Is More Flow Better, Is The Smallest Intake Port That Flows The Most The Best

273

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 14, 2012
Messages
4,667
Reaction score
2,290
Location
Ontario
Sorry. That's rocket science. If you truly believe that torque is "one power stroke" – as your signature attests – and not the force (combustion) that causes that rotation in the first place, then I can't expect you to understand rocket science. You already have combustion engines wrong.

Force and Work​

If we hold a 10 lb. weight we are applying a 10 lb. force. If we move (displace) the weight a distance of 3 feet we have done work. We have done 30 lb-ft of work.

Work = Force x Displacement

Power​

Power is how much work can be done in a period of time.

Power = Work / Time or Force x Displacement / Time

Horsepower​

The definition of 1 Horsepower is displacing 1 lb. 33,000 ft. in one minute or 33,000 lb-ft / minute.

1HP = 1 lb x 33,000 ft / 1 minute
obviously force is baked into the formula
 

273

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 14, 2012
Messages
4,667
Reaction score
2,290
Location
Ontario
A rocket engine has no moving parts – how do you explain acceleration of a rocket?
Really?

A rocket and a piston engine apply force differently a rocket is a continuous combustion and engine is a bunch of short ones applied to a rotating assembly.
 

Aussie Charger

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
128
Reaction score
29
Location
Australia
Answer: combustion (a force)

What moves a car?
Answer: combustion (a force)

What causes acceleration?
Answer: a force

Is horsepower a force?
Answer: No. It is a measurement of how often a force is applied

So horsepower doesn't move the car?
Answer: No. The force (torque) moves the car. The force is continuously applied to increase acceleration of the mass (car), but it is the force (combustion) that produces the acceleration.
 

273

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 14, 2012
Messages
4,667
Reaction score
2,290
Location
Ontario
Is horsepower a force?
no
Answer: No. It is a measurement of how often a force is applied
And it's how often that force is applied is what that matter to us, what powers us down the road and we call it hp. We can calculate how much hp needed for quarter mile , top speed, hwy speed, towing etc...

Done done done
 

Aussie Charger

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
128
Reaction score
29
Location
Australia
And it's how often that force is applied is what that matter to us, what powers us down the road and we call it hp. We can calculate how much hp needed for quarter mile , top speed, hwy speed, towing etc...

Done done done
Well . . . there are other ways of multiplying the force. You could have a lot of torque at a low rpm and still produce a lot of horsepower. V8 vs 4-banger for example. There's also a reason why torque and weight are credited with breaking parts and not horsepower . . . because torque (force) acts agains weight (mass) to produce acceleration.

Anyway, good night. At least we can have a healthy debate without calling each other a "wanker" :thumbsup:
 

Phreakish

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2015
Messages
2,045
Reaction score
2,209
Location
N. Idaho
P=fv
V is analogous to rpm.

More revs will always produce more power, all things equal.
Combustion engines produce a range of torque over the rpm range.
A "torque" engine tends to produce more down low and less up high.
A high revving engine tends to produce less torque down low, but makes the same or more torque at higher revs.
Power=torque*revs. Half the revs takes twice the torque to come out equal. Show me a "torque build" that ever doubles a race combo. Yet race combos often run twice the rpm of so called "torque" builds.
All the equations always support the higher revving system making more power, accomplishing more work, or reaching a faster speed within a set time or distance.
The high revver wins the drag race every time because of this.

This t'aint hard. No need for rockets or any other tortured analogies.

Torque is great, but without rpm you have a dumptruck. Sure, it'll get to 25mph in a hurry, or from 25 to 50, but then it's out of steam (power).
 

Phreakish

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2015
Messages
2,045
Reaction score
2,209
Location
N. Idaho
rocket engines produce thrust by the expulsion of an exhaust fluid that has been accelerated to high speed through a propelling nozzle.... ant got nothing to do with a 4 stroke internal combustion engine....DWB!

Yup. Momentum. High heat equals expansion, which is used to propel the mass of the spent fuel at a high speed.
M1v1=M2v2
Use a converging/diverging nozzle to reach supersonic speeds and the expansion results in even greater gains in exhaust velocity.
Since the available momentum is tied to the mass of the propellant, we get what's called "the tyrrany of the rocket equation" (the more mass you launch, the more fuel mass you need, which increases the mass and requires more fuel which..).
 

Killer6

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2015
Messages
3,777
Reaction score
1,803
Location
PA
@273 the more efficient(better designed) a port is, the higher a velocity it can operate at. High velocity is "free" supercharging, augmented by complimentery runners. They actually work better with smaller valves because more curtain area is used, which allows for less shrouding as well. Poorer ports tend to work better with larger valves deshrouded because they need as much low-mid lift flow as possible to crutch poorer high velocity flows, most OE ports are poor to decent. Very few are great, but some can be modded to be very good/great, so that's where it stands.
 

