AIR FLOW

This forum is devoted to all topics concerning high performance, Studebaker powered vehicles.
User avatar
Mike Van Veghten
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 2329
Joined: 02 Sep 2005, 12:06
Location: West Coast

Re: AIR FLOW

Post by Mike Van Veghten » 31 Dec 2019, 11:05

Tom -

Good luck..!
Years back, I tried that...didn't work...long story. I'll try to make it short
All of the the work below was done with the normally available 1.875" R3 stainless valve.

Back when we were really digging into the gaining flow stuff, I was working the intake side of three different heads. That's...12 ports. I was doing different things to each, then having each one flowed (same flow bench). I'd complete one, have it flowed, then from learning from what I did and how it worked, I moved to the next virgin port, and the next and the next. I learned something from each try. When all 12 ports were reshaped, I modified some even more to see what would happen. Some got better, some...not so much. Even trying things that we can't safely, "reliably" do.

Then...I got the idea to widen the opening of my "best" working port. I opened the port "just" far enough to break into the pushrod hole. Just a little sliver of breakthrough. also reshaping in back of the pushrod. It LOOKED...great. I put a bunch of clay into the hole to plug the vacuum leak, then headed to the shop.
With the head installed on the same bench I'd been using, we started. At .05" everything was normal. At .100" everything was pretty normal. As I recall, up to .200" was still normal.
THEN...it all went to hell..!
Each test produces a distinct sound from the overall airflow through the flow bench. Mostly...all the same somewhat high pitch whine. Well, like I say, at about .300" the sound started changing, more of a howl, then with each raising of the valve, it got worse and worse. By .500", the sound coming from the bench sounded like a hurricane. A low pitch howl.
Everyone (three or four people) was looking at each other..?? The guy running the test, stopped, and started over. Same outcome. No one had a clue what was happening.
Oh and by the way...the flow dropped off...went to hell from .300".

On the other side of the back wall of the shop is a engine dyno room. One of the guys walked out, came up and watched for a minute. He started talking, asking questions. He said that what I had done was made the port flow better than what the valve could handle. The 1.875" valve became a plug in the system..! He said to put a 2.02" valve in, and I should have something good. I told him that because of the bore size, the chamber deal, a 2.02" was basically useless. That it would be heavily shrouded for about or over 1/3 of it's diameter.
He just shrugged his shoulders, smiled and walked away.

To add credence to all of the above... I found another thing to do a coupla months back. I worked the new theory into a known port.
So...this port had my best work, a .3135 stem (LS style) valve, a modern head shape, and a four angle seat grind, backcut on the valve. As this head belongs to someone else, I headed of to the same shop to have a coupla ports flowed so I could tell the customer.
I was, as normal, looking to go past 212cfm at .500" of lift with all this fancy work done.
NO...luck. 213cfm was all there was to be had. BUT, as I posted in a seperate post, the flow at .400" lift increased to 199cfm. Normally 199 wasn't there till .500" of lift. I asked the tech to rerun the test, he did. Within one or two values, the whole test had the same outcome.
So what my new shape did, was to increase the mid lift flow by a bunch, without changing the high lift flow.
This tells me...that the 1.875" valve...IS actually...a plug in the system..! That my current shape WILL go past 212 cfm...BUT again, I need a larger valve.

As I said, this new port shape is not at all a lost cause, increasing the midlift flow is a very good thing, because the valve actually spends a LOT more time at the midlift area than it does at full lift.
So, I guess, what I've seen with my work, 212ish cfm, at .500" of lift is it for...full lift flow, but increasing the mid lift flow as I've managed, should do more for increased engine torque, than getting the magical 220cfm at .600" lift.

So...there's my pushrod opening test, as short as I could make it..!

Good luck, let us know what you find.

Mike

P.s. - Oh yea, while we've had the "better" port in a new casting idea for some time now, without a larger valve...I'm not so sure anymore.

Jessie J.
100 - 199 Posts
Posts: 100
Joined: 16 Jan 2004, 00:10
Location: Corunna, Michigan
Contact:

Re: AIR FLOW

Post by Jessie J. » 04 Jan 2020, 00:32

New casting, move and resize reshape intake and exhaust ports, relocate valve guides to allow for unshrouded larger intake valves, relocate push rod holes away from port walls. Oh heck, while at it might as well toss in some hemi chambers and double overhead cams.
A LOT of engineering, horrendous expenditure, unaccepted for almost all classes racing...and have virtually no marketability at all.

