Shooting for 200

This forum is devoted to all topics concerning high performance, Studebaker powered vehicles.
Post Reply
User avatar
Mike Van Veghten
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 2268
Joined: 02 Sep 2005, 12:06
Location: West Coast

Shooting for 200

Post by Mike Van Veghten » 25 Jun 2019, 14:37

Found some intake port things I think.

Shooting for over 200cfm at under .500" of valve lift, with similar increase at lower lifts also.
I know how to get to 197cfm/198cfm under .500" of lift, proven that a few times. My own heads and two customers heads now.
New configuration will be tested on a yearly certified, Superflow 600 bench.

Will be a little while, while I finish the reshaping.
Stay tuned.

Mike

User avatar
PackardV8
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 2605
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 09:51

Re: Shooting for 200

Post by PackardV8 » 25 Jun 2019, 15:57

Yes, Mike knows how and is still learning to make the Studebaker head flow better.

The next step is finding the ideal intake manifold to complement this 200 CFM head flow. I know from dyno testing using the OEM Stude iron intake will absolutely negate the potential of Mike's great porting work.

Testing the heads with intake installed is time-consuming, but it's imperative if we're going to actually make best use of 200 CFM heads.

jack vines

User avatar
Mike Van Veghten
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 2268
Joined: 02 Sep 2005, 12:06
Location: West Coast

Re: Shooting for 200

Post by Mike Van Veghten » 03 Sep 2019, 16:31

Part of goal met -
Done on a SuperFlow 600, certified yearly.

201 cfm at .400" valve lift. Overall mid-range lift flow has gone up nicely . If the lift flow value numbers were drawn on a "bell curve"...the bell has gotten much fatter..!

Max. lift (.500" to .600") didn't perform as well as I'd hoped. By the numbers (flow vs lift), the valve needs to be larger. Got the port to work about as well as it can with the 1.875" valve.

Mike

User avatar
Mike Van Veghten
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 2268
Joined: 02 Sep 2005, 12:06
Location: West Coast

Re: Shooting for 200

Post by Mike Van Veghten » 30 Sep 2019, 01:48

A side note to the above post, on my recent port testing -

I had the above port tested twice. The first test was done with a different size test cylinder than all of my previous tests a few years back.
I asked if they would retest using the same test cylinder that was used in all of my previous testing so I could more easily understand the differences and at what lifts they would happen, they did for me.

Oddly enough, only the .05", the '100" and .200" lift locations changed. The each got better by 3 cfm. I'd say that 1 cfm is noise, 2 cfm could be real, maybe...noise, but I think 3cfm is a good number. The rest of the flow values stayed the same with the larger test cylinder. I asked to have that retested so I could watch. Only the first three were retested, and all repeated.
These new port flow numbers, up to .500" lift are the best ports I've reshaped. As noted, the .500" and .600" lift numbers have not changed in some time. Even with 4 angle seats, thin valve stems, modern valve underside shape and slightly more chamber unshrouding, no "real" change.

Mike

User avatar
Jeff Rice
Global Moderator
Posts: 4805
Joined: 15 Jan 2004, 08:48
Location: Brooklet, Georgia,USA,Earth
Contact:

Re: Shooting for 200

Post by Jeff Rice » 02 Oct 2019, 20:49

Most excellent!

Post Reply