Cylinder Head Porting and Power Production

[Hysteric]

Power production comes from the rapidly expanding Nitrogen in the air which generates cylinder pressure.

Air is made up of 79% Nitrogen and 21% Oxygen. The Oxygen component is what you use, the Nitrogen component does not burn.

Fuel is made up Hydrogen and Carbon aka hydrocarbons. The first stage of the burn is Hydrogen. Then the question becomes whether or not you utilize the carbon component of the fuel.

 

[RAMM]

I would have thrown in the W5’s since I have a pair of them, 1 well ported and the other pair as cast in there boxes.
It’s just not a head everyone is running to and there not exactly out there to be had. All the other heads I listed are available AFAIK.

I didn't really think of them because I have no experience with them. J.Rob

 

[yellow rose]

You are not wrong and your ability to read between the lines is impressive. I do have the TF's in mind because I have never worked with them and I have never worked with W5's either--only pressure tested one once. Like I said the jury is out on the TF's for me as I have only seen one build that I feel did those heads justice and it was built by a pro (Mike @B3RE ). Anything else I have seen online kinda leaves me wanting for more. As soon as they are back in stock @ Motorstate I plan to order some to experiment with. Best looking SBM chamber I have seen yet. J.Rob

I’ve had my hands on a pair and they are very, very nice. I also like the smaller exhaust valve. While .020 smaller doesn’t sound like a lot, it’s a big deal on that size valve. The exhaust port addresses some of the exhaust issues the SBM has.

 

[RAMM]

Air is made up of 79% Nitrogen and 21% Oxygen. The Oxygen component is what you use, the Nitrogen component does not burn.

Fuel is made up Hydrogen and Carbon aka hydrocarbons. The first stage of the burn is Hydrogen. Then the question becomes whether or not you utilize the carbon component of the fuel.

I'm not sure if we are saying the same thing or not. Yes the O2 is an oxidizer but other than heating up and causing the Nitrogen to expand it gets far more credit than it deserves I feel. I understand you can't have one without the other of course. Yes all of the energy content comes from the fuel but it is the Nitrogen that actually does all of the heavy lifting. J.Rob

 

[RAMM]

Well, maybe so, but sometimes I just like to name names to zero in rather than go on assumptions just incase.
While the head has been out for awhile, it haven’t seen much tech reported by the end user.

Don't get me wrong, I did not and am not singling out the TF head. I have all kinds of examples across almost all brands of flowbench Kings that underperform in the real world running around in my pumpkin. J.Rob

 

[rumblefish360]

I didn't really think of them because I have no experience with them. J.Rob

You really didn’t think of what? The W5 head?
There not a popular head and hard to find and that’s why I left them out. YR made there mention to be included. I don’t think they should.

I’ve had my hands on a pair and they are very, very nice. I also like the smaller exhaust valve. While .020 smaller doesn’t sound like a lot, it’s a big deal on that size valve. The exhaust port addresses some of the exhaust issues the SBM has.

On the exhaust valve note.....
Greg made a mention and asked a question on that of which wasn’t answered.

I have a set of the TF’s on the wife’s 360 with a small cam in it now. The idea was efficiency of the cylinder heads smallish ports, high flow capability with a short duration, high lift cam for the street in a low rpm arena.
(Cam @ 226@050 w/.573 lift)

 

[RAMM]

You really didn’t think of what? The W5 head?
There not a popular head and hard to find and that’s why I left them out. YR made there mention to be included. I don’t think they should.

On the exhaust valve note.....
Greg made a mention and asked a question on that of which wasn’t answered.

I have a set of the TF’s on the wife’s 360 with a small cam in it now. The idea was efficiency of the cylinder heads smallish ports, high flow capability with a short duration, high lift cam for the street in a low rpm arena.
(Cam @ 226@050 w/.573 lift)

What's the question? J.Rob

 

[rumblefish360]

@RAMM, no question here.... we’re on the same page IMO.
On page one Greg had a exhaust question.
Carry on!

Hold on, I’ll get it up front in a second.... stand by...

 

[rumblefish360]

@RAMM

Sorry if this is not a relevant question but beyond the obvious answer of "more air=more power", how does exhaust port flow affect overall power?

I see the exhaust flow, more the merry route, helping relieve the pistons ride up the cylinder with more ease as the port becomes more effective. To start with. Then from there, I s about cam timing events.

Thoughts everyone....?????

 

[Hysteric]

I'm not sure if we are saying the same thing or not. Yes the O2 is an oxidizer but other than heating up and causing the Nitrogen to expand it gets far more credit than it deserves I feel. I understand you can't have one without the other of course. Yes all of the energy content comes from the fuel but it is the Nitrogen that actually does all of the heavy lifting. J.Rob

From Ohio State.