Could just swap in a injected supercharged 1000 hp 392 Hellcat take-out for around 1/1000 of the cost....but that wouldn’t be ’Studebaker’. urrrp 🤪

Jessie J.
100 - 199 Posts
Posts: 100
Joined: 16 Jan 2004, 00:10
Location: Corunna, Michigan
Contact:

Re: AIR FLOW

Post by Jessie J. » 04 Jan 2020, 00:34

New casting, move and resize reshape intake and exhaust ports, relocate valve guides to allow for unshrouded larger intake valves, relocate push rod holes away from port walls. Oh heck, while at it might as well toss in some hemi chambers and double overhead cams.
A LOT of engineering, horrendous expenditure, unaccepted for almost all classes racing...and have virtually no marketability at all.

Could just swap in a injected supercharged 1000 hp 392 Hellcat take-out for around 1/1000 of the cost....but no -that wouldn’t be ’Studebaker’. urrrp 🤪

User avatar
Mike Van Veghten
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 2329
Joined: 02 Sep 2005, 12:06
Location: West Coast

Re: AIR FLOW

Post by Mike Van Veghten » 04 Jan 2020, 01:29

Jessie -

First, the exhaust ports need zero help. They already flow too well, percentage wise compared to the intake. It would be even better to make the exhaust valves smaller by a touch.

See my info above. The port can be made to flow well enough. It's a short port, length wise, so it's difficult to do much with. Get rid of all of the funny direction changes, lumps and bumps, and you've pretty much got it. At least that's what my testing shows.
It's the small valve size, also as noted, that is the hangup to flow above 212 / 213 cfm.

So, as you say move the intake valve over. I actually did that..! I moved the valve over .06" to better center the valve over the center of the port opening. Away from the exhaust port, this also allows the divider wall can be better shaped. It's almost in the same place that the R3 valve is, IN the R3 heads.
This moves the valve...outside...of the cylinder..! I had a special tool made up to notch the cylinder, on smaller bores than the true 304" R3 had.

A larger valve, also as noted is too shrouded by the chamber wall. As I did, move the chamber wall, you go "further" outside of the cylinder bore. And to "properly"...unshroud a large valve, would be really useless in a small bore Studebaker block.

The only possibility to better flow with the small valve is to raise the port roof, more like the R3 ports.

Hope that helps explain some of the problems the Stude combination has.

Mike

User avatar
63larkr1
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 790
Joined: 17 Dec 2003, 16:49
Location: Nashville, In

Re: AIR FLOW

Post by 63larkr1 » 04 Jan 2020, 09:49

I made the exhaust valve smaller, and used a 1.94 intake. It works extremely well with a 3.701 bore.
Richard
Studebaker Drag Racing You can't beat it.
The 11th annual all Studebaker Nationals Drag Race is Saturday May 25th, 2018 at 9:00 am at Brown County Dragway in Bean Blossom, Indiana. For more information contact Richard Poe

User avatar
Mike Van Veghten
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 2329
Joined: 02 Sep 2005, 12:06
Location: West Coast

Re: AIR FLOW

Post by Mike Van Veghten » 04 Jan 2020, 17:42

Sounds good, but I'm betten that it'll take 2.00 or more. At least for the work that I did.
And along with that, a good bit of valve unshrouding in the chamber. And that would require domed pistons.
Maybe it's time I buy another set of pistons for my engine..!

Mike

User avatar
Mike Van Veghten
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 2329
Joined: 02 Sep 2005, 12:06
Location: West Coast

Re: AIR FLOW

Post by Mike Van Veghten » 04 Jan 2020, 21:15

Hey Richard -

When you put smaller seats and valves in your Stude heads, did you also fill the exhaust port bowl ?
I thought about using a smaller seat sometime back, but the way various diameters work in the same column of air, the flow speeds up at the smaller diameters and slows where the larger diameters are. So why speed the flow for a length of about .15" ?
That's why I didn't try to fool the "system" by just using a smaller valve. The huge Stude exhaust bowl area is huge even for the 1.53" valve. The gasses will slow immediately as soon as it passes the seat ring, greatly when it gets into the giant bowl.
I thought of filling the bowl with aluminum, then reshaping from there That would work...but with the work involved, I think we need to figure out how get past 213cfm (my test flow rates) at .50" lift on the intake side first.

When I say 212/213cfm, this is on the certified bench that I've been using. Other benches may flow more or less with my port, any given bench is going to flow somewhat different.

So...fill the bowls with something, or leave them stock dimensions..?