Phreakish

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2015
Messages
2,045
Reaction score
2,209
Location
N. Idaho
@273 the more efficient(better designed) a port is, the higher a velocity it can operate at. High velocity is "free" supercharging, augmented by complimentery runners. They actually work better with smaller valves because more curtain area is used, which allows for less shrouding as well. Poorer ports tend to work better with larger valves deshrouded because they need as much low-mid lift flow as possible to crutch poorer high velocity flows, most OE ports are poor to decent. Very few are great, but some can be modded to be very good/great, so that's where it stands.

That's a good generalization.
There's also some practical considerations.

Higher velocity means higher momentum and smaller turning angles. A smooth port that's as close to straight as possible can function well at higher velocities than a port with sharp changes in direction.
There are upper limits to port velocity even when perfectly straight, and it can get complex. Especially as it flows across the valve and into the chamber and expands.

Basically: it depends.

The carb, heads, and intake all need to match the intended flow capability of the shortblock.
 

Rat Bastid

Dunamis Metron
Joined
Nov 23, 2020
Messages
3,791
Reaction score
3,975
Location
22 The Avenue
@273 the more efficient(better designed) a port is, the higher a velocity it can operate at. High velocity is "free" supercharging, augmented by complimentery runners. They actually work better with smaller valves because more curtain area is used, which allows for less shrouding as well. Poorer ports tend to work better with larger valves deshrouded because they need as much low-mid lift flow as possible to crutch poorer high velocity flows, most OE ports are poor to decent. Very few are great, but some can be modded to be very good/great, so that's where it stands.

If you are going to port heads velocity management is imperative.

Just standing at a flow bench and getting more flow and running the velocity up can get you in trouble.

A running engine isn’t static, and adding fuel to air changes everything.

Ive seen way more heads with a bunch of velocity lose power because once you add fuel you change everything.
 

Killer6

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2015
Messages
3,777
Reaction score
1,803
Location
PA
That's a good generalization.
There's also some practical considerations.

Higher velocity means higher momentum and smaller turning angles. A smooth port that's as close to straight as possible can function well at higher velocities than a port with sharp changes in direction.
There are upper limits to port velocity even when perfectly straight, and it can get complex. Especially as it flows across the valve and into the chamber and expands.

Basically: it depends.

The carb, heads, and intake all need to match the intended flow capability of the shortblock.
Yep. I am trying to steer this thread back onto the original track, lol...
 

Killer6

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2015
Messages
3,777
Reaction score
1,803
Location
PA
If you are going to port heads velocity management is imperative.

Just standing at a flow bench and getting more flow and running the velocity up can get you in trouble.

A running engine isn’t static, and adding fuel to air changes everything.

Ive seen way more heads with a bunch of velocity lose power because once you add fuel you change everything.
Agreed, it's not an automatic, & even wet-flow testing can let you down. I used to high-speed videotape through an acrylic cyl. while dusting white flour over the intake manny, watching where the major flow was taking it. It was half-assed I guess, but at the time, it was still eye-opening some of the things it showed Me.
 

Phreakish

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2015
Messages
2,045
Reaction score
2,209
Location
N. Idaho
If you are going to port heads velocity management is imperative.

Just standing at a flow bench and getting more flow and running the velocity up can get you in trouble.

A running engine isn’t static, and adding fuel to air changes everything.

Ive seen way more heads with a bunch of velocity lose power because once you add fuel you change everything.

Yup.
The only reason fuel vaporizes without heating it in a carb is the pressure drop which results from the increase in velocity. Local pressure drops under vapor pressure and poof, gas vapors.
Vapors turn corners better, but sharp corners have stagnation points which can push the local pressure over the vapor pressure and then fuel condenses out.
Boundary layers are also slower, and the gradient is related to the Reynolds number, which is a complex subject but suffice to say slow flow will have a slower velocity gradient next to a wall which makes it even more difficult to keep fuel evaporated. A liquid in the flow will also introduce turbulence and can totally bone the flow. Not always, but it makes it more likely.
It's also not just that vaporized fuel is a good thing, it's that a good port will tend to keep fuel in vapor form. The conditions that make it precipitate out also steal energy from the flow and will reduce flow potential as a result. Vaporized fuel is easier to burn, but the pressure loss and recovery across a valve will almost always condense fuel out in certain conditions - typically at higher manifold pressures. The chamber and valve job should have more effect on this than the port though.
Another consideration is that smaller/faster ports can limit the available "supercharging effect" of overlap, since the pressure wave is going to significantly increase velocity. If the port is already choked, the effect will be diminished. This is why it's foolish for people to choose parts based on matching flow numbers (not to mention flow is tested at depressions that don't adequately match an operating engine!).
Part choice and design need to match intended goals.
 

