Page 4 of 4

Re: If 50 are good, what about 55?

Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 12:08 pm
by Keith Morganstein
Warp Speed wrote:
Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:34 am
Keith Morganstein wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 6:49 pm
I had to freshen up a set of heads on the strongest running circle track engine in its class. 034 Bowtie heads, heavily angle milled, 2.05” valves and it had 52* seats. This engine beat all others so it must prove 52* seats are better!
Maybe not proof, but definalty a trend that needs to be considered!
I was being humorous about “proof” but it showed what a top regional builder did to make a “no porting” rule head outperform everyone else. By the time I got to this engine, its was old and rules had changed to allow bowtie vortec heads. The old engine was still very competitive.

Re: If 50 are good, what about 55?

Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 12:17 pm
by Frankshaft
DrillDawg wrote:
Sat Jun 09, 2018 12:06 pm
I wonder what people like Bob Mullins and Brownfield would think about air flow advancements of today compared to what they thought was the trick of the day in their hay day.
What's the phrase I hear often? So and so has forgotten more about that stuff than you will ever know!! lol. Its true too. Not saying I am some high level genius just a mid level one, lol, but I know for sure I can say that. Its subjective to YOUR world. Guys that think they are setting the world on fire with something, to get humbled at the race track, can be tough. But, it does open your eyes. What "seemingly" makes killer power in your world, may be mid pack in someone else's. Its all relative. Do I " think" I could build a pro stock engine? Absolutely. Do I "think" it could be competitive, at some point probably. But by then, I may have never caught up. The funny part, with a pro stock engine, it might only be .009 off the pace, and you were #26, and look like a chump, but, .009, come on, it takes you longer to blink!!

Re: If 50 are good, what about 55?

Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 12:40 pm
by DrillDawg
I think they would be amazed at the progress, equipment and products that we have today and that they would want to learn all there was to learn. A lot of what is known today was built off the back of people like them and before them. I can see a day where you would dizitize a head\port\chamber and a computer program would analyze it then cnc the ports, chambers and valve job with one setup and be 99% of what it could be.

Re: If 50 are good, what about 55?

Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 12:50 pm
by GARY C
Frankshaft wrote:
Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:53 am
midnightbluS10 wrote:
Sat Jun 09, 2018 6:10 am
Frankshaft wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:12 pm


Do you have a formula for that Stan? It might be helpful. :mrgreen:

That's funny right there, I don't care who you are.
What's funnier is that you somehow pulled that "no one in this thread was qualified... " from "...contact Darin Morgan...because no one will post the info you need..."


That's just the kind of environment that has been created here. Starting to get too much like yellowbullet with the pissing and moaning and especially the "holier-than-thou" attitudes that have emerged lately. The whole point of forums is to share information. But lately, it's more of a pissing match here than any sort of info sharing or progression of the sport.


Pretty sad. This was the one place that didn't have that bs until lately. I can understand why I haven't seen a lot of the older regulars posting here anymore. And why people are leaving.
The first point, the answer is there is no answer for this. That's the point. I can tell you what Darin Morgan would tell Groberts, stick to the 45 degree seat, and he would say, ok, thanks. And that would be that. As far as "sharing" usually Darin doesn't just say, do this that or the other thing, he gives hints, ideas, trends and highlights some findings from some of his testing, which can be very helpful. Take it for what its worth, try it or don't. Some of the best teachers I had, didn't GIVE me the answer, but hints ideas and thoughts, and then left it up to ME to LEARN. That's what a good teacher does. In this day and age, everyone feels "entitled", just GIVE me the answer, I want it NOW, and that's not a dig to you, so don't take it that way.
Its been said a dozen times in the other thread, and even this one now, that there is NO REAL CUT IN STONE answer its all a comprimise. For me, Groberts is on the borderline, with head and camshaft. If he is going to do additional porting, and a hair more duration, I would do it. If you look at that Hot Rod article, that has been linked 3 or 4 times, the average guy, info like that is all they have. There could be arguments for using the 35 seat, and arguments for using the 50, for THAT combo. He used the "stock" 45 degree seat that came from gm, so, its possible some revised 45 degree seat could have been the best "compromise" The 50 degree profile he used, I didn't think was right, and neither was the 45, but it showed the trend, on how it works exactly OPPOSITE of what everyone thinks, like I have said 20 times on here at least, about low lift flow enhancing valve jobs, and steep seats and top cuts. That probably leaves him even more confused, I bet if he asked the guy doing the tests on that particular ONE test, he wouldn't be able to give a complete answer, because the testing was far from complete. But, it showed how low lift flow hurts tq, but can help the engine hang on past peak, and it showed how reducing it, helped tq and power in the midrange, and then fell off on top, because the engine saw that seat profile as less duration/overlap for the same cam, that was quite small. The real answer, is, you can get "creative" with seat profiles to compliment a given application. The when, the why's and the how's are not exactly clear for every combo.
If he was a good teacher he would have taught you something, teachers teach, you had to learn because you didn't have a teacher just like many on this forum. Darin actually lays out very specific detailed info!

