W2 Mopar inspection w/RAMM

-
I’ll partially answer this by saying...

Build tour own bench, the internet is good to find out how to do so.
Then, purchase the tools and be brave.
But before you get brave, try reading a few books on the subject. The insight you’ll gain will be a huge eye opener to how your going to start working on the heads.

This is what I have done to mine tonight... so far.

BE557F5D-E2CA-4A19-9C12-B0F22621BBA0.jpeg
 
Captainkirk said:
Not to hijack this thread, but...you guys like RAMM, yellow rose, gregconn and others...where and how did you learn the art and nuances of porting and head flow? I would never feel comfortable grinding and experimenting on a set of decent LA heads, especially not having a flow bench. It's pretty obvious that even what looks like an obvious improvement can actually slow down and stall air flow, create swirl and back flow where it may not be wanted, and other issues. Just curious? I can start another thread for this if anyone cares to elaborate. Again, not meaning to hijack here, just curious.
Click to expand...


You can only do this by doing it. A flow bench tells you so much more than air flow, so having one is a big deal. Should have never sold mine.

The other thing is you have to be able to shake **** off. If you jack something up, make a hole...whatever...you have to chalk it up to learning and fix it and move on. If you never make a mistake, you won’t ever make power. There is more to power than bulk airflow through a port.

That’s why I’m saying screw it and going all in on the burr finish. I actually like it enough now to sell it. All my earlier attempts at a burr finish were horrible. At this point, I think for most everything I want to do, the burr finish is mandatory.

I’m fighting some drivability issues with tunnel ram intakes and I think it can be traced to improper booster selection and the cold intake manifolds not atomizing the fuel well enough. This can’t hurt and will take a variable out of the equation.

You can’t look at my burrs and say that’s what you need. I have used up hundreds and hundreds of dollars of burrs. Bent some, and some just didn’t make the shapes I thought they would. Your eyes won’t see the same shape the same way my eyes do, so to get that same shape you may need a different tool.

Read everything you can. I’ve posted links to a couple of webinars by Darin Morgan that I’ve listened to several times. The Harold Bettes book...can’t think of the name of it is a great book to read. David Vizard has a porting book that’s pretty good. Even if you only learn one or two things from a book, article or webinar that you didn’t know before, it will pay off later on.

Darin Morgan, Chris Frank, Chad Speier, Larry Meaux just to name a few guys that are worth reading. Jim McFarland wrote some really good stuff. If you can find it on line it would be worth the search. He was BIG into mixture quality before most guys talked about it publicly.

Then you have to spend time behind the grinder and flow bench . It’s not sexy, glamorous work. It’s pays jack ****, unless you can find a niche, exploit it and do it with production. The likelihood of making any decent money just doing Chrysler stuff isn’t good. There are so many better options than the mopar stuff it’s not funny. I’ll get verbally ***** slapped for that, but it ain’t wrong.

Everybody and their mother told me not to bother learning how to port. They said it was easier to just pay a “pro” to do it. Most “pro’s” aren’t really. They are no different than you or I.

Then when I bought my flow bench I realized how many straight bullshitters there are. They all talk “shape, shape, shape” but they live and die by flow numbers. You can make a head make more HP and make the car quicker and lose flow on a bench. Especially on the exhaust side. Shape is everything, and size is close second.

Sometimes you have to make a compromise. Learning where the compromise goes is a big deal. You learn that by testing.

You can learn this stuff. It’s boring as hell, dirty and plain tedious work. If finding 5 CFM doesn’t get you off, if finding you've lowered the BSFC by .2 doesn’t excite you, porting may not be your cup of tea. You also can’t ride your paradigm. You have to be willing to revisit what didn’t work in the past. It may be that you learned something new that makes a past loser a gain. Or, your skills improved enough that what didn’t work now will.
 
Captainkirk said:
Not to hijack this thread, but...you guys like RAMM, yellow rose, gregconn and others...where and how did you learn the art and nuances of porting and head flow? I would never feel comfortable grinding and experimenting on a set of decent LA heads, especially not having a flow bench. It's pretty obvious that even what looks like an obvious improvement can actually slow down and stall air flow, create swirl and back flow where it may not be wanted, and other issues. Just curious? I can start another thread for this if anyone cares to elaborate. Again, not meaning to hijack here, just curious.
Click to expand...

