Windsor Super Victor – plenums, port forms & finishes Vs flow

General engine tech -- Drag Racing to Circle Track

Moderator: Team

Post Reply
BradH
Expert
Expert
Posts: 507
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:34 am

Re: Windsor Super Victor – plenums, port forms & finishes Vs flow

Post by BradH » Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:56 pm

David Vizard wrote:
GARY C wrote:Would this be addressed the same way on SBC? Sharp edge on 7, radius on 5?
Gary,
Precisely!
So... I've read your articles & books where the topic of stagger jetting is covered, and it focuses essentially on the same scenario of one cylinder being "robbed" by an adjacent one that's next in the firing order. Does this type of manifold "fix" also impact either the need or the expected results from stagger jetting as you've described?

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

Re: Windsor Super Victor – plenums, port forms & finishes Vs flow

Post by Erland Cox » Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:59 pm

Where the flow is slow there will be a boundary layer between the main flow and the wall so the main flow will not see the texture.
The texture wikk activate the biundary layer.
But where the flow velocity is high the boundary layer will be very thin and the course finish will definitively hurt the flow.
Like before the short turn on the floor of a port.

Erland

mag2555
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2131
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:31 am

Re: Windsor Super Victor – plenums, port forms & finishes Vs flow

Post by mag2555 » Thu Jul 27, 2017 7:57 am

What are people's opinions on using the juction of the end of the runner in the Plenum to even up the wall lenght difference between the floor and the roof, in peticular the angle of the wall dividers?

ozyfordman
New Member
New Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 11:06 pm

Re: Windsor Super Victor – plenums, port forms & finishes Vs flow

Post by ozyfordman » Fri Jul 28, 2017 12:00 am

Have any of you guys done the manifold porting to suit a 351W firing order and measured results against 289W firing order with same spec cam? Just wondering on significance of this technique. Would it be noticable in a 450 to 500 HP street car build, or would it only be applicable to max effort racing deal? I personally would do it if it gave any positive measurable result as it is so easy? I don`t have a mule engine or a dyno, so just asking.
This is a very intersting thread to me, along with the other SBF specific ones going around at present.

cjperformance
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2532
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:20 am
Location: South Australia

Re: Windsor Super Victor – plenums, port forms & finishes Vs flow

Post by cjperformance » Fri Jul 28, 2017 12:26 am

ozyfordman wrote:Have any of you guys done the manifold porting to suit a 351W firing order and measured results against 289W firing order with same spec cam? Just wondering on significance of this technique. Would it be noticable in a 450 to 500 HP street car build, or would it only be applicable to max effort racing deal? I personally would do it if it gave any positive measurable result as it is so easy? I don`t have a mule engine or a dyno, so just asking.
This is a very intersting thread to me, along with the other SBF specific ones going around at present.

There was a bit of discussion in this thread,,

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=50032&start=30
Craig.

ozyfordman
New Member
New Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 11:06 pm

Re: Windsor Super Victor – plenums, port forms & finishes Vs flow

Post by ozyfordman » Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:26 am

Thanks Craig, I did read that thread with interest. I thought that the SBF firing order change was to even out main bearing loads. I am particularly interested whether the 5 and 8 sharp and 4 and 6 radius runner entrances, hurt power with the 289 firing order as opposed to the 351w order. Interesting topic that I have never previously considered. I was also surprised at D. V.s method of testing manifolds. I realised there was some robbing happening but was surprised to learn that the flows have a combined total that assists cylinder fill. At least that's how I understood it. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. Maybe this is why modern dual planes can make so much power.

DaveMcLain
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2754
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:57 am

Re: Windsor Super Victor – plenums, port forms & finishes Vs flow

Post by DaveMcLain » Fri Jul 28, 2017 11:44 am

Thinking about some of this I'm wondering/imagining about the effects of the runner entrance and at what angle it joins the plenum under the carburetor. In some cases you have cylinders that are directly across the plenum from one another that draw 90 degrees apart. Do these tend to interact less due to distance? What solution might improve things? Would it be better/possible to tend to point the entrances more towards the bottom of the carburetor than directly at one another by a few degrees if possible? Is this one of the reasons why an extended divider that is attached to the floor but pulled back along its top edge can be helpful at some engine speeds? Does it tend to point the entrance more toward the bottom of the carburetor and less at its friend across the plenum?

cjperformance
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2532
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:20 am
Location: South Australia

Re: Windsor Super Victor – plenums, port forms & finishes Vs flow

Post by cjperformance » Fri Jul 28, 2017 7:49 pm

ozyfordman wrote:Thanks Craig, I did read that thread with interest. I thought that the SBF firing order change was to even out main bearing loads. I am particularly interested whether the 5 and 8 sharp and 4 and 6 radius runner entrances, hurt power with the 289 firing order as opposed to the 351w order. Interesting topic that I have never previously considered. I was also surprised at D. V.s method of testing manifolds. I realised there was some robbing happening but was surprised to learn that the flows have a combined total that assists cylinder fill. At least that's how I understood it. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. Maybe this is why modern dual planes can make so much power.
Well looking at the theory side of this, using a 289 f.o. with the intake setup for a 351 f.o. then yes the 289 f.o. is going to let the intake assist in robbing # 1 & 8.
Craig.

