
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010056.jpg)
This is the J bend, not sure why I took a picture of that.
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010057.jpg)
-
Zenndog, if you Google David Vizard you'll get all the info. He has several good presentations on You Tube.
Pete
-
Buy David Vizard's softcover book "How To Build Horsepower". It is all about what you are doing. Amazon should have it. The graphics and illustrations are amazing and better than you will find in any modern text.
-
I can second that - he wrote the definitive book on making the BMC A-Block perform, and it's been my reference of choice for the last 5 years.
-
You can ask David first hand next month in CA and get a signed copy: http://www.davidvizardseminars.com/ue-UTI-0412.html
BTW: I will be giving a two hour presentation on a virtual flow bench and virtual wind tunnel.
-
Messed with the tubing port idea a little today
First off I went and bought some hardware to make a tool to try and bend the port easier
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010058.jpg)
Well that was a waste of time, my cheap little vise broke so I couldn’t hold the bolts to drill them the way I had planned on the drill press. So after looking at craigslist for a while at vises I took out these tools and used one of the bronve bushings with vice grips and the hammer
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010059.jpg)
Here are some pics of the piece of tubing I “squished”
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010060.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010061.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010063.jpg)
On the head, trying to figure out how I want it to fit
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010064.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010065.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010066.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010067.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010075.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010076.jpg)
I need to make the tubing narrower at the “back” from top to bottom so the bottom of the port heads toward the valve. This tubing may be too large but I will continue with it for now.
-
You may find it easier to bend two round tubes, one for the top radius and one for the bottom, and then cut those apart and make 2 flat sides to connect them.
-
Reference your Post #104
What is the name of his business or do you have a phone number for Bob Peterson in Hayward, CA?
:cheers:
-
Messed with the tubing port idea a little today
First off I went and bought some hardware to make a tool to try and bend the port easier
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010058.jpg)
Well that was a waste of time, my cheap little vise broke so I couldn’t hold the bolts to drill them the way I had planned on the drill press. So after looking at craigslist for a while at vises I took out these tools and used one of the bronve bushings with vice grips and the hammer
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010059.jpg)
Here are some pics of the piece of tubing I “squished”
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010060.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010061.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010063.jpg)
On the head, trying to figure out how I want it to fit
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010064.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010065.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010066.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010067.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010075.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010076.jpg)
I need to make the tubing narrower at the “back” from top to bottom so the bottom of the port heads toward the valve. This tubing may be too large but I will continue with it for now.
That looks like a good use for a hammer form. Define your port shape in a piece of heavy plate and whack away. Then join the two halves..Bingo.
-
Reference your Post #104
What is the name of his business or do you have a phone number for Bob Peterson in Hayward, CA?
:cheers:
(510) 266-2522
-
You can ask David first hand next month in CA and get a signed copy: http://www.davidvizardseminars.com/ue-UTI-0412.html
BTW: I will be giving a two hour presentation on a virtual flow bench and virtual wind tunnel.
Last year he was in the Twin Cities, and it was the weekend before WOS, which I was still vacillating on whether to attend. I didn't do either, and I wish I had made the drive to Minneapolis.
Now I see the place that this is happening is walking distance from the Ontario Airport.
I'd love to attend, but work and the racing budget are standing in the way.
Much success with your presentation, Woody.
I'm liking Anvil*'s idea - and would add to that this one thought - you could use two different sized tubes which might give you better velocity due to the different radiuses.
Yeah, I know, we're not at that point yet, and you're just trying to prove the idea, but come refinement time . . . :roll:
This is too fun.
-
Since Rich was busy this weekend, I pulled the stude head project off the shelf
Filled the lower part of the intake runner, glued in a small section of "roof" shaped from a piece of tubing
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010431.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010434.jpg)
Began to play around with the shape of the port made with tubing. Made a different for the top and the bottom, just to try it.
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010437.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010438.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010440.jpg)
Shaped the back of the top.
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010442.jpg)
Lets just epoxy it in and see how it works out
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010443.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010450.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010444.jpg)
I will shape and fill the back of the port with epoxy once it dries in place.
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010447.jpg)
Thats all for now.
-
Here are some more pictures from today
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010461.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010456.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010458.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010459.jpg)
-
I still think this is a cool project! I hope Jack shares the flow numbers with you/us!
