|
Small port w8? Update flow numbers
#1349242
12/10/12 07:59 PM
12/10/12 07:59 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,784
PA
W5DART66
OP
top fuel
|
OP
top fuel
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,784
PA
|
I just got a set of w8s to update intake port on it is by far the smallest intake port I have seen in a w8 casting. I would love to know what they were run on. Intake port 252cc. Port is 2.090" by 1.250" SMALL!!!! ;-( Picture of my port vs the w8s 
|
|
|
Re: Small port w8???
[Re: W5DART66]
#1349246
12/10/12 08:45 PM
12/10/12 08:45 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 19,355
Las Vegas
Al_Alguire
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 19,355
Las Vegas
|
Looks like someone bought a set of raw castings and was unsure what to do with them. Wonder if it matches a commonly available gasket?!?
"I am not ashamed to confess I am ignorant of what I do not know."
"It's never wrong to do the right thing"
|
|
|
Re: Small port w8???
[Re: Al_Alguire]
#1349247
12/10/12 08:46 PM
12/10/12 08:46 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,330
Lynchburg, VA
Leon441
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,330
Lynchburg, VA
|
I bought a sheetmetal intake one time that was run on a 290 inch motor. It was for W8 heads but very tiny ports.
Career best 8.02 @ 169 at 3050# and 10" tires small block power.
|
|
|
Re: Small port w8???
[Re: stevet340]
#1349252
12/11/12 12:45 AM
12/11/12 12:45 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,784
PA
W5DART66
OP
top fuel
|
OP
top fuel
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,784
PA
|
Quote:
More than likely it was used on a small displacement, high RPM, extremely efficient engine. 360 cubic inches or less. Bigger is not always better... Not to bash the OP, but I would take the top port over the bottom one any day of the week, chances are it is a very highly efficient, high velocity port with every aspect of it set up for a max effort combination. The short side radius is a lot bigger than the bottom port for sure. The bore size wouldn't be as critical with that port it as long as it was 4" or more. 
I am sorry but you just don't get it that top port has min cross section of 2.5 sq in this thing would not "RPM" on anything. High velocity port ?are we building dump trucks or race engines?
A PST 358. With w8 heads (CFE). Had min cross section of 3.2sq in.
A good NASCAR cup engine right now has min cross section of 3.8". I guess all the top engine builders have it wrong we need them darn high velocity ports.
I guess when I reworked Brian's small HVPs and took 20. Dur of duration out of the cam car picked up 1/2 sec and 8 mph.......
Oh and I am so glad that looking at port opening you can pick the "good port"
One of the reasons people that KNOW anything stopped posting here.....
|
|
|
Re: Small port w8???
[Re: stevet340]
#1349256
12/11/12 06:29 PM
12/11/12 06:29 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,135
Melbourne , Australia
LA360
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,135
Melbourne , Australia
|
Quote:
More than likely it was used on a small displacement, high RPM, extremely efficient engine. 360 cubic inches or less. Bigger is not always better... Not to bash the OP, but I would take the top port over the bottom one any day of the week, chances are it is a very highly efficient, high velocity port with every aspect of it set up for a max effort combination. The short side radius is a lot bigger than the bottom port for sure. The bore size wouldn't be as critical with that port it as long as it was 4" or more.
The last set of W8 heads for a small cubic inch Comp Eliminator engine were certainly not as small as those and flowed over 400cfm. The Cross sectional area would have been around 4". A 280ci engine at 9500 Rpm still needs around 3.65"
My old CFE heads had a minimum cross section of 3.48", below is a pic of the port window of the intake manifold as a reference
For whatever reason, I never took a pic of the intake face of them 
The pic of the heads that Brett posted are curious, would I hazard a guess at an RPM limited road race application? It would be interesting to see how they look against an Edelbrock head, but I doubt that Brett has any of those in his shop 
Alan Jones
|
|
|
Re: Small port w8???
[Re: LA360]
#1349257
12/11/12 06:54 PM
12/11/12 06:54 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,534
bronx n.y
one bad fish
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,534
bronx n.y
|
Quote:
Quote:
More than likely it was used on a small displacement, high RPM, extremely efficient engine. 360 cubic inches or less. Bigger is not always better... Not to bash the OP, but I would take the top port over the bottom one any day of the week, chances are it is a very highly efficient, high velocity port with every aspect of it set up for a max effort combination. The short side radius is a lot bigger than the bottom port for sure. The bore size wouldn't be as critical with that port it as long as it was 4" or more.
The last set of W8 heads for a small cubic inch Comp Eliminator engine were certainly not as small as those and flowed over 400cfm. The Cross sectional area would have been around 4". A 280ci engine at 9500 Rpm still needs around 3.65"
My old CFE heads had a minimum cross section of 3.48", below is a pic of the port window of the intake manifold as a reference
For whatever reason, I never took a pic of the intake face of them
The pic of the heads that Brett posted are curious, would I hazard a guess at an RPM limited road race application? It would be interesting to see how they look against an Edelbrock head, but I doubt that Brett has any of those in his shop
LOL true
|
|
|
Re: Small port w8???
[Re: W5DART66]
#1349258
12/11/12 09:03 PM
12/11/12 09:03 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,978
Hilltown Pa
1967dartgt
master
|
master
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,978
Hilltown Pa
|
Hey Brett do you think you can epoxy my W8s down to this HVP. I realy think this is what I need to make real power!!LOL You know CFE had no idea what they were doing.
Brett Miller W9 cnc'd heads
STR Chassis fabraction
|
|
|
|
|
