[Mo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOdKlNDndOo

[ponjohn]

Originally Posted by blaktopr

John, alot of it depends how the port is shaped. One person's "work" can be different from another. This includes how well the mixture exits the valve depending what is happening upstream. But the air/fuel exits "out" away from the valve. So if it was concentric (no swirl) it will still travel over that ridge. Port bias and valve shrouding lead to the direction you ask. With that, the direction goes from the intake side to the exhaust side, so it can be either direction. To have the charge go in the opposite direction would mean a stronger short side flow over the long side. Looking at newer chambers, you can see the valve/chamber configuration working toward a more even and contolled exit out of the valve. But remember, the charge will still travel away from the valve riding over the ridge. It follows the same situation as the bed of a truck. Throw a plastic bag in there, and go for a ride down the highway and watch what it does.
Here is a pic of a Pro Stock head's chamber done in flourecent dye. Look at the vortex behind the plug away from the valve. That is what happens when air/fuel passes over a ridge or obstruction. Then take a look at one of my vids.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHO0CwIOceY
This is just a cast #62. But note the similarities.

WOW, the more I read and take interest in cylinder head design and velocity, the more I understand it is very very complicated. You don't just run a dremel down the cylinder and call it a day.


It also gives me a much better appreciation for making power. The r&d that it takes to make power in a "class"( whether pro-stock or stock eliminator) scenario is inconceivable.

[71 T/A]

Any chance a low rise intake could be created to fit under the hood a 70s Firebird? Will headers and even exhaust manifold be created for the heads? How good will low end power be with these heads, which was a deficiency in the original Ram Air V heads?

[JLHarper]

Originally Posted by ponjohn

WOW, the more I read and take interest in cylinder head design and velocity, the more I understand it is very very complicated. You don't just run a dremel down the cylinder and call it a day.


It also gives me a much better appreciation for making power. The r&d that it takes to make power in a "class"( whether pro-stock or stock eliminator) scenario is inconceivable.

PONJOHN is right...its amazing and I wonder how far advanced we really are?

I know there are some smart, gifted racers/designers/engineers out there looking at this from a scientific approach.

What I am wondering is: how advanced or knowledgeable is the marketplace?

Are we really at the tip of the learning curve?

As much as the sport has learned with hands on experience...trial and error...mill and flow then race the heads/intake seeking more power and improvements... is there a significant area for improvements to be had if this was studied by say.... a group of physic professionals working with other engineers/scientists?

Since there are so many dynamics that happen from the intake to the head combustion and exhaust process, if it were attacked scientifically would there be some major breakthroughs? Or, are we already there and just fine tuning the science of intake/head flow?

Just wondering where you all think we really are with intake / head technology and how it fits with making power.

[BruceWilkie]

Originally Posted by 71 T/A

Any chance a low rise intake could be created to fit under the hood a 70s Firebird? Will headers and even exhaust manifold be created for the heads? How good will low end power be with these heads, which was a deficiency in the original Ram Air V heads?

Sounds like you want the look. Low rise intake, exhaust manifolds? If that sorta stuff including low speed performance are concerns, this head and other high flowing heads are probably the wrong choice. You cant have a head intended to make big power at high rpm on smaller motors or big power on big cube engines and expect great low end too.

Always choose the head thats best suited for your application.

[Region Warrior]

Originally Posted by NHRASuperStock455SD

Very true,

In fact when Bernie Knudsen threw the Tunnel Port project guys under the bus, the Pontiac Racing guys hired them! So we are just picking up from all that great work and millions of dollars the Ford Racing team did and never got to finish. From what I hear Ford was completely committed to the Tunnel Port design. However, Bernie was the GM of Chevrolet Motor division and hired by Ford and all the BBC engineering team was brought over, thus the splayed valve 429 engine was born.

On the longer runner intakes we extend the plenum front and back. Therefore looking on the outside, it looks like the runner are much longer, however the plenum extensions provide for a very close intake runner length and a bigger plenum. I will try to get a picture.

Lynn

Thanks Lynn and Tom.
Now i remember where i saw one.
It's on a local guys 8 sec Ford Ranger.

[Brian Baker]

NHRA Pro Stockers I think would be on the cutting edge of what JLHarper is talking about, and teams with big budgets have utilized wet flow research as well as Spintron research. With 500 max cubes available to them and a minimum weight requirement of 2350 lbs. the current E.T record of 6.528 and MPH record of 212.03 is a testament to the R&D that goes into making all of that naturally aspirated HP.

[tom s]

I am SOOOoo tired of everyone who have never worked on,never seen and never driven a V motor saying the ports are too big to drive.It is total BS!My little 366 engine with 274CC ports that flo 380@800 drive great.The dual plane intake 236-242 cam makes 446HP@5800 and carrys over 400lb TQ across the rpm range of a street motor on our 91 piss gas.FWIW,Tom

[Mo]

Originally Posted by NHRASuperStock455SD

Mo, thanks and thanks for picking up on that bulge concept. The RA-V's had very poor carb signal as they were very huge then necked down to the push rod area too quickly. It also is a very lazy port because it is way too big. We made the port smaller, but maintained the CSA around the pushrod by bulging around the pushrod tube. This keeps the port small just ahead of the pushrod area keeping velocity up and not create a brick wall with respect to velocity. We are hoping to make significantly improvement for 455 style engines and below.