As an engine builder I can't believe you would consider that test valid with no details of throat work and a 15* top cut on the 35 and no cam change?

Re: If 50 are good, what about 55?

Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:07 pm
by Frankshaft
You just can NOT stop arguing. Wow. I think you need Stan's reading comprehension formula too.

Re: If 50 are good, what about 55?

Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:48 pm
by Stan Weiss
I understand exactly why you reply the way you do, and most don't get that, but to discount you because you don't spill the beans on certain things, is ridiculous. I can understand why someone on here, who has no clue who I am, or what I do, what I work on or what I have done, can come to that conclusion about me. I get that, and am ok with it. I have thick skin, I am not a push over, and I won't bow down, and I WILL speak my mind, whether someone likes it or not. Sometimes I insert foot into mouth, won't deny it.

Also, I still see to this day, guys quoting the Grump, from his book, that he wrote in 1982!! The reason he did that book, he wasn't giving away anything he was working on at the time, they were WAY past that, or stuff that Smokey Yunik wrote about, even more outdated. I recently had a Pontiac guy that I did some work for. I finally had to tell him, STOP quoting that STUPID BOOK. Jesus. All he did was argue with me about things in the book. I said, well, hey, then maybe have the guy that wrote the book do it!! I said, look when the book was written, good god man. That was 30 years ago!! Things have changed.
[/quote]

Really?

You talked about your sense of humor. Well I don't think that a person has a real sense of humor unless they can be self deprecating and I don't get that from your posts. But then maybe I am the one that needs to work on their reading comprehension. :wink:

Stan

Re: If 50 are good, what about 55?

Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:20 pm
by JoePorting
I'm actually surprised by how the ICE has changed so little over the past 60 years. We're still using head designs from the 1950's, and many of the catalog cams and manifolds are from the 1970's. Even modern racing heads are based on designs from the 1960's.

I still think Smokey Yunick's Power Secrets book is about the best engine book written. Bill Jenkins is also good. They are still relevant today. Too bad they still aren't in print. I think the young kids could still learn a lot from those books. You can still find them on eBay if anyone is interested.

Re: If 50 are good, what about 55?

Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 6:28 pm
by Keith Morganstein
Frankshaft wrote:
Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:07 pm
You just can NOT stop arguing. Wow. I think you need Stan's reading comprehension formula too.

No just this.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wxrbOVeRonQ

Re: If 50 are good, what about 55?

Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 6:52 pm
by paulzig
Frankshaft wrote:
Sat Jun 09, 2018 12:17 pm
The funny part, with a pro stock engine, it might only be .009 off the pace, and you were #26, and look like a chump, but, .009, come on, it takes you longer to blink!!
The guys went to EFI now so you could blame the tuner for the .009... Your engine building would remain above reproach.

Re: If 50 are good, what about 55?

Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:01 pm
by user-23911
That's what happens on the ricer forums.........they always blow up because the build wasn't right.
But it's not the build, it's the tune that usually kills them..............but due to the wrong modifications.

Re: If 50 are good, what about 55?

Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:04 pm
by zums
"Also, I still see to this day, guys quoting the Grump, from his book, that he wrote in 1982!! The reason he did that book, he wasn't giving away anything he was working on at the time, they were WAY past that, or stuff that Smokey Yunik wrote about, even more outdated. I recently had a Pontiac guy that I did some work for. I finally had to tell him, STOP quoting that STUPID BOOK. Jesus. All he did was argue with me about things in the book. I said, well, hey, then maybe have the guy that wrote the book do it!! I said, look when the book was written, good god man. That was 30 years ago!! Things have changed."
[/quote]

Thats funny, i was there in 98 and Hahns said they would still get 3 calls a week pertaining to tech in that book, i think t was written 1976 not 82 , Jenkins said he has to write another book, too bad he didnt, but even then it would be out dated, 4 cycle otto will always be a work in progress, no one has it completely figured out yet
Tom

Re: If 50 are good, what about 55?

Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 2:10 am
by modok
I've been wondering the whole debate about running the seat angle out past the valve, and using the valve itself to define the seat width. Or sinking the valve with a stone cut just larger than the valve itself. Nothing is new, but just because ti didn't work THEN, maybe things have changed and it will work now. The average engine runs a LOT more valve lift now.
Kay Sissel did some odd stuff like that, LONg time ago!

Re: If 50 are good, what about 55?

