Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

[Old as Dirt]

Yep, good stuff.. keep me in mind please, would rather have the originals that came with the boat.. a nostalgia deal for sure, with a little "Magic" from Charlie.. I know they won't hold a candle to the almost 300 CFM AFR 185's... but sure they would do well..

[Carnut1]

Funny you should say that. The exhaust is not far off from the AFR. The intake has less flow but also a 35 cc smaller port! Thanks, Charlie

[Old as Dirt]

I only hope you didn't take that the wrong way Charlie.. you did a fine job for the size of port and valves you had to work with.. I would bet even Chad and the other guys doing this for a living would be impressed.. as was I...

[Smoke ring]

Nice work Charlie. Did your port speeds come out where you wanted?

[Carnut1]

Nice work Charlie. Did your port speeds come out where you wanted?

My original idea was to keep the port tight and have an improves ssr with the smaller valve. Even with the cutaway and the sonic I left them thick on the ssr.
I just can't have another sprinkler issue. I expect these ports to pour about 150 cc and the flow is a bit less so the port energy will be less than the 1.94" heads. These were fresh water cooled heads and are in excellent shape for 50 year old castings I gave myself ample thickness because I was afraid of hitting a corrosion pocket. Quick answer, No. These turned out well but I would have liked to filled the ssr with super epoxy and cut them to get 250+ cfm like the welded port. Thanks, Charlie

[Carnut1]

0827171443.jpg

66 289 1.94"/ 1.6" spec sheet.

[Carnut1]

0827171457.jpg

65 289 1.85"/1.6" spec sheet

[Carnut1]

0827171445.jpg

cfm graph. Test #1 thin lines
Test #2 thick lines

[Carnut1]

0827171445a.jpg

cfm/ sq in graph.
Test #1 66 289 1.94" thin lines
Test #2 65 289 1.85" thick lines

[Carnut1]

0827171445b.jpg

Port velocity graph
Test #1 66 289 1.94" thin lines
Test #2 65 289 1.85" thick lines

[Carnut1]

0827171445c.jpg

Port energy graph
Test #1 66 289 1.94"
Test #2 65 289 1.85"
I guess I did a fair job of boosting port energy on the intake of the 1.85" valve head. The smaller bowl on the 65 289 head boosts port energy to .35" lift and gives up some up top. If DV chooses to include these heads in the competition the cam will make the difference which one comes out on top and then only by a small margin I would think. Input welcome. Thanks, Charlie

[randy331]

174.5 cfm .7" lift exhaust no pipe back cut and rad. Face
192.6 cfm with 1 5/8" pipe .7" lift
204.4 cfm with 1 7/8" pipe. .7" lift

Which one of these would you bet on making the most power or power curve on the dyno, or run best in a car ?

Randy

[Carnut1]

Randy, As always it will depend on the combo, cam, cubic inch, and rpm. 306 running to 6000 rpm with a single pattern cam would go smaller valves and higher port energy. 347 7500 rpm split cam 1.94 valves. But only testing will show the truth.

[randy331]

I meant header pipe size, Do you think a bigger pipe showing more cfm on the bench is going to show up as power on the engine ?

Do you think there's a connection there ?

Randy

[RevTheory]

Don't take the bait. You know where this is headed and why.