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

[Phreakish]

increase compression.

Compression should match the cam and the fuel - beyond that, it's impact is limited to thermal efficiency. Higher is better, until something explodes LOL.

 

[273]

I'm not misunderstanding at all. I agree with you.
But without engine torque the car ain't moving, period. just like the bolt.

Torque is important just not so much how much of it you make, 500 tq doesn't automatically mean better than 400 tq, hp curve means more.

HP determines the rate of acceleration, as in power to move. work.

Any movement a car does is work

I have a round about way. lol

 

[rumblefish360]

@273

WOW what a thread. I may have seen some of those videos before have seen may of his videos, just not sure on all of them and what you posted. I was going to reply early on in the thread but just decided to sit back and see where it goes. And boy oh boy does did it go a few pages.

Well, I don’t have any chump change to throw in except, I read the title;

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

And instantly thought of this answer;

“Is More Flow Better” - Yes Even more on a dead stock engine will increase power starting with a better valve job. But…..

“Is The Smallest Intake Port That Flows The Most The Best”

Yes - for a street engine to a degree. BECAUSE! There is a fuzzy line that stays blurred by personal opinion and what is and what is not a street engine.

This has been a heck of a thread.

I bid everybody a very warm and happy “Good day to you sir’s!”
Take care of yourselves.

 

[Rat Bastid]

That's the funniest **** I've read in a long time. Maybe you should head over to SpeedTalk and see what caliber of smart and articulate people you find there.

Engine Tech - Don Terrill’s Speed-Talk

Maybe you guys could head over there and try and pretend you know everything there too?

Here's an interesting thread:

Raising the port roof on a head worth it or not - Don Terrill’s Speed-Talk


Its impressive what some people can do with so little.....

Speedtalk is a big cesspool. Mike Jones is lucky a prominent member still posts there.

It’s one rung higher in the sewer than Yellowbullet.

I read the post about the Buick. He said it was a nail head turning 6500. Hmmmmmm…TQ or gear ratio…I say the latter because at 6500 he’s so far past peak torque it’s moving on RPM and gear.

Probably you need to think about that.

And who says it wouldn’t be quicker with a better head? Or a head ported by someone who doesn’t think every port is bigger than it needs to be?

 

[Ironracer]

What kinda flo is best? I like Linoleum. It's easy to keep clean.

I liked the Original Flo, but her Replacement was kinda hot...

 

[4spdragtop]

I just watched the movie "Alice doesnt live here anymore" with Ellen Burstyn made in 71 or 72? Good movie, and it was the premise for the series "Alice"
Dianne Ladd was a MILF.

I liked the Original Flo, but her Replacement was kinda hot...

 

[dirty white boy]

I liked the Original Flo, but her Replacement was kinda hot...

 

[Ironracer]

View attachment 1716039631

All right where's the E. Euro hottie in the other commercial? Lol

 

[dirty white boy]

All right where's the E. Euro hottie in the other commercial? Lol

idk...

 

[Ironracer]

Not bad but I was thinking the European chick for the what is it the AT&T commercial, speaks English or whatever but she's actually EU

 

[dirty white boy]

Not bad but I was thinking the European chick for the what is it the AT&T commercial, speaks English or whatever but she's actually EU

 

[Ironracer]

View attachment 1716039641

Dude! I haven't laughed like this in a month oh my god I think I'm going to start crying! Somebody's going to train that Witch!

 

[Ironracer]

Creepy! Lol

 

[Aussie Charger]

The vector of a torque is meaningless in this context, it's always parallel to the crank. Torque is a couple which is used as a motive force. It's force at a distance, without velocity or rpm it doesn't do us any good.
Torque is meaningless though because it doesn't tell us anything other than whether something can overcome a static resistance. Without rpm, there's no power and power is what it takes to accelerate.

No one calls a high revving engine a "torque" build. The entire point is that an increase of torque is an increase in power, but there's a practical limit to max torque. Making max torque at 2k rpm won't win any races or even be "fun" to drive. Max rpm is a function of good engineering, and increasing the rpm capability does not typically lower the torque produced, and so a higher revving engine always wins the drag race.

Whether that higher revving engine is good on the street is a moot point. Different people tolerate different levels of racy on the street, and what's streetable is too subjective to define. Not everyone wants to thump around smoking the tires and losing races, but I get that some people do.