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 11:24 am
by groberts101
Frankshaft wrote:
Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:53 am
The first point, the answer is there is no answer for this. That's the point. I can tell you what Darin Morgan would tell Groberts, stick to the 45 degree seat, and he would say, ok, thanks. And that would be that. As far as "sharing" usually Darin doesn't just say, do this that or the other thing, he gives hints, ideas, trends and highlights some findings from some of his testing, which can be very helpful. Take it for what its worth, try it or don't. Some of the best teachers I had, didn't GIVE me the answer, but hints ideas and thoughts, and then left it up to ME to LEARN. That's what a good teacher does. In this day and age, everyone feels "entitled", just GIVE me the answer, I want it NOW, and that's not a dig to you, so don't take it that way.
Its been said a dozen times in the other thread, and even this one now, that there is NO REAL CUT IN STONE answer its all a comprimise.

For me, Groberts is on the borderline, with head and camshaft. If he is going to do additional porting, and a hair more duration, I would do it. If you look at that Hot Rod article, that has been linked 3 or 4 times, the average guy, info like that is all they have. There could be arguments for using the 35 seat, and arguments for using the 50, for THAT combo. He used the "stock" 45 degree seat that came from gm, so, its possible some revised 45 degree seat could have been the best "compromise" The 50 degree profile he used, I didn't think was right, and neither was the 45, but it showed the trend, on how it works exactly OPPOSITE of what everyone thinks, like I have said 20 times on here at least, about low lift flow enhancing valve jobs, and steep seats and top cuts. That probably leaves him even more confused, I bet if he asked the guy doing the tests on that particular ONE test, he wouldn't be able to give a complete answer, because the testing was far from complete. But, it showed how low lift flow hurts tq, but can help the engine hang on past peak, and it showed how reducing it, helped tq and power in the midrange, and then fell off on top, because the engine saw that seat profile as less duration/overlap for the same cam, that was quite small. The real answer, is, you can get "creative" with seat profiles to compliment a given application. The when, the why's and the how's are not exactly clear for every combo.
Even though not specifically directed at me.. thanks for the reply and input. Given the fact that these heads will be high entry and have top notch ssr and deeper bowls(relatively speaking), along with the fact I want maximum torque peak with fatter spread between 2,500-5,500 rpm as these parts will possibly allow.. it seems doubtful that Darin would discredit a 50 degree seat design.

In fact, besides the tfs 11r's smaller flatter chambers being better at delivering SCR bump to nearer 11.5 with less CID, that was one of the driving factors to spending more $$$ by moving away from the 20 degree stuff.

Another quick question for you or anyone else(stat?) that may know. Let's say I want around 2.1" csa to achieve my power goal. Will a 50's larger choke size having better mid-high lift flow rate(NOT bench #'s but higher velocity induced later cylinder fill rate) then require, or maybe better to say prefer, a slightly larger csa?

With this heavily modded tfs 11r's heads higher inlet entry and deeper bowls I would guess probably not?.. since this ports ssr and overall design will easily absorb and never see issue with any slightly "harder pulls" extra velocity. Just curious if the ones running steeper seats will typically add a bit more runner volume on most standard valve angle designs?

Re: If 50 are good, what about 55?

Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:13 pm
by PRH
I recently freshened a set of Indy 572-13 CNC385’s that came off a bracket style 588, built by a very well known Mopar engine specialist.
These had 2.350 Ti valves with 55* seats, but they didn’t have very Ti valve friendly seat material...... and there was a noticeable groove pounded into the valve face.

To try and gain a better transition from the 55 to the chamber wall, the valves were sunk...... a bunch.
This style head already suffers from nowhere near enough height at the short turn, so sinking the valves doesn’t help that situation, and someone(and I’m pretty sure it wasn’t Indy) tweaked the short turn a bit after the CNC work(a more rounded floor at the ST apex).
I tested the head as delivered, and I don’t think the 55 was working any magic with the way these heads were finished:

4.500 bore:
Lift———flow
.100—-58.9
.200—121.2
.300—188.4
.400—253.1
.500—312.2
.600—370.0
.650—391.3
.700—408.0
.750—374.5
.800—381.2
.850—382.9
.900—386.8

Understandably, The owner wasn’t thrilled with the prospect of replacing all 8 intake valves, and then some suitable seats as well to get it to live after only 160 passes on the motor.
We decided on SS valves, don’t change the seats, and change the angle to 50* to try and gain some longevity.
I also took some of the roundness out of the floor.
There would have been a little more height there to work with if it hadn’t been previously “touched”.
There was witness marks on all the valves where they had been clipping each other, so I took .010 off the OD of the intake and exhaust valves.

I ended up with:
Lift———flow
.100——73.7
.200—-150.0
.300—-199.2
.400—-250.5
.500—-310.4
.600—-361.6
.650—-385.7
.700—-402.4
.750—-408.0
.800—-402.4
.850—-402.4
.900—-405.2

Re: If 50 are good, what about 55?

Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:24 pm
by Frankshaft
I wouldn't put a 55 on that head. No way.