Pulling truck engine "again" BBC
Moderator: Team
Re: Pulling truck engine "again" BBC
It won't matter how high you lift that carb it will still look big
- midnightbluS10
- Expert
- Posts: 933
- Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 8:41 am
- Location: Shreveport, LA
Re: Pulling truck engine "again" BBC
When you guys start with the comments like that, it screws it up for us that aren't as educated about this stuff. It makes it more difficult to follow along sometimes. Like the whole flowZ thing. I'm still not even sure what word that's supposed to be or mean. Every time I see it, the entire statement gets screwed up by its usage in the sentence. Do I just replace it with "flow" while reading to myself? Anybody? Randy?
Some of us aren't as advanced as the rest of you. I realize you guys aren't worried much about anyone else learning any of this. It'd be nice if us mere mortals could at least follow along without wondering wth one is writing about because of their constant use of inside jokes and references unknown to anyone except a select few in the "crew".
Some of us aren't as advanced as the rest of you. I realize you guys aren't worried much about anyone else learning any of this. It'd be nice if us mere mortals could at least follow along without wondering wth one is writing about because of their constant use of inside jokes and references unknown to anyone except a select few in the "crew".
JC -
bigjoe1 wrote:By the way, I had a long talk with Harold(Brookshire) last year at the PRI show. We met at the airport and he told me everything he knew about everything.It was a nice visit. JOE SHERMAN RACING
Re: Pulling truck engine "again" BBC
So are you looking for a simple explanation for very complex things. Like a "formula" or "simulation" that will give you the "perfect" cam or heads or compression etc??? Their are 2 or 3 other open, existing threads on here that can give you all of that.midnightbluS10 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 23, 2018 12:33 am When you guys start with the comments like that, it screws it up for us that aren't as educated about this stuff. It makes it more difficult to follow along sometimes. Like the whole flowZ thing. I'm still not even sure what word that's supposed to be or mean. Every time I see it, the entire statement gets screwed up by its usage in the sentence. Do I just replace it with "flow" while reading to myself? Anybody? Randy?
Some of us aren't as advanced as the rest of you. I realize you guys aren't worried much about anyone else learning any of this. It'd be nice if us mere mortals could at least follow along without wondering wth one is writing about because of their constant use of inside jokes and references unknown to anyone except a select few in the "crew".
A lot of the vagueness and fun amongst the "crew" is knowing their aren't definitive answers to most things, despite what the sim or formula of the week is trying to sell you on. I'm extremely wary of anyone that has "all the answers", and that's not solely exclusive to engines either. I've had to wade through a lot of crap to learn what I've learned. Which is more than some and less than others for sure.
Re: Pulling truck engine "again" BBC
I have told fellow racer the combination thats in my car when asked; and they would do something totally different and run just as fast as my car. There are always different paths to the same result. Use what info that can help you discard the rest.
Re: Pulling truck engine "again" BBC
I CC ed an intake port on the heads going on this big block pulling engine.
It's port #4 I CC ed. It's 330 cc now. The throat was already ground out to 89.5% of the 2.25 valve.
I get a CSA of 3.5" at the throat and an average CSA of 3.62 for the whole port.
Wish they'd left the throat smaller and NOT radiused it. Well see what it looks like after a valve job. Hopefully I can get some angles under the seats.
It'll be steeper seats so that will help get some angles on it.
Haven't flowed this one since porting, so no flowz on it.
The intake is out getting milled so it will fit better. Needed dropped a little.
I'll CC it in sections to get a look at the taper or lack of it.
Needs more compression but heads have already been milled and I don't want to get them too thin and get into head gasket trouble.
May deck the block or go to a thinner gasket and take that same amount off the top of the piston deck and hand fit the dome to the chamber.
Randy
It's port #4 I CC ed. It's 330 cc now. The throat was already ground out to 89.5% of the 2.25 valve.
I get a CSA of 3.5" at the throat and an average CSA of 3.62 for the whole port.
Wish they'd left the throat smaller and NOT radiused it. Well see what it looks like after a valve job. Hopefully I can get some angles under the seats.
It'll be steeper seats so that will help get some angles on it.
Haven't flowed this one since porting, so no flowz on it.
The intake is out getting milled so it will fit better. Needed dropped a little.
I'll CC it in sections to get a look at the taper or lack of it.
Needs more compression but heads have already been milled and I don't want to get them too thin and get into head gasket trouble.
May deck the block or go to a thinner gasket and take that same amount off the top of the piston deck and hand fit the dome to the chamber.
Randy
Re: Pulling truck engine "again" BBC
Do you say this because you would like more material to work with to cut your angles or because you would like the throat to be a little less percentage, or both?randy331 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 23, 2018 2:26 pm I CC ed an intake port on the heads going on this big block pulling engine.
It's port #4 I CC ed. It's 330 cc now. The throat was already ground out to 89.5% of the 2.25 valve.
I get a CSA of 3.5" at the throat and an average CSA of 3.62 for the whole port.
Wish they'd left the throat smaller and NOT radiused it. Well see what it looks like after a valve job. Hopefully I can get some angles under the seats.
