Brought to you in part by:

.

Shop Eastwood for your Auto Restoration Needs!


  Mustangsandmore Forums
  Ford Racing
  Airflow and horsepower

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Airflow and horsepower
Rustang
Gearhead

Posts: 452
From: Clarion PA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 12-24-2001 08:49 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rustang   Click Here to Email Rustang     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This is a question about intake port airflow compared to exhaust port airflow. I think there is a rule of thumb that the exhaust should flow 80% of the intake for a well balanced head. Also, I have seen formulas for calculating potential horsepower based on intake airflow. So when you take a head like my Boss 302 head that has a 200cfm exhaust port and a 320cfm intake port (for a intake/exhaust flow ratio of 62%)I doubt this formula would be accurate?
So my questions are:
Would this formula be valid with a large intake/exhaust flow ratio?
Is there a calculation that exists for predicting horsepower potential based on exhaust port flow?
Is exhaust port flow not as important as intake port flow?

------------------
'68 mustang 351 clevor- [email protected]
'67 Stang, 351W [email protected]
'69 351C [email protected]
'78 Pickup [email protected]
'79 Pickup 460 ET=??
http://www.rustang-racing.cityslide.com/contents/contents.cfm/712231

IP: Logged

SteveLaRiviere
Administrator

Posts: 32961
From: Saco, Maine
Registered: May 99

posted 12-26-2001 08:07 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SteveLaRiviere   Click Here to Email SteveLaRiviere     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'll send a copy of this to the Racing forum.

------------------

'70 Mustang Mach 1 M code 351C 4V/FMX/3.25 open
'72 Mustang Sprint Coupe 351C 4V/FMX/4.30 Trac Lok
'94 F-150 XL 5.8L/E4OD/3.55 Limited Slip
'97 Probe GTS 2.5L DOHC

IP: Logged

S/Q 2204
Journeyman

Posts: 93
From: Ozark, AL(again after a year of being deployed)
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 12-28-2001 12:26 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for S/Q 2204   Click Here to Email S/Q 2204     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It seems there is a happy medium to the ratio; both are important to volumetric efficiency. Don't know about a single formula. You have to look at it as a portion of the incoming charge being converted to power for pushing the piston back down the hole. This means only a portion will exit the exhaust port. The exhaust port must allow this to exit at a certain velocity to help in scavenging the chamber. We normally look for 72-80%. Anything less & the incoming charge is polluted with excess exhaust gasses, any more& you loose velocity. If you are running boost it will force the chamber clean. You probably need to run your info through one of the more complete engine programs; one that you have to put flow numbers in.
Later,
Mark J.

IP: Logged

Rustang
Gearhead

Posts: 452
From: Clarion PA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 12-28-2001 05:11 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rustang   Click Here to Email Rustang     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thanks for the reply Mark. I don't have it in front of me right now, but there is a popular formula I've seen tossed around that uses intake port airflow to approximate horsepower potential of a cylinder head.

I guess my engine computer program is the reason I posted this question. I'm using KB Virtual Dyno, that to-date has seemed pretty accurate, but the trend I see in the program doesn't reflect what I thought it would.
It's telling me, based on my flow numbers, (inputs from .100 to .700 lift)that when I start playing around with cam specs, the changes in hp/tq are not near as dramatic when I change the exhaust lobe when compared to similar changes in the intake lobe. I get similar results when moving the flow numbers up or down for either port.
Does this seem reasonable?

IP: Logged

S/Q 2204
Journeyman

Posts: 93
From: Ozark, AL(again after a year of being deployed)
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 12-28-2001 10:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for S/Q 2204   Click Here to Email S/Q 2204     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I would think exhaust is as critical as intake so maybe the formula assumes the exhaust port you have will compliment the intake. If you can't get it out what good does it do to get it in. The A460 heads I started with were flat in flow after .500 of lift. After correcting this problem the car picked up about .14 in the 1/8th. There are going to be some things the programs cannot simulate as well as dyno's ( but they should be able to get you within inches) , the only true test will be the E.T. at a track.
Later,
Mark J.

[This message has been edited by S/Q 2204 (edited 12-28-2001).]

