Flathead breathing

[Flat32]

What books do you have?? How serious are you?? Are you actively building and, if so, for what purpose? Do you intend to realize your dream engine or simply talk about it?

This is a well rounded public Flathead forum where my stuff doesn't really fit very well and I'll freely admit I'm posting here primarily looking for members that are similarly addicted.

Being that my meaningful involvement with Flatheads is with one engine and the two cams I've used I'm in no way an expert. However, that one engine and the challenge of getting the most out of Henry's bent eight that I can has required building my own parts in the fashion the successful serious competition guys use or used. I am not a race guy nor am I a street rodder or even a hot rodder. I have a bone stock 1932 five window coupe that I wouldn't dream of modifying in any way. I will never "street rod" my three window nor will I allow it to become a "rat rod", although some folks have described it as such. I don't limit my modifications to "traditional" ones, although I once did. I also make no attempt to hide the technology I use.

Different strokes for different folks and most Flathead guys get my sincere respect by default. As it turns out there's a very high likelihood that the Flathead person I meet will be a very pleasant gentleman and true friend material. Unfortunately I don't have enough spare time to adequately develop balanced relationships.

I'll be crawling back under my garage rock shortly.

Flat32

[Henry Floored]

Originally Posted by Flat32

What books do you have?? How serious are you?? Are you actively building and, if so, for what purpose? Do you intend to realize your dream engine or simply talk about it?

This is a well rounded public Flathead forum where my stuff doesn't really fit very well and I'll freely admit I'm posting here primarily looking for members that are similarly addicted.

Being that my meaningful involvement with Flatheads is with one engine and the two cams I've used I'm in no way an expert. However, that one engine and the challenge of getting the most out of Henry's bent eight that I can has required building my own parts in the fashion the successful serious competition guys use or used. I am not a race guy nor am I a street rodder or even a hot rodder. I have a bone stock 1932 five window coupe that I wouldn't dream of modifying in any way. I will never "street rod" my three window nor will I allow it to become a "rat rod", although some folks have described it as such. I don't limit my modifications to "traditional" ones, although I once did. I also make no attempt to hide the technology I use.

Different strokes for different folks and most Flathead guys get my sincere respect by default. As it turns out there's a very high likelihood that the Flathead person I meet will be a very pleasant gentleman and true friend material. Unfortunately I don't have enough spare time to adequately develop balanced relationships.

I'll be crawling back under my garage rock shortly.

Flat32

I'm currently building a warmed up Flatty for a unique '32 Ford based vehicle. Strictly conventional build.

My dreams have been on hold due to financials. I am gathering parts for my engine. I have some damaged blocks that would be good candidates for major surgery. My major hurdle is finding access to a vertical milling machine and lathe to start making chips. One of these days I'll get that chance and I'll start. In the meantime I have to keep dreaming.

[Kahuna]

Flat32

I, for one, hope you don't crawl under your garage rock, at least for very long.
I enjoy your posts and the dedication and great talent you have.
This forum, like many others has a great deal of good information, along with some not so good. One has to separate the two.
Like you, I've tried to get the most bang for the buck that I can, and have made many mistakes along the way. Part of the game, I guess.
Since you have a "cast" of the Kloth head design, you also must have most of the other information that goes with the engine, and are aware that the head design alone doesn't make the great engine that Kenny built.
One of the things that surprised me in looking at Ken's engine was that the intake ports were not overly ported, as is usually the case. By that I mean not hogged out at all, but rather reshaped to aid in directing the flow.
I made several attempts to do something similar, using a product called "Splash Zone", but have no real idea if any improvement was made. I did not relocate the end exhaust ports, but did make a set of center port dividers that I feel are of benefit, especially in the area of overlap. I use a Potvin 425 cam. I also tried to keep the engine appearance pretty stock, other than the 2 carb intake and the tube center dump headers.
Keep posting
Regards
Jim

[Henry Floored]

Originally Posted by Kahuna

Flat32

I, for one, hope you don't crawl under your garage rock, at least for very long.
I enjoy your posts and the dedication and great talent you have.
This forum, like many others has a great deal of good information, along with some not so good. One has to separate the two.
Like you, I've tried to get the most bang for the buck that I can, and have made many mistakes along the way. Part of the game, I guess.
Since you have a "cast" of the Kloth head design, you also must have most of the other information that goes with the engine, and are aware that the head design alone doesn't make the great engine that Kenny built.
One of the things that surprised me in looking at Ken's engine was that the intake ports were not overly ported, as is usually the case. By that I mean not hogged out at all, but rather reshaped to aid in directing the flow.
I made several attempts to do something similar, using a product called "Splash Zone", but have no real idea if any improvement was made. I did not relocate the end exhaust ports, but did make a set of center port dividers that I feel are of benefit, especially in the area of overlap. I use a Potvin 425 cam. I also tried to keep the engine appearance pretty stock, other than the 2 carb intake and the tube center dump headers.
Keep posting
Regards
Jim

Jim, do you know what kind of horsepower and torque numbers Mr. Kloth's engine put out? How many cubes was it? What rpm did it turn? Bore & stroke?