The vector of torque can hardly be "meaningless" when that's exactly what torque is – a rotational force (that acts at 90 degrees to the centre, just like the opposite of centrifugal force).

I also fail to see how it is "meaningless" when every single Power equation is based on it. And you're not going anywhere until you overcome that static resistance! Not just once, but over and over again as you try to increase the velocity of the car (ie; accelerate).

I have used the example of electric engines (yes, even though we are talking about combustion engines for the most part) because they are a prime example of what an almost perfectly flat toque curve can do.

We have one particular person here claiming that you can have all the torque in the world, but if you put the car in top gear and let her rip, nothing will happen. That is blatantly wrong and shows a very narrow mindset that can't come to grips with the fact that any amount of torque can overcome any amount of static resistance and that gearing has NOTHING to do with it.

Gearing simply multiplies what you already have. Or not. In the case of a peaky race (combustion) engine, you don't have much torque low down, so you have to multiply it at lower rpm to overcome static resistance (and then rolling resistance) just to get the engine to a point at which it makes MORE TORQUE.

Answer me this, @Phreakish, what accelerates faster: Higher peak horsepower, or higher average torque under the curve?

A 500HP electric engine can beat a 550hp petrol engine every day of the week if it has more toque under the curve (which it almost always will) and it doesn't even need a gearbox todo it(!), because you guys seem to have forgotten one thing:

A= M/F

This static equation, when applied dynamically, refers to EVERY SINGLE ROTATION that torque is being applied to. It is not just at 8000RPM or whatever. It is at 1000rpm, 2000rpm, 3000rpm, 4000rpm etc and every thing in-between.

Average torque under the curve beats peak power.

Not everyone wants to thump around smoking the tires and losing races, but I get that some people do.

It's called bracket racing, mate. And I don't lose too many. I might not race as often as some, but my car holds its own and I have just as much fun as you doing it.

 

[273]

The vector of torque can hardly be "meaningless" when that's exactly what torque is – a rotational force (that acts at 90 degrees to the centre, just like the opposite of centrifugal force).

I also fail to see how it is "meaningless" when every single Power equation is based on it. And you're not going anywhere until you overcome that static resistance! Not just once, but over and over again as you try to increase the velocity of the car (ie; accelerate).

I have used the example of electric engines (yes, even though we are talking about combustion engines for the most part) because they are a prime example of what an almost perfectly flat toque curve can do.

We have one particular person here claiming that you can have all the torque in the world, but if you put the car in top gear and let her rip, nothing will happen. That is blatantly wrong and shows a very narrow mindset that can't come to grips with the fact that any amount of torque can overcome any amount of static resistance and that gearing has NOTHING to do with it.

Gearing simply multiplies what you already have. Or not. In the case of a peaky race (combustion) engine, you don't have much torque low down, so you have to multiply it at lower rpm to overcome static resistance (and then rolling resistance) just to get the engine to a point at which it makes MORE TORQUE.

Answer me this, @Phreakish, what accelerates faster: Higher peak horsepower, or higher average torque under the curve?

A 500HP electric engine can beat a 550hp petrol engine every day of the week if it has more toque under the curve (which it almost always will) because you guys seem to have forgotten one thing:

A= M/F

This static equation, when applied dynamically, refers to EVERY SINGLE ROTATION that torque is being applied to. It is not just at 8000RPM or whatever. it is at 1000rpm, 2000rpm, 3000rpm, 4000rpm etc and every thing in-between.

Average torque under the curve beats peak power.


It's called bracket racing, mate. And I don't lose too many. I might not race as often as some, but my car holds its own and I have just as much fun as you dong it.

What your not getting once you apply enough torque to move an object like a car work is also taking place, the amount of work able to be done is all we care about which hp is able describe to us. Torque on a dyno graph has less importance because it can't express the amount of work to be done, in that sense it doesn't matter if a dyno just spit out a hp curve that's all the info we need. So torque is important just not necessarily the amount of it. A 500 hp engine is more powerful the a 250 hp engine but engines with 500 tq vs 250 tq we have no idea which is more powerful, You only want focus and credit one part of the process, When saying HP is King your accounting for both tq and time (rpm).

And torque is per revolution average if it takes more revolutions we have to be talking over time which is power, a dyno don't sit at every rpm for a minute to measure how much torque is being made. The tq measure at a certain rpm would be same in a split second or years at that rpm.