Lynn

I thought this post addressed any driveability issues/concerns.

Looks like a win-win situation.

[blaktopr]

Originally Posted by JLHarper

PONJOHN is right...its amazing and I wonder how far advanced we really are?

I know there are some smart, gifted racers/designers/engineers out there looking at this from a scientific approach.

What I am wondering is: how advanced or knowledgeable is the marketplace?

Are we really at the tip of the learning curve?

As much as the sport has learned with hands on experience...trial and error...mill and flow then race the heads/intake seeking more power and improvements... is there a significant area for improvements to be had if this was studied by say.... a group of physic professionals working with other engineers/scientists?

Since there are so many dynamics that happen from the intake to the head combustion and exhaust process, if it were attacked scientifically would there be some major breakthroughs? Or, are we already there and just fine tuning the science of intake/head flow?

Just wondering where you all think we really are with intake / head technology and how it fits with making power.

FWIW, I feel we are still not even close (Pontiacs). Thats why you see some doing better than the masses with the same stuff. I basically had to forget what I used to do to heads once I looked at it more scientifically and using wetflow.

Lynn seems to have a handle on the head program. Same look with an updated design. No need to bring up the "old versions". This was redeveloped, not copied.

Here is something to make you guys think. You know and hear about turbulence or "backing up". Well check it out. Just remember the normal thinking of air getting drawn into a cylinder in a motor or bench. Watch and think how the pressures change during different phenomenom. I know a few might say What the .... during viewing. Can't see this on a dry bench. 98% of what people are using.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcSe_6iOoYk

[ponjohn]

Lynn- Are you working on the shortblock now?

[Skip Fix]

When ,many folks say "just small port D port heads and a 041 cam are all you need and anything else is not streetable" is why we get so many folks feeling anything bigger is going to be lazy.

[Gach]

Havent decided yet on logos, we have left them off for now. If we do install one, it will be easy to remove. The race head version and blocks will definitely have it. The number of heads we run will depend on interest and purchases. We are actually going to run heads without water jackets first.

Are you talking new block too..or reworked IA to get the 4.600 bore.

[Half-Inch Stud]

ME also think the "fear of lazy" is over rated. Been driving "race-like stuff" on the street and can say even single-plane-fed low-compression can be responsive.

I gots no reason to think that Ram-V would have any issue with off-idle nor MPG capabilities.

[JLHarper]

Lynn, You said to ask questions so forgive my uninformed/newbie questions;

Any idea what the weight of each head will be as cast and how does that compare to the OE heads?

Even a lb or two I would think helps so just wondering if the "new" material is lighter due to improvements or reformulations? Or is it the very same as the originals were cast with?

On that note, is this material easier to machine or offer any other advantages vrs. material used many decades ago for the originals?
Thanks,

Jeff

[Tom Vaught]

Quote by Brian Baker:

"NHRA Pro Stockers I think would be on the cutting edge of what JLHarper is talking about, and teams with big budgets have utilized wet flow research as well as Spintron research." Quote

Spintron was good in its day, Brian, but we have a lot better stuff today in the OEM Industry.

Tom Vaught

[Brian Baker]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

Quote by Brian Baker:

"NHRA Pro Stockers I think would be on the cutting edge of what JLHarper is talking about, and teams with big budgets have utilized wet flow research as well as Spintron research." Quote

Spintron was good in its day, Brian, but we have a lot better stuff today in the OEM Industry.

Tom Vaught

In its day? I never heard of it until about 9 years ago...probably later than that. Just exactly how long has it been around and what is replacing it?

[Tom Vaught]

About 15 years Brian,

http://www.abb-drives.com/StdDrives/...nd%20Speed.pdf

"Dave Fox, president of CIM SYSTEMS, INC., developed Spintron in 1994, when his uncle, Bob Fox, owner of Trend Performance, Inc., asked him to develop a test stand for his pushrod manufacturing business. Fox searched
for a testing device and, unable to find the exact product he was looking for, he, and Software Engineer David Lanham, decided to develop a product that could be marketed to others in the performance engine industry. With their combined experience in robotics, automation, engineering and programming, they developed the Spintron."

This stuff from 2007 is pretty good but there is better stuff out there in the Research world:

http://polytec.com/fr/_files/OM_AN_I...Valvetrain.pdf

Tom Vaught

[Jack Gifford]

Originally Posted by JLHarper

... Any idea what the weight of each head will be as cast and how does that compare to the OE heads?...

I guess that I'm even more uninformed than you, JL- I thought that Lynn's heads are aluminum vs. the cast iron of OEM RAV heads???

[JLHarper]

Jack, sorry...my fault...

I thought there was alum versions for TA series (303) and remembered some RAV in alum but they were aftermarket from a vendor after I looked again.

Thanks for the help, anyway.
Jeff