Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

General engine tech -- Drag Racing to Circle Track

Moderator: Team

Post Reply
Carnut1
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3277
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:32 pm
Location: Melbourne fl.

Re: Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

Post by Carnut1 » Mon Aug 28, 2017 12:28 pm

randy331 wrote: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
Sorry Randy, Even running 8000 rpm I would run the 1 5/8" tube for road race and for drag depending on combo I would still run 1 5/8' tube header.
Do I think there is a connection? I test each exhaust port the same way, all lifts without pipe, ft/sec center of flange @ .7" lift, flow with 1 5/8" pipe @ .7" lift and 1 7/8" pipe @ .7" lift. Why? I think it gives me a good Idea of what the exhaust port will do in application. Some pickup more with the big pipe than others. I think in reality the bigger pipe will show a few extra ponies but at a large loss of torque throughout the usable rpm range. I will take the usable torque please!
Servedio Cylinder Head Development
631-816-4911
9:00am - 9:00pm EST

Carnut1
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3277
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:32 pm
Location: Melbourne fl.

Re: Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

Post by Carnut1 » Mon Aug 28, 2017 12:30 pm

RevTheory wrote:Don't take the bait. You know where this is headed and why.
I know, no matter what I write I will be wrong!
Servedio Cylinder Head Development
631-816-4911
9:00am - 9:00pm EST

randy331
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: N.W. MO.

Re: Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

Post by randy331 » Mon Aug 28, 2017 12:45 pm

Carnut1 wrote:
randy331 wrote: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
Sorry Randy, Even running 8000 rpm I would run the 1 5/8" tube for road race and for drag depending on combo I would still run 1 5/8' tube header.
Do I think there is a connection? I test each exhaust port the same way, all lifts without pipe, ft/sec center of flange @ .7" lift, flow with 1 5/8" pipe @ .7" lift and 1 7/8" pipe @ .7" lift. Why? I think it gives me a good Idea of what the exhaust port will do in application. Some pickup more with the big pipe than others. I think in reality the bigger pipe will show a few extra ponies but at a large loss of torque throughout the usable rpm range. I will take the usable torque please!
I'd tend to agree with that. At least on smaller cubes like the 306 you mentioned.
Even on larger cubes with the same ex port I kinda wonder if bigger tubes would help all the time. Like maybe optimum tube diameter is as much connected to the ex port as it is to cubes.

I like to test with a pipe on ex too. It raises speed in the port and to me that's the best way to test. Try to see if there is a problem.

I still remember back in 1982 or so going down from 1 7/8 tube to 1 3/4 tubes on my Camaro and the smaller tubes were about 1/10 th faster in 1/8 mile, even though the bigger ones flowed more on the bench. 355 cube with 5500 stall. Kinda one of my first bigger isn't better moments.

What was it your sorry for ?

Randy

Erland Cox
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3155
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: Lund in Sweden
Contact:

Re: Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

Post by Erland Cox » Mon Aug 28, 2017 1:08 pm

It is an interesting question as the flow bench responds to the outlet area of the pipe and the diffusion will change the flow.
Something to think about.

Erland

Carnut1
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3277
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:32 pm
Location: Melbourne fl.

Re: Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

Post by Carnut1 » Mon Aug 28, 2017 7:59 pm

0828171738c.jpg
65 289 1.85" port outline drawing. Not thrilled with the ssr. Input welcome. Thanks, Charlie
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Servedio Cylinder Head Development
631-816-4911
9:00am - 9:00pm EST

Erland Cox
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3155
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: Lund in Sweden
Contact:

Re: Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

Post by Erland Cox » Mon Aug 28, 2017 8:02 pm

I would try to make the SSR a constant radius from floor to seat.
It is usually possible without hitting water.

Erland

Carnut1
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3277
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:32 pm
Location: Melbourne fl.