cjperformance
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2532
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:20 am
Location: South Australia

Re: Windsor Super Victor – plenums, port forms & finishes Vs flow

Post by cjperformance » Fri Jul 28, 2017 8:00 pm

DaveMcLain wrote:Thinking about some of this I'm wondering/imagining about the effects of the runner entrance and at what angle it joins the plenum under the carburetor. In some cases you have cylinders that are directly across the plenum from one another that draw 90 degrees apart. Do these tend to interact less due to distance? What solution might improve things? Would it be better/possible to tend to point the entrances more towards the bottom of the carburetor than directly at one another by a few degrees if possible? Is this one of the reasons why an extended divider that is attached to the floor but pulled back along its top edge can be helpful at some engine speeds? Does it tend to point the entrance more toward the bottom of the carburetor and less at its friend across the plenum?
Think of the plenum floor in this instance as the sharp edge, as you know the radius or a bellmouth helps pull air Into a runner/tube. Do away with a section or part of the bellmouth and flow is lost in that area. If a given runner entry is radiused at each side and at the top/under carb area then flow into that runner is concentrated/biased to the top of the runner due to no radius at the bottom/plenum floor of the runner. Just this alone is helping do what you describe. Adequate/correct plenum volume and enough carb size will definetly help this situation aswell.
Craig.

David Vizard
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1173
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:19 pm

Re: Windsor Super Victor – plenums, port forms & finishes Vs flow

Post by David Vizard » Sun Jul 30, 2017 1:45 pm

Frankshaft,
Ref your post:-
I knew it would happen. I have been ditching and dimpling the floor of manifolds for YEARS. So, now, I suppose a certain someone will copy that, and within weeks, he will be credited for doing that. Instead of sanding some stupid diamond, or circle on the floor, my trade mark was the ditching and dimples, something that would actually do something if fuel puddled on the floor.

I understand your resentment here. Folk copying my stuff and claiming it is theirs has happened so often that I have lost count. I think the problem stems from the fact that everyone knows that motoring journalists don’t have an innovated mind of their own and that is why they make a living reporting on what others do. Since my engines are often faster than the people that other journalists write about I would be doing my readers a disservice by reporting and by inference recommending a second best situation.

But let us talk about idea’s. If you have a modification that is novel (the port and floor decorations you and I posted are not) then consider a patent. Of course you may not have considered that as a viable proposition because of the high cost involved. I have a lot of experience with patent production just on the developments I have done (came up with 7 patents in one month for 3M).

If you have a near obvious money maker then the cost of doing patents my way is about negated. So should you want to do a patent – call me first and I will tell you how it’s done. As for patent infringement if you have a strong patent (mine are among the strongest to be found) then you sit at home and pray that someone with money will try and break it. I have made more money per day from patent infringements than from the patent itself. Back in 1986 a big company heavily infringed a couple of my exhaust patents. The judge imposed a daily fine of which my share worked out at just over a grand a day in 1986 money. This company was rife with bureaucratic management and it took weeks for them to figure out what to do. I had enough $ from this to go out and buy an airplane – cash!

Let me warn you though that the hard bit is not coming up with the idea in the first place but selling it to someone with the finances to launch it. This can be very disheartening. In 1963 I built a transistorized ignition system for my 1000 cc Mini cooper. All our contact breaker problems vanished and we could turn 11,500 rpm clean as a whistle. Did I patent it? No - a patents search showed the some wiz kid electronic engineers had beaten me to it by at least a couple of years.

In 1963 I designed an electronic EFI but could make absolutely no headway selling the idea. In 1966 both SU and Stromberg wheedled me out of my provisional patent on a new increased economy lower HC emission jet assembly for constant vacuum carbs. About that time is when I learned to exercise better strategies when doing a patent. Have not had any trouble since.
As for you manifold strategies (nice work BTW) they come under the heading of ‘prior art’. I got this idea from Roger in the mid 80’s He indicated he saw this in one of Dyno Don Nicholson’s manifolds at least ten years before that so who ever you think is going to steal the credit here both you and I can shoot them down in flames – big time.

Just for the record Roger and I developed an intake modification which is several generations on from what we are showing here. It works like gang busters and is totally patentable. But in the twenty years since we did this we (now just I) have never convinced a manifold manufacture to put the idea into production. Since it works so well I can only put this apparent lack of enthusiasm for our design to the ‘not invented here’ syndrome.
Any offers here???

DV
David Vizard Small Group Performance Seminars - held about every 4 weeks. My shop or your shop. Contact seminar organizer at marvingvx@gmail.com for details.

