Thought it was pretty interesting that all that work ($$$$$) was basically not to increase peak and under the curve hp but but to get more usable rpm (higher shift points) after peak, so the engine drops around peak gaining more average power. And that the hemi head basically flowed enough from the start it was port volume holding it back, among other things like valvetrain.
It makes sense, you just don't hear many in the more average guy type builds overly worrying about the powerband after peak hp, especially willing to put that amount of time and effort and $$$$. Like a lot of strokers seem to nose over after peak they seem more concentrated on under the curve to peak.And why does he do that?? Because RPM is horsepower and horsepower wins races.
what type of porting would you suggest to increase torque?And why does he do that?? Because RPM is horsepower and horsepower wins races.
The key is to make power through the curve and beyond, kind of like a sewing machine.concentrated on under the curve to peak.
That class is port CC limited. It has to not exceed a particular volume. The porters job is to then reshape the port to make it more efficient. To gain cross sectional area (which is what limits RPM), common practice it to machine the intake gasket face and make the port shorter. Charlie Wescott did this so much, that they changed the rules and introduced a limit (they machine up to the valve cover holes, he'd almost mill them away).Thought it was pretty interesting that all that work ($$$$$) was basically not to increase peak and under the curve hp but but to get more usable rpm (higher shift points) after peak, so the engine drops around peak gaining more average power. And that the hemi head basically flowed enough from the start it was port volume holding it back, among other things like valvetrain.
Yes I understood all that when I watched the video, I just found it interesting to basically spend $50,000 + per engine plus all the R&D just to extend the rpm of the shift points a few hundred plus rpms but I get why though.That class is port CC limited. It has to not exceed a particular volume. The porters job is to then reshape the port to make it more efficient. To gain cross sectional area (which is what limits RPM), common practice it to machine the intake gasket face and make the port shorter. Charlie Wescott did this so much, that they changed the rules and introduced a limit (they machine up to the valve cover holes, he'd almost mill them away).
Because they want to win races, all sense goes out the window. I recall Darin Morgan saying he charges $12K for the intake manifold for one of these engines, so I would hate to imagine what the cylinder heads cost.Yes I understood all that when I watched the video, I just found it interesting to basically spend $50,000 + per engine plus all the R&D just to extend the rpm of the shift points a few hundred plus rpms but I get why though.
He said there like $100,000 engines, I'm guessing well over half for a pair completed heads with rockers.Because they want to win races, all sense goes out the window. I recall Darin Morgan saying he charges $12K for the intake manifold for one of these engines, so I would hate to imagine what the cylinder heads cost.
Like a m shape ?Have you ever seen the shape of the exhaust port on a SS hemi cylinder head? My close friend and mentor showed me once, blew my mind.
Like a m shape ?
Big cubic inches and smaller ports always works for extra torque.what type of porting would you suggest to increase torque?
i'm building a tugboat to enter the regatta and first prize is a very prestigious and coveted country club membership that includes a trip to a private island to hunt the most dangerous game known to man.
obviously, i'll need all the help i can get.
excellent. these 302 heads should work marvelously on this 426 stroker, then.Big cubic inches and smaller ports always works for extra torque.
excellent. these 302 heads should work marvelously on this 426 stroker, then.
Yeah probably, I would say that with 426 ci even the big block standard port would be small. So you have some room to make that 302 head really goodexcellent. these 302 heads should work marvelously on this 426 stroker, then.
excellent. that's what i was hoping to hear. i'll port match them to this "torker" intake i just picked up. by name alone this promises huge potential in power production down low.Yeah probably, I would say that with 426 ci even the big block standard port would be small. So you have some room to make that 302 head really good
Don't forget a 500 cfm carb, can't make good torque without it.excellent. that's what i was hoping to hear. i'll port match them to this "torker" intake i just picked up. by name alone this promises huge potential in power production down low.
i have this holley economaster 450 that i got in a trade with some funky 8 bolt crank that i 'll be using as an anchor. do you think it's worth the upgrade to a 500? i could probably sell that 450, i hear you don't see them that often any more and they're getting harder to find.Don't forget a 500 cfm carb, can't make good torque without it.
Would be nice, probably saves that stuff for his paid seminars, but at least he willing to share quite a bit of his knowledge with people, a lot don't.Problem with all these Darin Morgan videos to me is it's mostly talking, I wanna see the process.