Re: Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

Post by Carnut1 » Mon Aug 28, 2017 8:10 pm

0828171738.jpg
65 289 1.6" exhaust drawing profile. Slightly smaller bowl and lower roof than first design. Input welcome. Thanks, Charlie
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Servedio Cylinder Head Development
631-816-4911
9:00am - 9:00pm EST

Carnut1
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3277
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:32 pm
Location: Melbourne fl.

Re: Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

Post by Carnut1 » Mon Aug 28, 2017 8:29 pm

Resized_20170704_100630.jpeg
Carnut1 wrote:0828171738c.jpg65 289 1.85" port outline drawing. Not thrilled with the ssr. Input welcome. Thanks, Charlie
Interesting to compare with cutaway.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Servedio Cylinder Head Development
631-816-4911
9:00am - 9:00pm EST

randy331
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: N.W. MO.

Re: Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

Post by randy331 » Mon Aug 28, 2017 11:00 pm

RevTheory wrote:Don't take the bait. You know where this is headed and why.
Pretty sad post .

Randy

cgarb
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1397
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 11:50 am
Location: Maryland

Re: Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

Post by cgarb » Mon Aug 28, 2017 11:37 pm

[/quote]Interesting to compare with cutaway.[/quote]

Why Ford Motor Company must you put so much cooling water around the SSR on a 289 head?...lol. I'm not sure why the OEM's don't think about head porters more and cast some meat in these heads to work with. The grass is always greener on the other side and the air always wants to flow where there is no material to grind.

BILL-C
Pro
Pro
Posts: 261
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:57 pm
Location: Oakville, CT
Contact:

Re: Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

Post by BILL-C » Tue Aug 29, 2017 6:29 am

Anyone change the shape of the exhaust port exit to work better with headers that take a sharp downturn?
Carlquist Competition Engines

mag2555
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:31 am

Re: Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

Post by mag2555 » Tue Aug 29, 2017 6:31 am

Here's a example of designing / reworking, or assessing what you have already off of Throat size.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Carnut1
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3277
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:32 pm
Location: Melbourne fl.

Re: Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

Post by Carnut1 » Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:28 pm

Sometimes the bench gives you tunnel vision. Just read how these little heads easily handle a set of gen1 bowties unported as far as airflow with a 30 cc smaller intake port! They may not be failures after all! Thanks, Charlie
Servedio Cylinder Head Development
631-816-4911
9:00am - 9:00pm EST

turbo2256b
Pro
Pro
Posts: 312
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:48 pm

Re: Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

Post by turbo2256b » Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:29 pm

cgarb wrote:
Interesting to compare with cutaway.[/quote]

Why Ford Motor Company must you put so much cooling water around the SSR on a 289 head?...lol. I'm not sure why the OEM's don't think about head porters more and cast some meat in these heads to work with. The grass is always greener on the other side and the air always wants to flow where there is no material to grind.[/quote]


In the mid 90s working at ford advance engine design (not sure about back in the 289 days) A designer came up to me asking about the water passages in a cylinder head. The answer he got not from me was water passages should be used to lessen the amount of metal which cost X amount per cu centimeter. This concept produced several head designs that wouldnt cool hot spots because the water flow would take the path of least resistance. They had to kinda rework the cores with like baffles to redirect the coolant flow.
One reason for smaller spark plug threads had to do with better coolant passages around them.
Also did a project baseed on what was called precision cooling were passages flow was kinda figured out like a complicated electrical circuit. It was dumped to some extent as it didnt do much to improve emissions. Casing also had issues as the passages in the block were below minimum thickness. There were fixes to that issue I explained to ford but they wouldn't go for it.

If you were to collect all the OEM SBF heads one would find lots of variations in port designs some flowing better than others out of the box.

mag2555
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:31 am

Re: Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

Post by mag2555 » Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:59 pm

When I know I am port a Exh side that will need sharp bent tubes off the flange I first head for getting the most flow gain by means of port width increases at a certain point around the short turn, and this still all hinges on how much lift is being used.

Post Reply