David Vizard
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1173
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:19 pm

Re: Windsor Super Victor – plenums, port forms & finishes Vs flow

Post by David Vizard » Sun Jul 30, 2017 1:52 pm

BradH wrote:
David Vizard wrote:
GARY C wrote:Would this be addressed the same way on SBC? Sharp edge on 7, radius on 5?
Gary,
Precisely!
So... I've read your articles & books where the topic of stagger jetting is covered, and it focuses essentially on the same scenario of one cylinder being "robbed" by an adjacent one that's next in the firing order. Does this type of manifold "fix" also impact either the need or the expected results from stagger jetting as you've described?
Fixing the problem would be very difficult but what is being suggested here helps by sometimes as much a 20 HP(Manifold plus best stagger jetting)
David Vizard Small Group Performance Seminars - held about every 4 weeks. My shop or your shop. Contact seminar organizer at marvingvx@gmail.com for details.

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3674
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: Windsor Super Victor – plenums, port forms & finishes Vs flow

Post by GARY C » Sun Jul 30, 2017 2:30 pm

DV Wrote... As for you manifold strategies (nice work BTW) they come under the heading of ‘prior art’. I got this idea from Roger in the mid 80’s He indicated he saw this in one of Dyno Don Nicholson’s manifolds at least ten years before that so who ever you think is going to steal the credit here both you and I can shoot them down in flames – big time.
I remember a mid to late 70's Hot Rod Mag article showing some of Grumpy's SBC heads and they were some of the roughest ports I have ever seen...when they asked why, he said, it makes more power!

David Vizard
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1173
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:19 pm

Re: Windsor Super Victor – plenums, port forms & finishes Vs flow

Post by David Vizard » Sun Jul 30, 2017 6:55 pm

Since the subject has been raised by Erland and some others let’s take a look at finishes and boundary layers.

The first question here is we know a dimples finish works on a golf ball but why it does is another thing. But I am maybe jumping the gun here so lets start with a little on boundary layers.

The # 1 factor here is to appreciate that there is far more to boundary layer flow than might at first seem. There are two classes of boundary layer – laminar and turbulent. What starts off as laminar turns to turbulent after a certain distance along the surface concerned. A turbulent flow starts as a laminar flow very close to the surface but then becomes turbulent. In the case of golf ball dimples lack of them produces one large rolling wave just past the point of the balls max diameter. This makes it appear as if the ball is larger than it really is. With the dimples a trailing dimple generated Vortex breaks up the proceeding one. This produces a smaller overal vortex and cuts the apparent diameter of the ball as well as having the effect of tidying up the trailing flow.

Those of you who read some of my posts on the surface finish thread may have noted that I said I only polished the short side turn just before the seat. Well here is some news! After looking at Charlie’s finish on my E7 heads I decided to polish one as I was having doubts about this move. As near as I could tell it was very slightly worse with the fully polished finish!
David Vizard Small Group Performance Seminars - held about every 4 weeks. My shop or your shop. Contact seminar organizer at marvingvx@gmail.com for details.

David Vizard
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1173
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:19 pm

Re: Windsor Super Victor – plenums, port forms & finishes Vs flow

Post by David Vizard » Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:21 pm

Frankshaft wrote:Since the cat is out of the bag, there will be documented proof that its my saying, lol, I call that a reverse turtle.
Seems to me that some posters are a little ticked off about my naming of port energy and specific port energy and it has been said these just don’t describe anything of consequence and it is just a name.

Sorry guys I absolutely have to disagree. No-one counters the naming of the quantity of air flowed as CFm why because it is exactly that – CFM. Nor do they argue that velocity is accurately depicted by the term Ft/Sec. Like it or not port Port Energy is just that – Port energy as is Specific Port energy. The name exactly describes the property.

Give these terms to say, a mathematician, and they would immediately understand what proporty was being described even if the application was not know but ‘Reverse Turtles’? When I write my tech stuff I believe that the naming of anything has to have a real world relevance at least suggesting it’s function. So you feel that your naming of the port and plenum floor treatment should be down to you since you have been doing it for years – and that is since - when. With tongue in cheek here is what Roger named it back in the 1985 ish era.

Active Formation of Turbulent Energy to Resist Fuel Aligning Streaming To Ports Over Two Rough Surfaces. That’s a mouthful so we used the acronym of ‘AFTERFASTPORTS’ which exactly described what the goal was.
David Vizard Small Group Performance Seminars - held about every 4 weeks. My shop or your shop. Contact seminar organizer at marvingvx@gmail.com for details.

BradH
Expert
Expert
Posts: 507
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:34 am

Re: Windsor Super Victor – plenums, port forms & finishes Vs flow

Post by BradH » Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:26 pm

David Vizard wrote:
BradH wrote:
David Vizard wrote:
Gary,
Precisely!
So... I've read your articles & books where the topic of stagger jetting is covered, and it focuses essentially on the same scenario of one cylinder being "robbed" by an adjacent one that's next in the firing order. Does this type of manifold "fix" also impact either the need or the expected results from stagger jetting as you've described?
Fixing the problem would be very difficult but what is being suggested here helps by sometimes as much a 20 HP(Manifold plus best stagger jetting)
I've got a BB Mopar Victor intake that needs to be worked on to better match my new heads. Looks like I have a new mod or two to include in that effort.

Post Reply