Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

General engine tech -- Drag Racing to Circle Track

Moderator: Team

Carnut1
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4659
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:32 pm
Location: Melbourne fl.

Re: Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

Post by Carnut1 »

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: 4659
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:32 pm
Location: Melbourne fl.

Re: Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

Post by Carnut1 »

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: 3337
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: N.W. MO.

Re: Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

Post by randy331 »

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: 4142
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 »

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: 4659
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:32 pm
Location: Melbourne fl.

Re: Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

Post by Carnut1 »

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: 4142
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 »

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: 4659
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:32 pm
Location: Melbourne fl.

Re: Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

Post by Carnut1 »

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: 4659
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:32 pm
Location: Melbourne fl.

Re: Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

Post by Carnut1 »

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: 3337
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: N.W. MO.

Re: Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

Post by randy331 »

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

Randy
cgarb
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2006
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 11:50 am
Location: Maryland

Re: Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

Post by cgarb »

[/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
Expert
Expert
Posts: 746
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 »

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: 4584
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:31 am
Location: Heading for a bang up with Andromeda as we all are.

Re: Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

Post by mag2555 »

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.
You can cut a man's tongue from his mouth, but that does not mean he’s a liar, it just shows that you fear the truth he might speak about you!
Carnut1
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4659
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:32 pm
Location: Melbourne fl.

Re: Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

Post by Carnut1 »

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: 456
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:48 pm
Location:

Re: Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

Post by turbo2256b »

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: 4584
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:31 am
Location: Heading for a bang up with Andromeda as we all are.

Re: Ported Ford 289 heads with port energy discussion

Post by mag2555 »

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.
You can cut a man's tongue from his mouth, but that does not mean he’s a liar, it just shows that you fear the truth he might speak about you!
Post Reply