IP: Logged

cpmaverick
Moderator

Posts: 1564
From: Auburn, AL.
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 12-29-2001 02:42 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for cpmaverick   Click Here to Email cpmaverick     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It's true, from what I have learned exhuast flow is about half as important or less to total horsepower. It's all about getting air into the cylinder. Scavenging, and efficient exhaust definitely makes a difference but not nearly as much as intake flow.

IP: Logged

chips67
Gearhead

Posts: 651
From: louisville, ky, usa
Registered: Jul 2001

posted 12-29-2001 01:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for chips67   Click Here to Email chips67     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
wow, what a broad subject! let me say "it depends" a million times just to start. rpm range? boosted or power adder? i dont know about the ratio thing, but i bet a flowbench guy would. i think port velocity and quench are important. i think the exaust side ratio changes when you throw in a power adder....you definitly need less restiction when you spray a motor. scavenging the exaust is very critical on a n/a motor that you are building for max power. i will tell you from experience....a cam with a wide lsa, little overlap sucks on a naturally aspirated motor. thus my current combination. dont ever do what i did....assume. lift/duration/lift/duration/lift/duration!!!! oh crap, screwed by lsa!

------------------
67 coupe, 650dp and rpm intake on 5.0 with afr 165 heads, 4 speed, 4.11's.....best so far is [email protected] in 1/8 mile with 1.79 60ft. time.

IP: Logged

Mpcoluv
Gearhead

Posts: 928
From: Charlotte NC usa
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 12-30-2001 10:06 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mpcoluv   Click Here to Email Mpcoluv     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The 75% (I think) ratio is considered ideal, but the 62% can be adjusted with a split pattern cam. I would use the boss heads and be happy. Or you could sell them to me.

IP: Logged

Rustang
Gearhead

Posts: 452
From: Clarion PA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 12-31-2001 08:34 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rustang   Click Here to Email Rustang     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I agree, MP, but there's got to be a point where no matter how much more duration you run on the exhaust, the limitation of flow becomes the "cork" in the system. Or at least too much duration probably affects other events in the cycle?

(Let me know if you're interested in the heads!)

IP: Logged

kid vishus
Gearhead

Posts: 4357
From: middle of NC
Registered: Oct 2000

posted 12-31-2001 08:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for kid vishus   Click Here to Email kid vishus     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I had a farily well known engine builder tell me one time, that a good camshaft can make up for a bad exhuast port. But there is no way around a bad intake port cuss thats where all the power is. And he's a former NHRA record holder in the old Mod class running a cleveland, builds several 5.0 shootout motors, and seems to know his stuff.

IP: Logged

Rustang
Gearhead

Posts: 452
From: Clarion PA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 12-31-2001 08:54 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rustang   Click Here to Email Rustang     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Kid, your reply, along with cpmaverick's, agrees with what I'm seeing on my computer program. The exhaust port just doesn't have as dramatic an effect on overall power as the intake.

Thanks and Happy New Year!

------------------
'68 mustang 351 clevor- [email protected]
'67 Stang, 351W [email protected]
'69 351C [email protected]
'78 Pickup [email protected]
'79 Pickup 460 ET=??
http://www.rustang-racing.cityslide.com/contents/contents.cfm/712231

IP: Logged

Mpcoluv
Gearhead

Posts: 928
From: Charlotte NC usa
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 12-31-2001 09:55 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mpcoluv   Click Here to Email Mpcoluv     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Rustang:
I agree, MP, but there's got to be a point where no matter how much more duration you run on the exhaust, the limitation of flow becomes the "cork" in the system. Or at least too much duration probably affects other events in the cycle?

(Let me know if you're interested in the heads!)



I would guess less than 55% exhaust to intake ratio would be pretty hard to overcome. Now if you are racing for big bucks I would get heads with the magic ratio, but for non pro-stock or Nascar, 62% would work fine with the proper cam.
BTW how much for the heads and "W" intake?

IP: Logged

Rustang
Gearhead

Posts: 452
From: Clarion PA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 01-01-2002 04:49 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rustang   Click Here to Email Rustang     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
MP,
E-mail me for details on the heads. The NMCA dropped the class I built the motor for, so I might entertain selling them.

The thing is, I have some "unfinished business" with this combo. I know there was at least another 1/2 second in the combination that I'd like to find, but there is a new class requiring a different motor combo I'd like to try too.