Most people learn by DOING, that goes for anything in life. I know that is not what you want to hear but its the truth. Yes there used to be things like Joe Mondello's porting school and there used to be 2 or 3 day seminar "classes" given by people like Darin Morgan, but those aren't options anymore. You won't ruin a set of heads by following what's "already there" if you take your time. The biggest factor is patience. The metal won't look like its moving much but eventually it will take the shape that you want. Oh and yes you're right if you can buddy up with someone with a flowbench it will remove that big question mark that is always in your mind. J.Rob
 
yellow rose said:
Then you have to spend time behind the grinder and flow bench . It’s not sexy, glamorous work. It’s pays jack ****, unless you can find a niche, exploit it and do it with production. The likelihood of making any decent money just doing Chrysler stuff isn’t good. While the pay isn't exactly on par with the hours invested once you are familiar with a certain architecture you can make proper money. I'm somewhere around $50/hr when all is said and done. That's not bad where I come from.

Everybody and their mother told me not to bother learning how to port. They said it was easier to just pay a “pro” to do it. Most “pro’s” aren’t really. They are no different than you or I. Yes they are human if that's what you mean but I'm a pro when I am getting paid to port. I take issue with your statement here YR.

Then when I bought my flow bench I realized how many straight bullshitters there are. They all talk “shape, shape, shape” but they live and die by flow numbers. You can make a head make more HP and make the car quicker and lose flow on a bench. Especially on the exhaust side. Shape is everything, and size is close second. Just because you own a flowbench doesn't necessarily make you an induction expert. The top guys hate talking about flow rates and they really have to be pressed to get them to utter a flow number actually. If you're talking to a "pro" and all they are focused on is a CFM number then maybe get a second or third opinion. I'm going to answer the rest of this thought in a different response or whole new thread.

Sometimes you have to make a compromise. Learning where the compromise goes is a big deal. You learn that by testing. True and its the same thing when building a High Performance street engine. The compromises are pumpgas, driveability, power brakes, reliability, expense etc............

.
Click to expand...

J.Rob
 
@RAMM, @yellow rose

Then when I bought my flow bench I realized how many straight bullshitters there are. They all talk “shape, shape, shape” but they live and die by flow numbers. You can make a head make more HP and make the car quicker and lose flow on a bench. Especially on the exhaust side. Shape is everything, and size is close second.
Click to expand...
Most will recognize your echoing statement in which I must agree with. I have been doing a lot of reading around the internet and books by various people known for high performance, racing and head porting. The only thing I think you left out was pretty doesn’t mean good ether! LMAO! What also isn’t talked about much outside of shape and flow numbers is what leaves most people behind on what is going on. As with all things automotive, even the cylinder head is part of the performance Equation!

A good example but not shown with the expected “BIG” results of how far is to far is the engine masters episode where they wanted to see if the internet foder talk of, “Can you use to big of a cylinder head on your engine?” was true or not. While they actually did show it, the combo was off to really demonstrate it well.

Is it possible? Sure. But it is combo and goal dependent.
These are the things most every newbie doesn’t understand and most intermediate hobbyist have yet to fully grasp.

As a basic idea (and selling point) more flow equals more power for your engine. Only in generally this is true and why most people chase that big flow numbers without regard or seemingly any care.

I think an excellent example is the thread with the Hugesengines small block head not living up to expectations. A perfect example maybe?

Still, my hats off to that member for putting himself out there in creating that thread and being totally honest and transparent in his search for help and more power.
Just because you own a flowbench doesn't necessarily make you an induction expert. The top guys hate talking about flow rates and they really have to be pressed to get them to utter a flow number actually. If you're talking to a "pro" and all they are focused on is a CFM number then maybe get a second or third opinion. I'm going to answer the rest of this thought in a different response or whole new thread.
Click to expand...
I agree with this a lot. I have been reading about porting heads for a while now. Looking forward to the thread.
Yes they are human if that's what you mean but I'm a pro when I am getting paid to port. I take issue with your statement here YR.
Click to expand...
Hey RAMM. I can see and understand your statement. While I’m not in the habit of defending people on the board much less YR since he is fully capable, I personally didn’t see it as offensive to you or any other head porter here. But more of a poke to “Other charlatans” that have made an appearance here, around the internet etc....
 
