Home
Don't have an account? Create one now! It's always free!


Forgot Password
Ed's Auto Parts - Mention MOTORGEN for a Discount!
Motorgen Sponsor: McLeod Racing
Motorgen Sponsor: American Muscle - Add style and performance to your Stang
Motorgen Sponsor: Hall Fabrication & Racing
Motorgen Sponsor: Injectors Plus - Performance Fuel Delivery Systems
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-18-2008, 08:45 PM   #11
anthonydalrympleanthonydalrymple is offline
Member
 
anthonydalrymple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 91
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vettezuki View Post
....That would suggest the porting techniques are RPM related....
I very much believe so. It think it has much to do with the combination: volumetric efficiency, cubic inc displacement, flow capabilities of the heads and exhaust, intended rpm use, etcetera. I've played around with porting intakes based extensively on the advice of Tmoss (www.tmossporting.com.) and the info available on his website. I had an RPMII intake on my 302 that made good peak numbers (294rwhp & about the same in torque); but it really was a pain in slow driving and stop & go traffic. I decided to port an '96 Explorer intake since i felt it could nearly match the total flow numbers of the RPMII and still pick up the bottom end with the longer runner length. I ran the same engine combo with the exception of the intake only and on the same exact dyno in very similar atmospheric conditions. Imagine my surprise when both the torque & horsepower from 2G to 5G picked up 10-15. The peak was interesting; 280rwhp & 305rwtq. I also ran both combinations at LACR before it closed down; ran the same exact et's before & after. I chalked that up to the better acceleration in the mid-rpm range by the Explorer intake more than making up for the short high rpm advantage the former RPMII had IMHO....
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2008, 10:50 PM   #12
VettezukiVettezuki is offline
I, Vettezuki
 
Vettezuki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 14,754
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonydalrymple View Post
I very much believe so. It think it has much to do with the combination: volumetric efficiency, cubic inc displacement, flow capabilities of the heads and exhaust, intended rpm use, etcetera. I've played around with porting intakes based extensively on the advice of Tmoss (www.tmossporting.com.) and the info available on his website. I had an RPMII intake on my 302 that made good peak numbers (294rwhp & about the same in torque); but it really was a pain in slow driving and stop & go traffic. I decided to port an '96 Explorer intake since i felt it could nearly match the total flow numbers of the RPMII and still pick up the bottom end with the longer runner length. I ran the same engine combo with the exception of the intake only and on the same exact dyno in very similar atmospheric conditions. Imagine my surprise when both the torque & horsepower from 2G to 5G picked up 10-15. The peak was interesting; 280rwhp & 305rwtq. I also ran both combinations at LACR before it closed down; ran the same exact et's before & after. I chalked that up to the better acceleration in the mid-rpm range by the Explorer intake more than making up for the short high rpm advantage the former RPMII had IMHO....
Yeah Makes sense. It also implies pairing with exhaust headers is quite important because of the effects on back pressure and scavenging. It would be really interesting to do a study cominbining

Street Porting w/ stock headers, Tri-Ys, Mid Length, Long Tubes
Race Porting w/ stock headers, Tri-Ys, Mid Length, Long Tubes

My hypothesis would be that Street Porting with Tri-Ys would be the best option for most people and race porting with LTs reserved for people who are actually racing.


In my case, my Heads and Cam LS1 makes 391WHP with a mild tune and stock headers. However, the C5 Vette it came out of with a more agressive tune and headers made 432! (Some of that could be chalked up to different IRS, but not so much I don't think.)

Anyways, it do get complicated.
__________________
Motorgen on
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Motorgen on
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Motorgen Project Car
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(active)
Motorgen Project Car
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(back burner)
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2008, 02:07 PM   #13
BRUTAL64BRUTAL64 is offline
Neanderthal
 
BRUTAL64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 5,320
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vettezuki View Post
What's the basis of the theory, particularly for the different dimensions in the street application?

What I was talking about is the funnel effect that sets the flow to make the turn to the valve (intake) or the exit for the exhaust. Very important.
__________________
64 Vette Roadster 400 ci
1990 F150 351 ci SuperCharged
48 Harley Pan Head 76 ci
2016 Nissan Altma
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2008, 08:25 PM   #14
anthonydalrympleanthonydalrymple is offline
Member
 
anthonydalrymple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 91
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glenn64vette View Post
What I was talking about is the funnel effect that sets the flow to make the turn to the valve (intake) or the exit for the exhaust. Very important.
I agree, but I'm not well enough versed in theory & dynamics to say anything more..... Engineering is a very interesting topic to me IMHO....
  Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:15 PM.