Register now to get rid of these ads!

Technical Port Matching

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by gregsmy, Jun 25, 2021.

  1. gregsmy
    Joined: Feb 11, 2011
    Posts: 101

    gregsmy
    Member
    from Florida

    Working on a mostly stock SBF for my 1936 Ford truck project. I have a different pair of stock heads that are supposed to flow better than the E7's currently on it. The performance intake manifold has a port size of 2" x 1.2" which seems to be the standard size for most performance manifolds. These heads have intake ports that measure 1.870" x 1.160" and most of the stock gaskets come with 1.96" x 1.16" openings. Not planning on doing any port work on the heads as everything I read says the small gain isnt worth the effort and to just buy aftermarket aluminum heads if your chasing hp. My question is if its worth taking the time to port match the heads to the manifold and would it gain anything. Logic seems that you would want a smooth transition thru the entire runner, but the runner in the head is smaller. Port matching would basically create a smoother "funnel" at the gasket area as it transitions to the smaller head runner area. I am guessing the engine may be in the 275hp range when finished, so nothing crazy.
     
    pprather likes this.
  2. dana barlow
    Joined: May 30, 2006
    Posts: 4,482

    dana barlow
    Member
    from Miami Fla.
    1. Y-blocks

    If your not max racer only,save your time an just have fun.
     
    ottoman, egads and Deuces like this.
  3. Probably not worth the time or the effort, but if you have a die grinder and some time on your hands, have at it.
     
  4. Budget36
    Joined: Nov 29, 2014
    Posts: 7,231

    Budget36
    Member

    Certainly can’t hurt and since heads are on the bench now, it would be the time to do it.
     
    Deuces likes this.

  5. squirrel
    Joined: Sep 23, 2004
    Posts: 49,813

    squirrel
    Member

    Just be sure you don't put it on a dyno before and after your magic porting matching work...you might not like the results
     
    Tman, bathcollector, ottoman and 7 others like this.
  6. Budget36
    Joined: Nov 29, 2014
    Posts: 7,231

    Budget36
    Member

    So true, but it’s like guys who use SS brake springs, when the originals lasted for 50 years, it’s a “feel good” thing;)
     
    Deuces and Desoto291Hemi like this.
  7. oldiron 440
    Joined: Dec 12, 2018
    Posts: 2,407

    oldiron 440
    Member

    I'd be tempted to make the openings in the intake manifold smaller and port match them to the heads. I'm sure that there's an epoxy for this.
     
    Deuces likes this.
  8. gregsmy
    Joined: Feb 11, 2011
    Posts: 101

    gregsmy
    Member
    from Florida

    Kinda what I figured. Maybe I will if I have some spare time. I dont see how making the ports in the intake smaller at the gasket area would do anything.
     
  9. 6sally6
    Joined: Feb 16, 2014
    Posts: 1,693

    6sally6
    Member

    Not a "pro" head porter but......velocity of the fuel charge getting sucked into the chamber is as important as a big wide path for it get into the chamber too.
    'Tumble' of the charge is important too. That's caused by the texture of the passages into the chamber .Not necessarily a slick/smooth surface.
    Anyway......there's a lot more to porting than the 'common-sense' approach of big/wide/slick passages. Strange but true.
    6sally6
     
    Blues4U, Desoto291Hemi and Deuces like this.
  10. JeffB2
    Joined: Dec 18, 2006
    Posts: 8,972

    JeffB2
    Member
    from Phoenix,AZ

  11. Joe Travers
    Joined: Mar 21, 2021
    Posts: 421

    Joe Travers
    Member
    from Louisiana

    I'd go with an intake with smaller ports to match the heads. The older Edelbrock F4B comes to mind.

    Joe
     
    Deuces likes this.
  12. Torana68
    Joined: Jan 28, 2008
    Posts: 1,280

    Torana68
    Member
    from Australia

    port matching is ok if you dont create a "pocket" , quick and rubbish drawing attached.
     

    Attached Files:

    Deuces likes this.
  13. jimmy six
    Joined: Mar 21, 2006
    Posts: 9,990

    jimmy six
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    If it was opposite I’d leave it alone. But since it isn’t and if the heads are off I’d make everything match the manifold. You don’t need to go into the head much but that’s not a lot if your splitting all 4 sides. Go to Summit or Performance Parts and look up gaskets. For a few extra bucks you can get the correct ones or I would try trimming what you have. Anything you do will help it be mor efficient.
     
  14. jaracer
    Joined: Oct 4, 2008
    Posts: 1,221

    jaracer
    Member

    My guess is that you might see a 5 or a little more HP increase at very high rpm. I doubt if it would have any effect in the rpm range where you drive.
     
  15. E7TE heads were the hot setup before the GT 40 heads and aftermarket. If they are the GT 40 P heads from an Explorer then make sure your exhaust will line up as the spark plug angles are different than any other head.. Common header interference issues with the plugs are a big draw back to those heads but they are good breathing factory heads. As far as port matching to the intake. Put the engine together and drive it the way it should be driven. Smiles per gallon and not miles per gallon.
     
  16. F-ONE
    Joined: Mar 27, 2008
    Posts: 2,883

    F-ONE
    Member
    from Alabama

    You have to be careful with a SBF. I do believe Squirrel touches on this with his “dyno” comment.

    Example.....
    Edelbrock’s Torker 289 Intake

    It was a really good intake for 1960s heads. Now, people have ported the old Torkers for use with high flow heads and have had contrary results. They just do better out of the box, especially with the stock heads of the 1960s early 70s.
    I guess the tight ports helped with velocity.
    You can say the same about the SBF cam grinds of the period. (1960s early 70s) The grinds tended to be long on duration but lower on lift to match the heads of the period.....

    You take somebody that had the old Torker and a Crane Fireball in the 70s and they’ll talk about how great the combo was.

    Today, somebody building a big inch SBF stroker may poo-poo that combo....

    Really it’s apples and oranges.

    The old set up worked.
    It’s obvious that these new stroked engines with “better” heads work.

    When you try to mix the old and the new is where you can run into trouble. That’s what I meant by...,
    You have to be careful with porting a SBF.
     
    Desoto291Hemi likes this.
  17. gregsmy
    Joined: Feb 11, 2011
    Posts: 101

    gregsmy
    Member
    from Florida

    It wouldnt be either drawing. The second would be closer to it except the intake runner would be larger. Basically a minor "funnel" at the head.

    These are the non p version that where used for a couple of years that have the standard spark plug configuration.
     
    Deuces likes this.
  18. Deuces
    Joined: Nov 3, 2009
    Posts: 21,288

    Deuces
    Member
    from Michigan

    That's the pair I have..... I'm sure you can still buy those new from Ford parts....
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.