 

[Aussie Charger]

What your not getting once you apply enough torque to move an object like a car work is also taking place, the amount of work able to be done is all we care about which hp is able describe to us. Torque on a dyno graph has less importance because it can't express the amount of work to be done, in that sense it doesn't matter if a dyno just spit out a hp curve that's all the info we need. So torque is important just not necessarily the amount of it. A 500 hp engine is more powerful the a 250 hp engine but engines with 500 tq vs 250 tq we have no idea which is more powerful, You only want focus and credit one part of the process, When saying HP is King your accounting for both tq and time (rpm).

And torque is per revolution average if it takes more revolutions we have to be talking over time which is power, a dyno don't sit at every rpm for a minute to measure how much torque is being made. The tq measure at a certain rpm would be same in a split second or years at that rpm.

I get everything. (Sigh, here we go again . . .)

What does a dyno actually measure? I don't want to hear that it measures power, because it doesn't (only by proxy).

A dyno measures torque and RPM and then converts that on a rolling graph to power.

I repeat: a dyno measures torque and rpm.

Yes, we all know that TQxRPM/5252=HP, but the dyno still measures the force and not the power rating when it loads up. Each time the dyno loads up, it is applying a little more static resistance that the engine needs to overcome (with torque) to spin faster. The cumulative effect appears to be continuous, but is in fact made up of small static points that have no interval (yes, that sounds like an oxy-moron, but it depends on which philosophy you subscribe to).

That's the thing about time, it does not "flow" the way we think it does, and it is not continuous (except in our perceived reality). Everything is just "there" and time simply points to a position. I'm not going to go down that path.

Back to our engine . . . is a 520hp engine really more powerful than a 500hp engine? It is at a certain rpm, but what about elsewhere? And how do we get to that 520hp rpm point and are we able to hold it there?

This is the beauty of electric engines and why they are so useful to point out the difference between torque and power (even though they are inextricably linked) compared to combustion engines that don't have a linear torque curve.

An electric engine accelerates a mass which has to overcome not only inertia, but all the other dynamic – and exponential – forces that it meets, such as rolling and air resistance. That's why we need to produce more power (see, I said it!) to accelerate faster.

BUT, as we accelerate, our combustion engine loses (or gains) torque as it progresses through the rev range, so it cannot compete with the electric engine until it is making the same amount of torque – which is for a very brief time. By then, the electric engine is well out in front and the combustion engine has to change gears!!!

More torque will make more power at any rpm. Peak HP is only useful if you can keep the engine at that particular point. But in racing that never really happens. Unless you are driving an electric vehicle, in which case you have the same amount of torque at any point and can apply it.

I will add only one thing: you really need to get it out of your heard that torque is "one rotation" – it is not. Torque is simply the force applied in a rotational manner. Of course I understand what you mean, but that doesn't make it right. Sorry.

There's a lot of rules of thumb or general wisdom that can be explained by physics, but those always break down at some point.

This is really one of the most misleading statements I have ever read in my life.

Physics doesn't "break down at some point". Physics is universal. If you think it is "breaking down", then you simply haven't understand what is going on.

There will always be an explanation to what is happening – you just haven't worked it out yet. By "you" I am referring to the third-person you. At least I hope I am. Our understanding of physics may "break down", but the physics itself is there to be discovered.

 

[Aussie Charger]

EDIT: Double post

 

[273]

I get everything. (Sigh, here we go again . . .)

What does a dyno actually measure? I don't want to hear that it measures power, because it doesn't (only by proxy).

A dyno measures torque and RPM and then converts that on a rolling graph to power.

I repeat: a dyno measures torque and rpm.

Yes, we all know that TQxRPM/5252=HP, but the dyno still measures the force and not the power rating when it loads up. Each time the dyno loads up, it is applying a little more static resistance that the engine needs to overcome (with torque) to spin faster. The cumulative effect appears to be continuous, but is in fact made up of small static points that have no interval (yes, that sounds like an oxy-moron, but it depends on which philosophy you subscribe to).

That's the thing about time, it does not "flow" the way we think it does, and it is not continuous (except in our perceived reality). Everything is just "there" and time simply points to a position. I'm not going to go down that path.

Back to our engine . . . is a 520hp engine really more powerful than a 500hp engine? It is at a certain rpm, but what about elsewhere? And how do we get to that 520hp rpm point and are we able to hold it there?

This is the beauty of electric engines and why they are so useful to point out the difference between torque and power (even though they are inextricably linked) compared to combustion engines that don't have a linear torque curve.