Randy
Re: Pulling truck engine "again" BBC
Both, at least to start with. I like to let the seat angles set the throat size and make adjustments from that point.treyrags wrote: ↑Fri Nov 23, 2018 3:00 pmDo you say this because you would like more material to work with to cut your angles or because you would like the throat to be a little less percentage, or both?randy331 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 23, 2018 2:26 pm I CC ed an intake port on the heads going on this big block pulling engine.
It's port #4 I CC ed. It's 330 cc now. The throat was already ground out to 89.5% of the 2.25 valve.
I get a CSA of 3.5" at the throat and an average CSA of 3.62 for the whole port.
Wish they'd left the throat smaller and NOT radiused it. Well see what it looks like after a valve job. Hopefully I can get some angles under the seats.
Randy
And I'm not sure all the supporting things will be there to need that csa.
The CSA math suggests it will want to peak well above where this type of engine is going to peak.
The trade area for efficiency or trade efficiency for area decision. Where's the trade off gonna be best on this build under these rules ( IAMO prostreet 4x4 truck pulling rules ).
Randy
Re: Pulling truck engine "again" BBC
Dose he already have all the other parts for the engine, camz , headerz , gearz, tirez, ect, if not since your stuck with more csa than wanted, raise the whole power band, but that means a relook at everything down to the rear
Tom
Tom
Re: Pulling truck engine "again" BBC
Sounds like a good candidate for a 55 degree valve job possibly. What does your math suggest? 3.5 inch doesnt seem that excessive for that many inches and poor cylinder head architecture.
You have titanium valves right? Whats the problem? Lol
Re: Pulling truck engine "again" BBC
Well, with 3.5" csa at the throat,... and wanting the MCSA at the throat,.. you end up without much taper up the runner to the plenum, or a very large volume intake tract. The 320cc port is almost 34% the volume of the cylinder it feeds. Add in a runner with a larger average csa and the total intake tract volume starts to get up there.
None of this would seem as big if it was feeding 540+ cubes.
Seems the piston should have the total intake tract volume displaced by a certain point ATDC.
And my 421 pulling truck engine peaks at 7200-7300 with a 2.7 ish csa, the equivalent csa for a 462 is 2.97".
And,.. the "problem" is the Eagle rods with lead pistons on them. LOL
Randy
None of this would seem as big if it was feeding 540+ cubes.
Seems the piston should have the total intake tract volume displaced by a certain point ATDC.
And my 421 pulling truck engine peaks at 7200-7300 with a 2.7 ish csa, the equivalent csa for a 462 is 2.97".
And,.. the "problem" is the Eagle rods with lead pistons on them. LOL
Randy
Re: Pulling truck engine "again" BBC
It would seem the throat areas plays a big part in getting the most out of an intake tract.
Please Note!
THE ABOVE POST IN NO WAY REFLECTS THE VIEWS OF SPEED TALK OR IT'S MEMBERS AND SHOULD BE VIEWED AS ENTERTAINMENT ONLY...Thanks, The Management!
THE ABOVE POST IN NO WAY REFLECTS THE VIEWS OF SPEED TALK OR IT'S MEMBERS AND SHOULD BE VIEWED AS ENTERTAINMENT ONLY...Thanks, The Management!
Re: Pulling truck engine "again" BBC
It was brought to my attention by pm I did some math wrong here. Not sure what I did to come up with 3.5 for 89.5% of a 2.25" valve but it's wrong.
Should be 3.18 - stem diameter.
Trying to do it with my phone.
Thanks Old school for bringing that to my attention.
Others do the math too, double check. LOL
It does remains true I wish it wasn't 89.5% and wasn't radiused .
Randy
Last edited by randy331 on Sat Nov 24, 2018 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Pulling truck engine "again" BBC
Update phone? Lolrandy331 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 10:56 pmIt was brought to my attention by pm I did some math wrong here. Not sure what I did to come up with 3.5 for 89.5% of a 2.25" valve but it's wrong.
Should be 3.18 - stem diameter.
Trying to do it with my phone.
Thanks Oldschool for bringing that to my attention.
Others do the math too, double check. LOL
It does remains true I wish it wasn't 89.5% and wasn't radiused .
Randy
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2276
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:22 am
- Location: brisbane AUSTRALIA
Re: Pulling truck engine "again" BBC
Randy,randy331 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 10:56 pmIt was brought to my attention by pm I did some math wrong here. Not sure what I did to come up with 3.5 for 89.5% of a 2.25" valve but it's wrong.
Should be 3.18 - stem diameter.
Trying to do it with my phone.
Thanks Old school for bringing that to my attention.
Others do the math too, double check. LOL
It does remains true I wish it wasn't 89.5% and wasn't radiused .
Randy
with the throat at 3.02''- 3.10'' depending on what stem you calculate with,is this still the MCSA in the port??
and does this change the AVG CSA that you calculated or did you measure using your CC method.
you mentioned earlier about welding the combustion chamber,can that include the throat area as well or is that not possible,as usual i only have questions and no answers but very interested in this thread.
steve c
"Pretty don't make power"
"Pretty don't make power"