Mike

User avatar
Tom Osborne
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 1695
Joined: 30 Oct 2005, 16:07
Location: Port Alberni British Columbia Canada

Re: AIR FLOW

Post by Tom Osborne » 04 Jan 2020, 22:01

Tom Osborne wrote:
27 Nov 2019, 07:57
Well put. It's a true repeated reality. Projects often get started then for some unforseen disruption prevails.
Mike I understand your approach. It would seem the Vulcan way to reason. LOL. Airflow scream is lost on a wet flow bench. When correct fuel ratios are pulled through we get fast flow and larger numbers. When boost is applied it gets better. The baseline measurements are rough tools to work with. Because of camshaft design and other items of interest some heads just out power larger port good flowing heads. 175 mph in 1962 is my strongest guide to what really happens. This is called old school. I often over think the modern Era . I have lived through the performance eras of Mopar, Chevy and Ford. It took a lot to break Studebaker speed records. I truly admire your approaches Mike, keep up the good work. Tom O.
"First by far with a post war car"
TOM-O-HAWK STREET/STRIP Project

User avatar
63larkr1
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 790
Joined: 17 Dec 2003, 16:49
Location: Nashville, In

Re: AIR FLOW

Post by 63larkr1 » 06 Jan 2020, 23:00

I used 1.50 valves and did not install smaller seats.
Studebaker Drag Racing You can't beat it.
The 11th annual all Studebaker Nationals Drag Race is Saturday May 25th, 2018 at 9:00 am at Brown County Dragway in Bean Blossom, Indiana. For more information contact Richard Poe

User avatar
Mike Van Veghten
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 2329
Joined: 02 Sep 2005, 12:06
Location: West Coast

Re: AIR FLOW

Post by Mike Van Veghten » 07 Jan 2020, 14:52

Richard -

Thanks.

Mike

User avatar
63larkr1
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 790
Joined: 17 Dec 2003, 16:49
Location: Nashville, In

Re: AIR FLOW

Post by 63larkr1 » 07 Jan 2020, 17:30

Not a good picture but maybe it will help give a clear idea of how a 1.94" intake and a 1.50" exhaust looks.
Richard
344 HEADS 011 (2).JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Studebaker Drag Racing You can't beat it.
The 11th annual all Studebaker Nationals Drag Race is Saturday May 25th, 2018 at 9:00 am at Brown County Dragway in Bean Blossom, Indiana. For more information contact Richard Poe

User avatar
Mike Van Veghten
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 2329
Joined: 02 Sep 2005, 12:06
Location: West Coast

Re: AIR FLOW

Post by Mike Van Veghten » 07 Jan 2020, 20:02

Thanks a lot for this picture. It answers a lot of questions.

Well, that shot makes it clear that a 2.00" valve isn't going to fit very well..!
I've thought of moving the spark plug over where it belongs for a while now, but it appears that an even smaller exhaust valve than 1.50" would be required. Which, diameter wise is just fine, but again, what effect will it have on the exh. flow ? It could decrease the flow a little and still be just fine, then we're back to moving the spark plug.

Plug the stock spark plug hole, redrill and tap for smaller diameter plug and move the tip over (yes, angle the spark plug) more toward the exhaust valve where all modern plugs are. That would fix that clearance and also help the plug location.

Thanks again for the picture.

Mike

User avatar
Tom Osborne
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 1695
Joined: 30 Oct 2005, 16:07
Location: Port Alberni British Columbia Canada

Re: AIR FLOW

Post by Tom Osborne » 09 Jan 2020, 04:48

I built a dome cast 10 years back of aprox 13:1 cr with flame slot. The slots are going to direct the flame travel away from the intake valve. I have 1.87 intakes and these are much like running Nascar restrictor plates under the carb. Usually angle plug heads make upwards of 5-10 hp depending on piston design. Overlap is a critical factor in what can mess up chamber efficiency. We are dealing with small motors so anywhere power gains can be made it is a bonus. Seldom we see 50 hp per cylinder.
"First by far with a post war car"
TOM-O-HAWK STREET/STRIP Project

User avatar
Mike Van Veghten
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 2329
Joined: 02 Sep 2005, 12:06
Location: West Coast

Re: AIR FLOW

Post by Mike Van Veghten » 09 Jan 2020, 15:08

I may have access to an old Jahns/Stude piston, that on the surface, the dome looks well shaped. Nice round corners. I haven't matched it to a chamber yet.
It is probably 12 to 1 or more.

Mike

User avatar
Tom Osborne
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 1695
Joined: 30 Oct 2005, 16:07
Location: Port Alberni British Columbia Canada

Re: AIR FLOW

Post by Tom Osborne » 09 Jan 2020, 22:14

Mike , It is not easy to find early Jahns anymore. If you have a Stude dome top this could lay the way to a custom batch. I know that Bill Miller has the early forged true rights as he bought Forged true. It would be nice to mould a Jahns piston on a well worked chamber and cc the results. As I recall the Jahns used a piston shape that was used on all cylinders. A custom set could most likely lower grams a bunch . It would be easier for the Bill Miller R&D to do the grunt work. A typical race prepped Stude head would be required by Bill. The nice thing that can happen are also wrist pin weight , compression height changes. Skirt design. By comparing the forged true against the Jahns might be very interesting. Thanks for this Tom o.
"First by far with a post war car"
TOM-O-HAWK STREET/STRIP Project

Post Reply