-
Jack will Buddy. That is the point for all this. I need to know so I can decide if I should modify a pair of heads.
I am thinking about valves. I think the ports will be taken as far as I plan to take them by the end of this week. I think this port looks pretty good. I am looking into valve options.
I thought Midget would appreciate the different radii of the top and bottom of the port. I did it because he mentioned it. It also made it easier to fit without additional machining :cheers:
I cobbled the port together but if I make a pair with all the ports raised less will be cut out around the ports and the "tubes" inserted will be one piece and welded before installing.
-
Cool project
Beware of making the port too narrow, the further a port gets from being a round cross section the less it will flow for the cross section.
Cheers
jon
-
Jon- maybe it is already too narrow. ?????. First time I ever tried something like this. If the results are promising then maybe I will try to make the next one a little wider and shorter.
I have a throttle body in mind for this project. The diameter of the tubing fits it. I tried to keep the tubing intact so I can use the same material to fab the intake. Maybe a backwards priority but that is what I did.
The radius at the top is 1" and at the bottom it is 3/4". Could be made a little wider next time.
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/dsc_5730.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/ls1tols6port.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/407B_9.jpg)
-
Zenndog, you're already pretty deep into this. Could you do another port, with the slightly different shape, and have them both flowed at the same time, to make informed comparisons?
-
I tried to mimic the LS1 port. I guess I could have made it more exact but I didn't. The second port will be closer to a slightly raised stock port. The other two intakes will be a siamesed port the Jack wanted to try. I am going to ask Jack to send the head back. I can actually still make a head out of this head with the way I plan to actually fab the ports. If I can find a matched head I will make a pair, or I may have a "round 2" based on the results and try some new ideas.
There is discussion on the Stude site about someone who may make a Aluminum Stude head with ports more like a LS1. They will rum around 2000-2500 a set. I am more of a less money more time guy so........I am stuck with my little Frankenstien heads. And that is the way I like it. 8-)
-
I do have a question:
You modified the port, but still came in at basically a 90 deg. angle to the valve, and had to radius the back of the 'new' port.
Would there be any benefit of trying to 'straighten' it out at this time, or would it negatively effect velocity too much?
-
Chevy calls them cathedral ports but the guys who developed them referred to them as urinal ports! :-o
Just so you know! :-D
-
Buddy-The Stude engine has a rocker shaft. If the port goes straight up it may start to hit stuff....but it is a thought.
-
I wasn't thinking straight up, just straightening it as much as possible.
Pictures can be deceiving, so it may not be possible. Of course, I can offer all kinds of suggestions, from here in my armchair! :-D
-
No, I agree with you.
I played it safe because I don't have the rocker shaft :roll: You know...a real pro.........
It can probably be straightened out a little more, but one would need a rocker shaft to make certain you weren't hitting anything.
-
GM waaaaassss not that happy with those ports that is what they got when the didnt want to have to offset the rockers---as they did in their later versions to get more flow!
-
Why didn't GM want to offset the rockers?
I am generally satisfied with the port, just want to see the flow results. It actually came out better than I thought it would.....so far.
-
Very entertaining!
-
cost---they were trying to get what they called "replicated" cyls. with HIGH repeatability for emmision reasons--with efi they can tune it as 8 one cyl engs--- with repeatability they were able to do one tune that was good for many engs but the tune might vary from one cyl to another but they would all be in "chemostacia" or the best place for carbon and nigtrogen emmisions!! I know, I know spelling is horrible !!!
-
Thanks Scott, I have an engine with rockers and rocker shaft. This started off as what seemed like a simple experiment....I didn't want to start taking apart the motor, but I probably should have removed a set of the rockers from one head.
Soon I will see what the results are and then the next step will be decided.
-
I swear I am not trying to hyjack this thread, but I thought some of you might be interested in looking at a set of raised port Early Olds heads done by Jocko Johnson in the early 60's.
I have them listed for sale on Ebay under the parts and accesory heading.
Punch in Gasser, and then Racing Parts and you should find them.