RAMM said:
J.Rob
Click to expand...


I’m saying exactly what you are saying. And flow bench won’t make you an expert, but it will teach you what is straight bullshit.

That was a reference mainly to the hundreds of magazine articles, web blogs and the like where they spend all their time talking about shape and then defer to the flow numbers as the ultimate arbiter of making power. That’s what I’m saying.

I’ve also said I am not impressed with flow benches that don’t have analog manometers on them. I don’t translate digital numbers into my head very well. With an analog manometer, I can see what an inch of turbulence looks like. I want to see how steady or chaotic the manometer is. Had a set of AFR CNC heads on the bench that were so horrible I had to cut the air to the manometer to the point you couldn’t really trust what you were seeing.

If you can make 50 bucks an hour after paying everything else that’s good money. I probably don’t charge near enough. I did an Indy intake manifold for a customer. And his -1 heads. I used to have before and after pictures of that, but the web site was changed and I have no idea where they are. That intake was JUNK. I could have billed 17 hours on it because that’s what I had in it, but that was $1445.00 and no one I knew was charging that. So I charged 750 and took the loss. That was a case of me not letting a pile of steaming garbage go out on an engine with my name on it. And Indy was not only unapologetic for sending it out like that, they were insulted that I said it was junk and would be embarrased to throw it in the scrap pile before I did some work to it.

That’s why is so damn hard to make money. I just can’t let little stuff slide. And the big stuff makes me lose sleep at night.
 
Does anyone know what the timing requirements are for both heads? Surely mopar had guidelines?
 
Timing requirements vary per engine combo and fuel used. It is not a set in stone thing. I’m sure you’ll find a pattern and I guess you could boil it down to within a few degrees. The piston placement in the cylinder @ TEC & the heads chamber plays a roll as well and W2’s have various chamber shapes and sizes throughout there run. Off the top of my head I remember 72, 65/63, 55 & 47 cc’s for the W2 head.
 
I agree with your initial assertion but the chambers are very different in design. The later head is a closed chamber and should be used with quench so its timing requirements I would imagine are much less. Also the spark plug placement isn't shrouded like the earlier head.
 
I’m not mentally seeing a issue with spark plug placement and timing. Though a poor design and placement will have an effect and issue elsewhere more so than timing, IMO.

I myself like to run a slug @ 0 deck with a closed chamber. Domed if it is open.
 
Very interesting approach you gents take to the porting bench. I'll probably not do much (or any) porting myself at this stage in the game, if I have any port work done I'd probably have someone with your skills and experience do it. I just wanted to get a glimpse behind the curtain. My engine guy "does head porting"...don't they all! LOL! If I discuss it with him, I'll feel like I at least know how the game works now...and I'll ask to see his flow bench. If I get the blank stare, I'll just back away, not today. I will continue to try to learn about it and watch this thread with keen interest. I've already learned a lot.
 
Hysteric said:
I agree with your initial assertion but the chambers are very different in design. The later head is a closed chamber and should be used with quench so its timing requirements I would imagine are much less. Also the spark plug placement isn't shrouded like the earlier head.
Click to expand...

It's a pretty safe bet that SBM will like 36 +/- 1 total. J.Rob
 
A modern fast burn closed chamber head requiring 36 degrees would tell me that the mixture is lean. That chamber looks very similar to the magnum head.

From The Magnum Manifesto:

"Flowology
Discussions of contemporary cylinder heads like the Magnum's are certain to include the term "high swirl." Swirl describes a flow characteristic of a combustible mixture charge as it is inducted through the cylinder head passage and into a combustion chamber that's expanding as the floor (the piston dome) falls away on the intake stroke.

As an element of turbulence, swirl refers to the spiral-like path the charge takes around the long axis of a chambered cylinder. In its third dimension, a flow component called "tumble" describes how a swirling mixture somersaults down into the cylinder. The theory is that the activity of the mixture promotes atomization of the fuel. Ideally, the movement of the air/fuel charge should match from cylinder to cylinder, and swirl should theoretically continue through the intake, compression, and power cycles. Where port, chamber, and dome contours impart the initial swirl on the intake stroke, the piston dome can be configured to maintain swirl on the compression and power strokes.