273

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 14, 2012
Messages
4,667
Reaction score
2,290
Location
Ontario
@273 the more efficient(better designed) a port is, the higher a velocity it can operate at. High velocity is "free" supercharging, augmented by complimentery runners. They actually work better with smaller valves because more curtain area is used, which allows for less shrouding as well. Poorer ports tend to work better with larger valves deshrouded because they need as much low-mid lift flow as possible to crutch poorer high velocity flows, most OE ports are poor to decent. Very few are great, but some can be modded to be very good/great, so that's where it stands.
I agree velocity is important but I think over worrying about leads to strangling your engine, say you have a zero decked 367 with a xe285hl cam, for most their choices for heads is what is available, at the very least stock 1.88 heads and max for most trick flow. It comes down to $$$ and how much power for most they have little control over it.

Velocity like everything else about balance and compromises, too much of anything can be bad.
 

Rat Bastid

Dunamis Metron
Joined
Nov 23, 2020
Messages
3,791
Reaction score
3,975
Location
22 The Avenue
Agreed, it's not an automatic, & even wet-flow testing can let you down. I used to high-speed videotape through an acrylic cyl. while dusting white flour over the intake manny, watching where the major flow was taking it. It was half-assed I guess, but at the time, it was still eye-opening some of the things it showed Me.


Thats cool. Any testing you can do that helps visualize what a mostly invisible entity is doing is awesome.
 

Phreakish

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2015
Messages
2,045
Reaction score
2,209
Location
N. Idaho
I agree velocity is important but I think over worrying about leads to strangling your engine, say you have a zero decked 367 with a xe285hl cam, for most their choices for heads is what is available, at the very least stock 1.88 heads and max for most trick flow. It comes down to $$$ and how much power for most they have little control over it.

Velocity like everything else about balance and compromises, too much of anything can be bad.

Doesnt seem to be many SBM heads that are "too slow" to begin with either.

I think people worry themselves with port velocity to rationalize not going to greater lengths with their porting. Over-porting seems mostly to be a worry when people focus on the wrong areas and wind up with wide and narrow spots along the port or just blow out areas that are easy to reach.
Or they just ruin really important spots thinking they're improving things...

Also because people are cheap and think offset rockers are too complicated.
 

Rat Bastid

Dunamis Metron
Joined
Nov 23, 2020
Messages
3,791
Reaction score
3,975
Location
22 The Avenue
Doesnt seem to be many SBM heads that are "too slow" to begin with either.

I think people worry themselves with port velocity to rationalize not going to greater lengths with their porting. Over-porting seems mostly to be a worry when people focus on the wrong areas and wind up with wide and narrow spots along the port or just blow out areas that are easy to reach.
Or they just ruin really important spots thinking they're improving things...

Also because people are cheap and think offset rockers are too complicated.

AMEN TO THAT!! The SBM is cross section limited.
 

273

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 14, 2012
Messages
4,667
Reaction score
2,290
Location
Ontario
340 is slightly on the small side and a fairly low power with reasonable powerband, never heard anyone say 340 would be better off with smaller port now most start with a 360 thats 20+ cid over a stock 340, ideally at minimum you think you want to start with a head slightly more port then a 340 even for a mild combo nevermind something with some teeth to it. Even a 318 is only slightly smaller than a 340 especially with an overbore, it has heads originally designed for a 273.
 

lead69

hopeless car junkie
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
1,682
Reaction score
1,305
Location
Vancouver,Wa
Doesnt seem to be many SBM heads that are "too slow" to begin with either.

I think people worry themselves with port velocity to rationalize not going to greater lengths with their porting. Over-porting seems mostly to be a worry when people focus on the wrong areas and wind up with wide and narrow spots along the port or just blow out areas that are easy to reach.
Or they just ruin really important spots thinking they're improving things...

Also because people are cheap and think offset rockers are too complicated.
You better be careful or @Rat Bastid will die of elation that someone else get's it lol. Seriously, it's nice to see some smart, articulate people who understand what the hell is going on. I'm guessing some of these guys are getting bad drinking water or something because the stuff they come up with is mind boggling.
 

Rat Bastid

Dunamis Metron
Joined
Nov 23, 2020
Messages
3,791
Reaction score
3,975
Location
22 The Avenue
340 is slightly on the small side and a fairly low power with reasonable powerband, never heard anyone say 340 would be better off with smaller port now most start with a 360 thats 20+ cid over a stock 340, ideally at minimum you think you want to start with a head slightly more port then a 340 even for a mild combo nevermind something with some teeth to it. Even a 318 is only slightly smaller than a 340 especially with an overbore, it has heads originally designed for a 273.


Think about this.

The W2 head was designed for 340 inch engines. Look at the cross section of that head. And that was 1975.

That head is too small for 340 inches turning 8500.

Ive seen heads that were said to be Glidden’s heads but year later I was told if they weren’t brazed up they weren’t his heads.

I’ve seen fully brazed, record setting 292 GM castings by Lee Shepard (he had 2 pairs and a spare and the receipt for them so I know they were legit) and they were brazed up about everywhere.

And those heads were for a 287 inch engine turning 9100 in the lights.
 
Top