Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

[groberts101]

Here is my 210cc "street" port master. 2.02 valve. It has 2.10in at the pinch. But you can clearly see my thought process.

Got any little skinny ass ports you could show pictures of to get your thought process across on those types of designs?

And no cheating by posting pic's of LS cathedral ports either!

[user-9274568]

Here is my 210cc "street" port master. 2.02 valve. It has 2.10in at the pinch. But you can clearly see my thought process.

Got any little skinny ass ports you could show pictures of to get your thought process across on those types of designs?

And no cheating by posting pic's of LS cathedral ports either!

I really don't have anything tall and skinny. Here is a Olds I just finished up. It's tall and skinny!

[groberts101]

I'd call that more like.. "WAS skinny".

Here's what he has to work with, Chad. Be nice now.. 30 years ago and one of my first more serious efforts at complete cylinder head porting. Was scared to ruin them hitting water even though I was nowhere near it yet. Can even see the casting lines on the straight wall. lol Then fully TBC coated them along with the pistons and valves(front and back). Custom gaskets. Talk about a lot of wasted time and effort on something that was no where near "optimized" enough to ever warrant it.

IMG_0834cropresize.jpg

IMG_0841cropresize.jpg

IMG_0838cropresize.jpg

IMG_0840cropresize.jpg

Anywho, hope any input or pictures help the cause here. You can see the little kiddie starter shapes I used with some help from an old retired Chrysler engineer who street raced and modified/ported heads/built engines out of his garage. He was the one who showed me how to cut my stones to shape the chambers, no flowballs required. He didn't know the casting anymore than I did but also heard it was thin. Plus the motors cam was already in and way too short to really matter much anyways. 350'ish fwhp, 7,100 rpm shift points(even higher if I was losing ). Ran pretty decent for a little warmed over 302. Put it in a completely gutted '70 Torino GT style stationwagon(yep, hoodscoop and stripes too) and commenced to terrorizing, or at least aggravating, most every Mustang and Camaro in sight. Mighta' even chased a few down just to enjoy watching them choke on their own false pride. Beat lots of slow minded/footed drivers in much faster cars too. Street racing's not a hobby or career.. it's a mindset.

PS. Charlie, even with these smaller 1.85" valves you can kinda see how the old timer had me pulling the short sides corners all the way up towards the seat area. Even though I had much more limited knowledge at that time I remember being a big enough smartass and bickering with him about keeping the choke round, said something like "nice even flowcone" or some other stupid shit, and then quickly transitioning into the SSR/floor corners after the chokes mCSA(looking backwards from the VJ). He showed me some other heads and said something funny like, "F the flowcone!.. you just need to worry about slowing the air down enough to get around the damned corner or all this hard work doesn't amount to shit". But I think he might'a swore a few more times in that same sentence. As it turned out he was right on the money. This area.. is THE biggest key to making these heads tolerate a much bigger valve size increase. Very similar to the old '96-later Vortec heads in that same regard with way too much floor speed for the turn to handle until it gets reshaped/slowed down.

[Carnut1]

0217171852.jpg

Thanks for the pics. As it is now flowing 229.2 cfm at .8". Similar pic to yours.

[Carnut1]

0217171900.jpg

Chamber shot.

[Carnut1]

0217171907.jpg

Similar exhaust shot. I do have an ultrsonic thickness gauge and I hate it and I am in the market for a better one! Pinch is 1.889"- radius and ssr 1.86" - radius.

[groberts101]

Looks like youre closing in on it now. Are you open to some constructive criticisms here, Charlie?

First one pertains to the use of that guide as a swirl tool/flow diverter. If you measure cross section right at peak and dropping over the apex the calculator will immediately show you that guide material is displacing some of THE most valuable cross section in this whole entire port. You need to fight for any and all cross section you can possibly get and that guide shape is most definately not appropriate for an 8,000 rpm sbf, if you catch my drift. Lose it, use the material streamline around the guide while you dig into/raise the roof and you will gain mid-high lift flow. It is not possible to make this port too big unless you hit water. Hunt for material to increase cross section and that bigger valve curtain will pay you back.

[Carnut1]

0217171921a.jpg

Similar intake port shot.

[Carnut1]

I am open and I have removed the entire guide on a nasty E7Te build. Didn't seem to miss it. That was also a k-lined guide not a heavy bronze walled guide. These are already k-lined and I know I will gain flow just not sure about durability which is already tough on a high winding mill. Thanks, Charlie

[groberts101]

I feel ya. I got curious earlier today after posting pics and 45 minutes later i had what my brain could remember how i ported my hi-po heads. Recreated the assymetrical short side to seat transition for potentially helpful pic's to help you along on this set. The apex is also canted, lower on inside with harder longer layback. Moved along to other projects, will post up some pic's later tonight.

[MadBill]

... Then fully TBC coated them along with the pistons and valves(front and back)...

How did the coatings hold up in the various areas?

[Carnut1]

After some work with my sonic checker I decided to do a different intake valve flow test to see how bad the no margin Chevy valve was hurting flow. I stuck in a 2.02 manley with a double back cut. Out of 12 lifts measured this valve gained on 9 lifts. Up to 10.5 cfm improvement. All improvements were up to .6" lift 231.9 cfm. These flows are nearly identical to D.V.'s Two heads are better than one E7TE's which have been beating my heads up to .5" lift. This valve lost over .6 lift as you could hear the ssr airspeed just exceeded the air's ability to stay attached. I may need to sacrifice a good 2.02" and make a 1.94" with some margin and retest. Thanks, Charlie

[wyrmrider]

who posted that 1.9 might be the magic compromise with the short side?
how much lift are you planning to use?
I can't see using over .5-.6 on my Bronco build

[Carnut1]

who posted that 1.9 might be the magic compromise with the short side?
how much lift are you planning to use?
I can't see using over .5-.6 on my Bronco build

.625" lift. 1.9" might be the number! Thanks, Charlie

[jarmoyp]

The bowl can not be bigger than what it is now at the sides?