Used in the mid-'80s in Detroit powerplants to improve emissions and fuel economy, applied swirl science had previously surfaced in Michael May's mid-'70s work at Jaguar, as well as in Roger Penske's Larry Widmer-prepped NASCAR Fords of that same period. (For more information on swirl flowology, see "The Soft Head," July 1985.)

Those early applications demonstrated how well-managed tract turbulence accommodates extra-lean air/fuel mixtures, and how swirl can improve combustion quality to reduce a mixture's sensitivity to detonation. The more mixture activity that occurs, the better the fuel remains in suspension and the better the mixture burns. The faster a fuel burns, the less ignition timing is required to produce equal power. And because wet fuel doesn't burn, or burns unevenly at best, swirl helps create and maintain a fully atomized air/fuel mixture.

Uniform fuel dispersion throughout the charge permits an engine to run leaner mixtures, while simultaneously reducing peak cylinder pressures and taming sharp pressure spikes. This means that a high-swirl engine can run more static compression with less chance of detonation under load"

Chrysler 360/380 A-Series Crate Engine - Hot Rod Magazine
 
Hysteric said:
A modern fast burn closed chamber head requiring 36 degrees would tell me that the mixture is lean. That chamber looks very similar to the magnum head.

From The Magnum Manifesto:

"Flowology
Discussions of contemporary cylinder heads like the Magnum's are certain to include the term "high swirl." Swirl describes a flow characteristic of a combustible mixture charge as it is inducted through the cylinder head passage and into a combustion chamber that's expanding as the floor (the piston dome) falls away on the intake stroke.

As an element of turbulence, swirl refers to the spiral-like path the charge takes around the long axis of a chambered cylinder. In its third dimension, a flow component called "tumble" describes how a swirling mixture somersaults down into the cylinder. The theory is that the activity of the mixture promotes atomization of the fuel. Ideally, the movement of the air/fuel charge should match from cylinder to cylinder, and swirl should theoretically continue through the intake, compression, and power cycles. Where port, chamber, and dome contours impart the initial swirl on the intake stroke, the piston dome can be configured to maintain swirl on the compression and power strokes.

Used in the mid-'80s in Detroit powerplants to improve emissions and fuel economy, applied swirl science had previously surfaced in Michael May's mid-'70s work at Jaguar, as well as in Roger Penske's Larry Widmer-prepped NASCAR Fords of that same period. (For more information on swirl flowology, see "The Soft Head," July 1985.)

Those early applications demonstrated how well-managed tract turbulence accommodates extra-lean air/fuel mixtures, and how swirl can improve combustion quality to reduce a mixture's sensitivity to detonation. The more mixture activity that occurs, the better the fuel remains in suspension and the better the mixture burns. The faster a fuel burns, the less ignition timing is required to produce equal power. And because wet fuel doesn't burn, or burns unevenly at best, swirl helps create and maintain a fully atomized air/fuel mixture.

Uniform fuel dispersion throughout the charge permits an engine to run leaner mixtures, while simultaneously reducing peak cylinder pressures and taming sharp pressure spikes. This means that a high-swirl engine can run more static compression with less chance of detonation under load"

Chrysler 360/380 A-Series Crate Engine - Hot Rod Magazine
Click to expand...

Again I can see that you like playing Devil's advocate and you also like to copy and paste--but what are you stating here? J.Rob
 
Hysteric said:
A modern fast burn closed chamber head requiring 36 degrees would tell me that the mixture is lean. That chamber looks very similar to the magnum head.

From The Magnum Manifesto:

"Flowology
Discussions of contemporary cylinder heads like the Magnum's are certain to include the term "high swirl." Swirl describes a flow characteristic of a combustible mixture charge as it is inducted through the cylinder head passage and into a combustion chamber that's expanding as the floor (the piston dome) falls away on the intake stroke.