------------------
'68 mustang 351 clevor- [email protected]
'67 Stang, 351W [email protected]
'69 351C [email protected]
'78 Pickup [email protected]
'79 Pickup 460 ET=??
http://www.rustang-racing.cityslide.com/contents/contents.cfm/712231

IP: Logged

Mpcoluv
Gearhead

Posts: 928
From: Charlotte NC usa
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 01-02-2002 07:31 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mpcoluv   Click Here to Email Mpcoluv     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Rustang:
MP,
E-mail me for details on the heads.

Your profile contains no E-mail address.
What is your E-mail address?

IP: Logged

SundanceKid
Gearhead

Posts: 979
From: UT
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 01-02-2002 07:07 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SundanceKid   Click Here to Email SundanceKid     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I like to use split cam designs but companies like Isky Cams seem to hold a differant point of view. That if the heads are properly designed the cam should have the same lift and duration values. There is a whole article about it in their tech tips area. It may have the info you are looking for?
http://www.iskycams.com/techtips.html

[This message has been edited by SundanceKid (edited 01-03-2002).]

IP: Logged

Mpcoluv
Gearhead

Posts: 928
From: Charlotte NC usa
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 01-03-2002 08:17 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mpcoluv   Click Here to Email Mpcoluv     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by SundanceKid:
I like to use split cam designs but companies like Isky Cams seem to hold a differant point of view. That if the heads are properly designed the cam should have the same lift and duration values. There is a whole article about it in their tech tips area. It may have the info you are looking for?
http://www.iskycams.com/techtips.html

[This message has been edited by SundanceKid (edited 01-03-2002).]


Funny, Rod at Isky reccomended a split pattern cam for my 372C. 224/232 duration at .050 108 LC .545/.565 lift.
BTW the 108LC make it idle much rougher than you would expect. Behaves nicely in traffic though.

IP: Logged

Money Maker
Administrator

Posts: 63
From: Lyons IL, USA
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 01-03-2002 12:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Money Maker   Click Here to Email Money Maker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If there is one thing that I have learned over the years, there is no set formula for cylinder head port flow relationship.
Forever and ever we used to flog the exhaust side of the WIndsor heads because everyone said it was too small. We made them round, "D" ported then, raised them, welded them, you name it we did it. All of this supposition was based on small block chebbie heads.
Guess what? We were wrong! The more we began to reduce the exhaust port size and concentrate on the bowl and short turn radius, the smaller the exhaust port was required. We needed to increase velocity via port shape and camshaft events, not size. We now flow over 20% LESS on the exhaust than we used to. Now the intake, that's another issue. You really do not have to worry about getting it out if you can't get it in.

------------------
Co-Administrator and Moderator
NHRA, IHRA, and SRA member
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder
2000, 2001, and 2002
US Class Nationals co-organizer
Owner of a fleet of FoMoCo's including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28

IP: Logged

Rustang
Gearhead

Posts: 452
From: Clarion PA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 01-03-2002 11:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rustang   Click Here to Email Rustang     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It's always good to here it from "the man" (alex) !!

By the way, that Isky site that Sundance mentioned is pretty cool. Too bad I can't take this computer into the reading room!

IP: Logged

SteveLaRiviere
Administrator

Posts: 32961
From: Saco, Maine
Registered: May 99

posted 01-04-2002 07:57 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for SteveLaRiviere   Click Here to Email SteveLaRiviere     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Get a laptop...

------------------

'70 Mustang Mach 1 M code 351C 4V/FMX/3.25 open
'72 Mustang Sprint Coupe 351C 4V/FMX/4.30 Trac Lok
'94 F-150 XL 5.8L/E4OD/3.55 Limited Slip
'97 Probe GTS 2.5L DOHC

IP: Logged

All times are ET (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Mustangsandmore Front Page

Copyright 2003, Steve LaRiviere. All Rights Reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47d

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More

[Build a free Mustangsandmore.ws Home Page!]

[About M&M][Acronyms][Calendar][Chat][Classifieds] [Links] [Members' Pics] [M&M Mug Shots] [Tech] [ Mustangsandmore.com Bookstore] [Advertise on Mustangsandmore.com] [Mustangsandmore.com T-Shirts]