An electric engine accelerates a mass which has to overcome not only inertia, but all the other dynamic – and exponential – forces that it meets, such as rolling and air resistance. That's why we need to produce more power (see, I said it!) to accelerate faster.

BUT, as we accelerate, our combustion engine loses (or gains) torque as it progresses through the rev range, so it cannot compete with the electric engine until it is making the same amount of torque – which is for a very brief time. By then, the electric engine is well out in front and the combustion engine has to change gears!!!

More torque will make more power at any rpm. Peak HP is only useful if you can keep the engine at that particular point. But in racing that never really happens. Unless you are driving an electric vehicle, in which case you have the same amount of torque at any point and can apply it.

I will add only one thing: you really need to get it out of your heard that torque is "one rotation" – it is not. Torque is simply the force applied in a rotational manner. Of course I understand what you mean, but that doesn't make it right. Sorry.


This is really one of the most misleading statements I have ever read in my life.

Physics doesn't "break down at some point". Physics is universal. If you think it is "breaking down", then you simply haven't understand what is going on.

There will always be an explanation to what is happening – you just haven't worked it out yet. By "you" I am referring to the third-person you. At least I hope I am. Our understanding of physics may "break down", but the physics itself is there to be discovered.

When comes to engines all we care if it's able to do work we want to do, everything your going on about is unnecessary to that end. Hp curve gives us the information we need, even with the electric motors and there more aggressive power curves.

 

[Hysteric]

Speedtalk is a big cesspool. Mike Jones is lucky a prominent member still posts there.

The caliber of poster there is beyond you and even funnier is the fact that you will post vids of the likes of Darin Morgan who posts there......Some of the biggest names and accomplished people in the motorsport industry regularly contribute there. The reason they would never come here is they would have to deal with idiots like yourself that make ridiculous unsubstantiated claims.

I read the post about the Buick.

Its amazing how with just as little as 215 cfm that heavy car runs in the 10's. Oh that's 450 cubes too but somehow you say with absolute certainty that a W2 head is too small for a 340.

 

[Hysteric]

Here's another guy who posts on SpeedTalk:

 

[Rat Bastid]

The caliber of poster there is beyond you and even funnier is the fact that you will post vids of the likes of Darin Morgan who posts there......Some of the biggest names and accomplished people in the motorsport industry regularly contribute there. The reason they would never come here is they would have to deal with idiots like yourself that make ridiculous unsubstantiated claims.



Its amazing how with just as little as 215 cfm that heavy car runs in the 10's. Oh that's 450 cubes too but somehow you say with absolute certainty that a W2 head is too small for a 340.

How often does Morgan post there any more? Almost never.

You are impressed by the Buick? You don’t think with a better head with better QUALITY air flow wouldn’t be quicker and faster?

Stop with the bullshit. It’s old. And worn out.

It’s amazing how you are impressed by stuff that isn’t yours and you have no proof of anything.

I‘m waiting to see a set of your cobbled up, small weenie port heads go set a record. Heads that YOU ported. With YOUR valve job.

It won’t happen. What a joke.

Speedtalk is dying a slow, miserable death. It’s like yellowbullet. A shell of what it once was.

Hell, even your god and hero Vizard hasn’t posted there in a while. Wonder why that is?

You know why that is.

Speedtalk=cesspool

I know another guy who posts there very little any more. I know personally why he doesn’t do it.

You don’t know the half of what you think you know.

Now go ruin a bad set of heads.

 

[Hysteric]

Stop with the bullshit. It’s old. And worn out.

Tired of it embarrassing you?

It’s amazing how you are impressed by stuff that isn’t yours and you have no proof of anything.

Its amazing irrespective of who does it. It points to the obvious contradiction of the junk you spout as gospel here. There are far more smarter people out there doing more with less than you are.

 

[Rat Bastid]

Tired of it embarrassing you?


Its amazing irrespective of who does it. It points to the obvious contradiction of the junk you spout as gospel here. There are far more smarter people out there doing more with less than you are.

You seem pretty sure of yourself. You have no clue what I do.

What I do know is you live on other guys work. That’s sad.

Back on ignore ya wanker.

 

[4spdragtop]

 

[dirty white boy]

all it takes is a tape measure and a cell phone camera and a couple privet messages and ya could quit going back and forth wondering whos peckers the biggest....lol..damn!