Initial flow results http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0LbJb8weKk&feature=youtu.be Thanks to Tom Covington for flowing the head and doing such a great job recording it.
More test results, from the second half of the "bigmouth" port. http://youtu.be/8UGfvcbYRCI Thanks again to Tom!
Fantastic results. My thanks also to Tom as well as you Zendog. Fantastic work. I'm most interested in the "bigmouth" intake port design. It appears to flow quite well with the bowl work. I am particularly interested because I have a set of Stude heads that already have porting and bowl work done on a 1.88 intake. If the "bigmouth" design improves flow this much, the obvious next step is to use a modern cam profile to take advantage of the higher flow rates. My valve stems are already cut down to accommodate the Chevy valve conversion. I'm looking forward to the next step.... then comes the exhaust side, right? Thanks again.
The bigmouth design is really interesting. A big challenge will be getting to the .650 lift. Most Stude cams struggle to get over .500. I'm VERY interested in this. I think our 182 CI engine could really benefit from the increased flow.
Here is another test, this is a quote from Tom who is doing the flow testing # 1 Low Riser Roof Intake: And the numbers are: Lift CFM .100 49.1 .200 97.8 .300 121.8 .400 149.8 .500 167.2 .550 173.6 .600 175.3 .680 179.5 This one performed very well. It is equal and in a farily even race with the # 3 Hi Riser Design. Only from .500 on does it fail to keep up with the Hi Riser. The guide was sunk deeper and got more lift test on this one. Also better than #5 Big Mouth up to .500".
Sal, Zenn - The exhaust really doesn't need any work. Just as you (Sal) did with the 1.5" exh. rather thAn the stock 1.53" was a good move. There's a relationship that should be followed of intake to exhaust flow, and the stock Stude exh. way outflows the intake per current/modern percentages. My expensive program actually says that for the 1.88" intake at 200cfm, the exhaust valve should be 1.47" dia. I've forgotten the square in recomendation. Actually, the two engine programs I have (a sorta cheaper one and a pretty expensive one) both give a simillar square inch and flow value....the stock Stude is way over done from the 1.875 (1.88 !) we can use at this point, even supercharged. Even if you do go to, like a 2.00" intake...the valve overhangs the cylinder so much, any benefit is tossed out the window unless you trim the cylinder way back to match the head chamber. I actually had a guy make me a tool to do this. On the heads that I moved the intake valves over (212cfm at .500" lift, on a SuperFlow 600), to notch the block to both clear the valve (much over .500" will hit the block) and to make sure that the fuel that does come out of that side of the valve, makes it smoothly into cylinder, rather than just bouncing around at the "shelf" that's created by the overhang. The intakes I used here are Manley, 1.875" dia. with a 5/16" stem. I never did check the flow over .500" lift...when I originally did all this porting work...I hadn't come up with the roller cams yet..! A few, including myself, now have cams to lift the valves to .640"...! Actually, anyone I've done head work for...I've recommended putting a small notch in the cylinder. Even stock the chambers overhang. Don't know how many actually have done it....! Mike
<table cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2" style="overflow: hidden;" valign="top" width="16%"> </td> <td height="100%" valign="top" width="85%"> <table border="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr> <td valign="middle"></td> <td valign="middle"> Re: Raised port Stude heads « Reply #167 on: February 21, 2013, 08:33:48 PM » </td> <td style="font-size: smaller;" align="right" height="20" valign="bottom"> Quote </td> </tr></tbody></table> <hr class="hrcolor" size="1" width="100%"> Exhaust numbers: # 1 Experimental Exhaust Mod. (1.525" exhaust tulip 45 seat) Lift CFM .100 44.3 .200 75.9 .300 106.4 .400 127.3 .500 132.6 .550 137.5 .600 140.8 .642 142.9 </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="smalltext" valign="bottom" width="85%"> <table style="table-layout: fixed;" border="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr> <td colspan="2" class="smalltext" width="100%"> </td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
Thanks for the update. I like the looks of the project. Any more pix of the exhaust? I'm curious to know how the exhaust headers will work out on these. Cuz the machining does not look horribly difficult to duplicate. Please call me naive if so warranted, but the exhaust side does look simpler than the intake mods. The high angle cathedral intakes look fantastic. Wondering how hard it would be to mock up an intake manifold for this setup, and do some real world dyno tests. 'Course its not my dime, so its easy for me to ask, right?
Back in late 1960s I had a Lark Daytona GT ,supercharged,T/T rear. I run NHRA F-Stock with on the N-record,only had two tricks other then a Schooler Cam,the rotor in the super charger was closer gap by cutting the case cover {gave me 5lbs. vs 3]and I built my own headers that I designed with a tab as part of the headers for the center EX port=it was fitted between my center EX tubes an stuck inside the center simez EZ port so it made it into two ports,but was not part of head,only part of header making this a legal mod for F-stock. Helped keep center cly cleaner!
The Jalopy Journal