As an element of turbulence, swirl refers to the spiral-like path the charge takes around the long axis of a chambered cylinder. In its third dimension, a flow component called "tumble" describes how a swirling mixture somersaults down into the cylinder. The theory is that the activity of the mixture promotes atomization of the fuel. Ideally, the movement of the air/fuel charge should match from cylinder to cylinder, and swirl should theoretically continue through the intake, compression, and power cycles. Where port, chamber, and dome contours impart the initial swirl on the intake stroke, the piston dome can be configured to maintain swirl on the compression and power strokes.

Used in the mid-'80s in Detroit powerplants to improve emissions and fuel economy, applied swirl science had previously surfaced in Michael May's mid-'70s work at Jaguar, as well as in Roger Penske's Larry Widmer-prepped NASCAR Fords of that same period. (For more information on swirl flowology, see "The Soft Head," July 1985.)

Those early applications demonstrated how well-managed tract turbulence accommodates extra-lean air/fuel mixtures, and how swirl can improve combustion quality to reduce a mixture's sensitivity to detonation. The more mixture activity that occurs, the better the fuel remains in suspension and the better the mixture burns. The faster a fuel burns, the less ignition timing is required to produce equal power. And because wet fuel doesn't burn, or burns unevenly at best, swirl helps create and maintain a fully atomized air/fuel mixture.

Uniform fuel dispersion throughout the charge permits an engine to run leaner mixtures, while simultaneously reducing peak cylinder pressures and taming sharp pressure spikes. This means that a high-swirl engine can run more static compression with less chance of detonation under load"

Chrysler 360/380 A-Series Crate Engine - Hot Rod Magazine
Click to expand...

FWIW I have a swirl meter and I took it off the flowbench pretty much right away. Watching the numbers meant nothing to me and watching the numbers actually reverse at different lift points led me to believe that you can't really induce/control swirl and it really doesn't mean Jacksquat for most of us. I lump terms like "swirl" into the same FAD categories as pet rocks and lava lamps. J.Rob
 
I'm not playing Devils advocate simply pointing out certain aspects that seem to be ignored because it doesn't fit into people to understanding of how an engine works.
 
Hysteric said:
I'm not playing Devils advocate simply pointing out certain aspects that seem to be ignored because it doesn't fit into people to understanding of how an engine works.
Click to expand...

I would want to know who is the author of your Magnum Manifesto and what lead them to whatever conclusion they put forward. J.Rob

p.s. I understand swirl in theory and how its "supposed" to do all those wonderful things on paper--but when you watch a swirl meter going back and forth like a weather vane in a windstorm but the flow rate is nice and steady--you kinda understand that this is one of those B.S. marketing things.
 
I think it applies less to the hot rodder than it does to the OEM car makers. The only time a “swirl” head is of any use IMO would be on a very mild hot rod, not a street bruiser, St/Strip or race car.
 
Tell that to Larry Widmer. What does swirl actually do?

Hysteric said:
This means that a high-swirl engine can run more static compression with less chance of detonation under load
Click to expand...

The question really becomes what does swirl actually do that allows you to run more static with less chance of detonation.
 
Hysteric said:
Tell that to Larry Widmer. What does swirl actually do?

I'm sorry but you really aren't getting it. Swirl isn't what you think and furthermore its present in all cylinder heads at various valve lifts. Some people claim swirl can centrifuge the fuel out of suspension where it doesn't contribute to power production. Again, I cant produce or control swirl and pay it no attention. J.Rob


The question really becomes what does swirl actually do that allows you to run more static with less chance of detonation.
Click to expand...
 
You didn't answer the question: Why does swirl allow you to run more static with less chance of detonation.
 
Hysteric said:
You didn't answer the question: Why does swirl allow you to run more static with less chance of detonation.
Click to expand...

Didn't know that was a question for me and I have seen nothing that would indicate that as a fact. J.Rob
 
Hysteric said:
You didn't answer the question: Why does swirl allow you to run more static with less chance of detonation.
Click to expand...


It doesn’t. Swirl, twirl, tumble, bumble all that are CAFE emissions stuff. Any time you make the air column change directions you lose velocity. That is a power killer.

Unless you are trying to light cats on a cold engine fire up or think this type of thing saves the world, it’s useless.

Edit: plug location and rod/stroke ratio are the two biggest factors in total timing. Swirl, twirl and all that and quench doesn’t affect timing very much if at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top