I included a little history about the heads which at the time were "State Of The Art". Bob
-
Cool piece of history, Bob!
http://www.ebay.com/itm/394-Oldsmobile-Vintage-Top-Fuel-Racing-Heads-Jocko-Johnson-Gasser-Drag-Race-/290705485661?hash=item43af65af5d&item=290705485661&pt=Race_Car_Parts&vxp=mtr (http://www.ebay.com/itm/394-Oldsmobile-Vintage-Top-Fuel-Racing-Heads-Jocko-Johnson-Gasser-Drag-Race-/290705485661?hash=item43af65af5d&item=290705485661&pt=Race_Car_Parts&vxp=mtr)
:cheers:
Mike
-
thanx Mike, I am barely literate in the computer age.................. Bob
:-P
-
I swear I am not trying to hyjack this thread, but I thought some of you might be interested in looking at a set of raised port Early Olds heads done by Jocko Johnson in the early 60's.
I have them listed for sale on Ebay under the parts and accesory heading.
Punch in Gasser, and then Racing Parts and you should find them.
I included a little history about the heads which at the time were "State Of The Art". Bob
Thanks Bob, anyway we can figure out what the material was that he used to build up and replace the port roofs with?
-
My guess is brazing.
-
It's brass. Brazing gets that colour once it's been sand blasted or glass beaded. Bob also mentioned something about furnace brazing in his description. I imagine what actually happened was the head was preheated in a furnace and then torch brazed. It would then be buried in sand or insulation so it cooled very slowly.
Pete
-
I was looking at one of the stock heads I have this morning.
Here are some pics
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010466.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010465.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010467.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010468.jpg)
Here is a little reinforcement I did this morning
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010469.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010470.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010471.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/P1010472.jpg)
That spot is only epoxy for about a 1/4". I did't want it to blow out during flow testing. On a head built to run on an engine that would have been welded. The port feels very strong though.
-
Ports are as far as I am going to take them for this experiment. The head has been shipped off to a Stude enthusiast to be flow tested. Boy has this taken a while. Will update when info gets back to me.
-
This is such a "interesting" endevor-- really looking forward the the results!!!!
-
Golly, that's a lot of work. I thought my Cleveland hiport mod was a job but this is wicked. I really hope it works out for you man. I added this just for comparison.
-
Tauruck-That looks interesting, you should start a thread.
I am not shure how the port will work, but it will be interesting to see.
-
What I really admire about this experiment is that this is applied intuition, research and development brought to bear on an otherwise orphaned design.
This is the no-man's land where breakthroughs can still occur without a bankroll, and simply for the thrill of the project.
I look forward to seeing the numbers this head produces, and I thank you both for bringing us along for the ride.
-
Initial flow results
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0LbJb8weKk&feature=youtu.be
Thanks to Tom Covington from the Studebaker Racing site for doing the flow test
-
Whooee if Tom is excited I am excited and I am not a Studiepile This just shows hot rodding at its finest :cheers: to Rich and Zendog
-
Any flow numbers of the stock port, for comparison's sake?
-
Seems when you get it opened up, it flows pretty well.
Just to help, I logged the readings as presented in the video - rounded off to nearest cfm measurement -
.100 48
.200 87
.300 124
.400 149
.500 169
.600 180
.700 186
(http://i361.photobucket.com/albums/oo58/milwaukeemidget/studehead10_zpsb66bdef4.jpg)
It's a solid start, boys!
-
Here is a link to a test Tom did on a stock head.
http://youtu.be/vVF1Ynh22-A
-
Graph to follow later, but the numbers were -
.100 44
.200 84
.300 109
.400 124
.500 133
.550 135
.600 136
.700 na
When I get back tonight, I'll superimpose these two lines for you, if you'd like.
I suspect you get the bowl opened up and reduce the shrouding, you'll see some pretty impressive increases at the lower lifts.
-
Here you go -
(http://i361.photobucket.com/albums/oo58/milwaukeemidget/graph2_zps9d0a17a5.jpg)
-
Thanks MM, that really illustrates it well. Looks like something is being accomplished!
-
To give you some idea what might be gained at the lower lifts, here's some numbers for the Midget -
.100 44.0
.200 87.6
.300 111.7
.4500 124.1
.500 125.6
Keep in mind that this is a 5 port head with a 1.48 valve and shared intakes, and I'm only feeding 1 liter. At .100, .200 and .300, the numbers between your head and mine are virtually identical, but for a one liter engine, it's considered pretty good flow. If the Stude is punched out to 5 liters, that's 2.5 liters per side, well, you can see where the bottleneck is on the Stude - it's around the valve seat, the bowl, and quite likely shrouded around the valve in the combustion chamber.