"Atmospheric Air contains approximately 21% oxygen (O2) by volume. The other 79% of "other gases" is mostly nitrogen (N2), so we will assume air to be composed of 21% oxygen and 79% nitrogen by volume. Thus each mole of oxygen needed to oxidize the hydrocarbon is accompanied by 79/21 = 3.76 moles of nitrogen. Using this combination the molecular mass of air becomes 29 [kg/kmol]. Note that it is assumed that the nitrogen will not normally undergo any chemical reaction.

The Combustion Process - The basic combustion process can be described by the fuel (the hydrocarbon) plus oxydizer (air or oxygen) called the Reactants, which undergo a chemical process while releasing heat to form the Products of combustion such that mass is conserved. In the simplest combustion process, known as Stoichiometric Combustion, all the carbon in the fuel forms carbon dioxide (CO2) and all the hydrogen forms water (H2O) in the products.

 

[yellow rose]

@RAMM



I see the exhaust flow, more the merry route, helping relieve the pistons ride up the cylinder with more ease as the port becomes more effective. To start with. Then from there, I s about cam timing events.

Thoughts everyone....?????

You can’t ignore blow down and pumping losses. I do know that making the exhaust port flow more at the expense of shape and sound on a flow bench is a power killer. Had to learn that one the hard way. The flow bench will reward you with big flow numbers the bigger you make it. If it gets noisy you can bet it will lose power.

And blow down is a whole ‘nother topic.

 

[RAMM]

From Ohio State.
Note that it is assumed that the nitrogen will not normally undergo any chemical reaction.

I never said the Nitrogen undergoes any chemical reaction--I said it EXPANDS. What are you trying to convey? J.Rob

 

[12many]

You are not wrong and your ability to read between the lines is impressive. I do have the TF's in mind because I have never worked with them and I have never worked with W5's either--only pressure tested one once. Like I said the jury is out on the TF's for me as I have only seen one build that I feel did those heads justice and it was built by a pro (Mike @B3RE ). Anything else I have seen online kinda leaves me wanting for more. As soon as they are back in stock @ Motorstate I plan to order some to experiment with. Best looking SBM chamber I have seen yet. J.Rob

I guess I have my “EQ postings” radar still on high alert as I’ve run them, thought highly of them but am chasing MPH (and ET) at the track and weighed the options and costs of reworking the EQ’s to suit bigger lift etc, ultimately picked the TF’s and just sold the EQ’s. I’d have preferred to do my changes a step at a time as I enjoy making a single change and seeing the results. With all I’m doing and my goals in mind it’s just not viable to go about changes in that manner obviously. Too much tearing apart, things wouldn’t be properly matched and I wanna rock-n-roll! In my case with everything done together I’ll never really know how much better one head is over another, but this is interesting reading regardless

 

[Hysteric]

I never said the Nitrogen undergoes any chemical reaction--I said it EXPANDS. What are you trying to convey? J.Rob

If it doesn't undergo any chemical reaction then how can it contribute to the heavy lifting you stated earlier?

"Nitrogen that actually does all of the heavy lifting". J.Rob

 

[RAMM]

If it doesn't undergo any chemical reaction then how can it contribute to the heavy lifting you stated earlier?

"Nitrogen that actually does all of the heavy lifting". J.Rob

Nitrogen expanding is a physical reaction not a chemical reaction. When you inflate a balloon is the rubber undergoing a chemical reaction? J.Rob

 

[RAMM]

I guess I have my “EQ postings” radar still on high alert as I’ve run them, thought highly of them but am chasing MPH (and ET) at the track and weighed the options and costs of reworking the EQ’s to suit bigger lift etc, ultimately picked the TF’s and just sold the EQ’s. I’d have preferred to do my changes a step at a time as I enjoy making a single change and seeing the results. With all I’m doing and my goals in mind it’s just not viable to go about changes in that manner obviously. Too much tearing apart, things wouldn’t be properly matched and I wanna rock-n-roll! In my case with everything done together I’ll never really know how much better one head is over another, but this is interesting reading regardless

I understand and agree with your methods. I wish you sold the EQ's to me--lol. Can you direct me to your thread if you have one? I'd like to follow your changes and ask you a question. What if your ET stays the same? Not saying it will but what will you think? J.Rob

 

[PRH]

Obviously the set of heads I have hold the potential to make more power but for whatever reason(s) they're not.

I guess I’m not getting my point across that there’s a fairly good possibility your dyno sheet is not an accurate presentation of what those parts can make for power.

I wouldn’t, and dont, put much faith in dyno data that doesn’t really make sense.
Like I said earlier, I’d have less of a problem with taking the power numbers at face value if the fuel flow and bsfc numbers corresponded to the power output....... but they don’t....... and by a pretty wide margin imo.