ZD, can you post up a pic of the combustion chamber side of this head?
This is a very fun project - I hope it eventually leads to a working set of heads.
-
Another flow test from Tom. The ports with the runner removed. He tested the stock bowl #7. I did no smoothing past the area I removed the runner from.
Thanks again Tom for doing the tests.
http://youtu.be/OCqVzbto2mo
-
You guys keep throwing me data, and I'll keep printing graphs!
(http://i361.photobucket.com/albums/oo58/milwaukeemidget/Zenndog3_zps598c8c4b.jpg)
And this is a great example of the "bigger isn't always better" idea.
ZD, I'm happy to help on this - it's all learning and it's all good.
-
Just studying it a bit - and drawing from my limited knowledge, given that the low lift remains virtually unchanged between the three configurations up until ~ .225 lift, the bowl, seat and combustion chamber entry are going to yield the biggest gains in airflow. I'd even wager you'd be able to best the bigmouth arrangement with properly shaped bowl and valve guide boss reduction and little else.
-
Here is another set of results, which I think confirms your ideas.
http://youtu.be/8UGfvcbYRCI
Thanks again Tom!
-
Zenor, I love this project! Any chance we'll see this design on an engine in the near future?
-
Am I missing something? It is a siamesed port and it looks like the adjacent port doesn't have a valve in the hole. Are my eyes deceiving me?
Doug :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
-
Am I missing something? It is a siamesed port and it looks like the adjacent port doesn't have a valve in the hole. Are my eyes deceiving me?
Doug :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
!
Even if the combustion chamber is covered, the open valve guide would draw air through the top. Even if guide is plugged, the test isn't entirely accurate. On shared ports, the swirl and eddies that the valve stem creates in the adjacent valve bowl can have an effect on the valve bowl area being tested.
Please tell me we're missing something - that's a lot of work you've put into this.
-
# 1 Low Riser Roof Intake: And the numbers are:
Tom's latest numbers on the #1 port, the port next to the high rise port tested first. Tom's words in italics:
Lift CFM
.100 49.1
.200 97.8
.300 121.8
.400 149.8
.500 167.2
.550 173.6
.600 175.3
.680 179.5
This one performed very well. It is equal and in a fairly even race with the # 3 Hi Riser Design. Only from .500 on does it fail to keep up with the Hi Riser. The guide was sunk deeper and got more lift test on this one. Also better than #5 Big Mouth up to .500".
I don't think there is a valve in the adjacent port, I will mention it to Tom.
38-I have a crazy scheme in mind, I will update as it gels. Either way the first part is building the heads, everything else hinges on that. To move forward with the heads, I must pick which way to go.
I am partial to the high rise#3.
-
Here is another set of results, which I think confirms your ideas.
http://youtu.be/8UGfvcbYRCI
Thanks again Tom!
Am I missing something? It is a siamesed port and it looks like the adjacent port doesn't have a valve in the hole. Are my eyes deceiving me?
Doug :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
Am I missing something? It is a siamesed port and it looks like the adjacent port doesn't have a valve in the hole. Are my eyes deceiving me?
Doug :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
!
Even if the combustion chamber is covered, the open valve guide would draw air through the top. Even if guide is plugged, the test isn't entirely accurate. On shared ports, the swirl and eddies that the valve stem creates in the adjacent valve bowl can have an effect on the valve bowl area being tested.
Please tell me we're missing something - that's a lot of work you've put into this.
Guys,
This results for this test are invalid. You must repeat the test with a valve in the adjacent "siamesed" port, for the reasons M/M outlined.
:cheers:
Fordboy
-
Exhaust numbers:
# 1 Experimental Exhaust Mod. (1.525" exhaust tulip 45 seat)
Lift CFM
.100 44.3
.200 75.9
.300 106.4
.400 127.3
.500 132.6
.550 137.5
.600 140.8
.642 142.9
-
Tom stands behind his results for #5 and #7, I don't want to pester him about it. He is doing all these tests just because he is interested and I am beyond satisfied. I am partial to the high rise, so I am good. I am just thinking about how to build the engine within my budget and whether it will ever get to the salt. :cheers:
That in itself will be an accomplishment.