I guess what I’m saying is, if I had it on the dyno here, with a known good carb on it...... I’d be shocked if the power and the bsfc, and the fuel flow all agreed with your sheet.

Unless(there’s always a caveat)........ there is something actually “wrong” with the motor.
Not the combo, but something actually malfunctioning or failing.

 

[RAMM]

I guess I’m not getting my point across that there’s a fairly good possibility your dyno sheet is not an accurate presentation of what those parts can make for power.

I wouldn’t, and dont, put much faith in dyno data that doesn’t really make sense.
Like I said earlier, I’d have less of a problem with taking the power numbers at face value if the fuel flow and bsfc numbers corresponded to the power output....... but they don’t....... and by a pretty wide margin imo.

I guess what I’m saying is, if I had it on the dyno here, with a known good carb on it...... I’d be shocked if the power and the bsfc, and the fuel flow all agreed with your sheet.

Unless(there’s always a caveat)........ there is something actually “wrong” with the motor.
Not the combo, but something actually malfunctioning or failing.

I am very much in agreement with Dwayne on this--That engine is very weak for the sum of its parts or like Dwayne said the dyno room is crap (eating its own exhaust) or the engine is eating itself. Should be WAY stronger than that. J.Rob

 

[Hysteric]

Nitrogen expanding is a physical reaction not a chemical reaction. When you inflate a balloon is the rubber undergoing a chemical reaction? J.Rob

Can you provide any evidence for your claim that the expanding Nitrogen creates the force that moves the piston down?

 

[RAMM]

Can you provide any evidence for your claim that the expanding Nitrogen creates the force that moves the piston down?

I could ask you this: What do you think provides the physical/mechanical force acting on the piston/rod/crank etc.......? J.Rob

 

[12many]

I understand and agree with your methods. I wish you sold the EQ's to me--lol. Can you direct me to your thread if you have one? I'd like to follow your changes and ask you a question. What if your ET stays the same? Not saying it will but what will you think? J.Rob

With all I’m doing I think the better question is how much am I expecting and if I only attain so much what will I think. I’m swapping from the 1.92 intake EQ’s to the TF’s , a hyd single pattern [email protected]” .517” lift to a solid single pattern [email protected]” w/.604”, an AG to an M1 single and 3500 to at least a 4000 stall possibly higher and tune engine and chassis as needed. I honestly have no idea what I’ll gain by all this. I’ve been creeping up on a threshold (before roll bars, additional safety items etc) but decided to throw caution to the wind and go with what I think is a good combo for my strip goals (likely low 11’s @ 116+mph vs the current 11.80’s @110mph) and still be able to hit the streets here and there. It’s uncharted territory for me really, my nature is to have lower expectations and then be pleasantly surprised

 

[RAMM]

With all I’m doing I think the better question is how much am I expecting and if I only attain so much what will I think. I’m swapping from the 1.92 intake EQ’s to the TF’s , a hyd single pattern [email protected]” .517” lift to a solid single pattern [email protected]” w/.604”, an AG to an M1 single and 3500 to at least a 4000 stall possibly higher and tune engine and chassis as needed. I honestly have no idea what I’ll gain by all this. I’ve been creeping up on a threshold (before roll bars, additional safety items etc) but decided to throw caution to the wind and go with what I think is a good combo for my strip goals (likely low 11’s @ 116+mph vs the current 11.80’s @110mph) and still be able to hit the streets here and there. It’s uncharted territory for me really, my nature is to have lower expectations and then be pleasantly surprised

Oh my goodness you will likely eclipse your goal easily with your changes. J.Rob

 

[rmchrgr]

I guess I’m not getting my point across that there’s a fairly good possibility your dyno sheet is not an accurate presentation of what those parts can make for power.

Point taken, thank you.

 

[oldkimmer]

I don't know about a bigger cam but maybe a better cam-maybe. Your engine is a pretty good example and your 1.33+ tq/ci is an indicator of how good your combo and those heads are--at least it stands out to me. If you came to me looking for more power but said you wanted to keep everything the same except cam I would tell you that I doubt I could really help you out much if at all. I'd probably tell you not to mess with it unless you had other issues to address. J.Rob

Thanks J.Rob. No issues at all. It is still going strong. Kim

 

[Hysteric]

That engine is very weak for the sum of its parts

Have you ever wondered why? And yet guys like Dan Smith makes so much power with ported OEM heads that everyone throws away to buy after market heads?

If cylinder head flow is everything then why does Dan's engine make what it makes with less? Does anyone ever ask why? Is his engine just a fluke of nature or the exception to the rule. Why does he only run 28 degrees total timing?

Why Why Why.......