Please understand that I'm not trying to pry into someone else's hard work, but if these things are not guarded secrets then I would be eager to learn.

[Kahuna]

Actual HP is unknown. Best guess is about 260-280
Engine was 267 CI, stock Mercury 4" crank & rods
Can't remember bore size, pistons were flat top with metric ring pack
Engine was always shifted @ 6200 rpm

[JWL]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

K.K. used Chevy flat top pistons +.030 OS. He told us he never measured the power output but thought it was in the 230 to 240 HP range.

[40cpe]

And where is this engine now?

[Bored&Stroked]

Originally Posted by Henry Floored

BTW the Caddy's top exhaust ports force the exhaust flow to make a very abrupt change of direction when it matters most. Right out of the cylinder. The Fords curve more gently away and gradually down and out. It would be interesting to see this tested as well.

The Caddy's overall port layout is obviously quite different than a flathead ford. I spent about 120 hours porting one for our FlatCad Bonneville engine. Depending on the year block, there is a LOT more material to work with a much larger overall port areas can be achieved. Also, the exhaust design lets you get in and rework/port the entire port (as it comes out the top). For a blown engine, a lot can be achieve by the overall port size and volumes that can be achieved. We've never ran ours naturally aspirated - only blown and injected. On alcohol it makes about 650 HP at the crank (numerous dyno tests).

[Deuce Man]

Cool stuff guys! I am all ears! Thanks Rich

[Henry Floored]

Originally Posted by Bored&Stroked

The Caddy's overall port layout is obviously quite different than a flathead ford. I spent about 120 hours porting one for our FlatCad Bonneville engine. Depending on the year block, there is a LOT more material to work with a much larger overall port areas can be achieved. Also, the exhaust design lets you get in and rework/port the entire port (as it comes out the top). For a blown engine, a lot can be achieve by the overall port size and volumes that can be achieved. We've never ran ours naturally aspirated - only blown and injected. On alcohol it makes about 650 HP at the crank (numerous dyno tests).

That's excellent B & S! That is a tremendous amount of power!

I hear you loud and clear about having lots of material to work with. We sure would like more of that in the Ford blocks that's for sure.

Early on in my Flathead porting days I used scratch my head as to the question why Ford went to the extra trouble of routing the exhaust ports through the block. Certainly the block casting was complex enough already, especially for its time.

Then I saw a few cutaway blocks and realized how beautifully sculpted and gently shaped they really were. Except for the couple areas that I mentioned earlier I came to the realization that the exhaust ports probably weren't the horsepower hurdle in the Flathead Ford.

Now in a combination such as the FlatCad where you are getting tons of airflow via the big ports and blower you need all the exhaust flow you can muster.

Some of the Flathead Ford dragster guys ran the extra ports out the top especially the center I'm sure because it helped with forced induction and nitro etc.

[Flat32]

Supercharging and exotic fuels are great, I suppose, but before you consider a maxed out race configuration to judge our Flathead think about what it can do as a street driven hot rod (daily driver in my case) which is what many on this forum have.

This is what can be achieved without major surgery, a relatively sensible port job and proper tuning of air/fuel. Ignition advance curve very close to stock.

[IMG][/IMG]

Flat32

[Bored&Stroked]

Good stuff Ray - very interesting how early the max torque and max HP come in - really makes your engine a fantastic street configuration. You've achieved a hell of a lot in the last 10 years!

[Henry Floored]

Those are excellent numbers Ray. Shows you've done your homework. I can't say enough about the value of a well sorted combination. Figuring a 15% driveline loss puts you at about 215hp at the flywheel. If I'm anywhere close on my figuring that puts you in the elite category.

Now herein lies the rub. An backyard cavemanish guy like me can probably expect to get about 140- 150hp at the flywheel (and I'm guessing with no access to a dyno) on a good 260+ inch Flathead. That means there are relatively few horsepower separating the very best (you) from the average (me).

I want to find out why. There is a wall in all of our way. There is a giant restrictor in building a side valve engine that numbs power. We can add more carbs, we can free up the exhaust, we can lift the valves higher and for a longer period but horsepower does not seem to go up at a proportionate rate.

That's because we are adding potential on both sides of an air dam. Old Ron is correct when he says that boost is our friend, in that it overcomes the inherent restrictor within the intake tract.

Now of course what I say is all idle talk till me or someone can get to work on the real problem. I'm not saying the we're ever gonna be as efficient as an OHV in terms of raw airflow potential BUT!, we can demonstrate where the problem is and use some combination of modifications to vastly improve the situation.

Now back in the day, long before computer modeling, engineers would build a one cylinder test engine. On this fixture they would try to optimize a design and tweak it to get exactly what they wanted.

I guess because the Flathead Ford is obsolete in terms of today's racing ventures not many people even want to discuss building anything more than a street engine that runs, sounds and looks good. I tend to agree with that to a point. In fact those are the types of engines I build.

What I'm talking about here has to do with theory. Barney Navarro and probably some others were pioneers in the "pop up" piston designs that were setting records on the salt. What we tend to forget is that it took a few years to unseat the Flathead Fords from their status as "rulers of the salt" by the new OHV's from GM and Chrysler. The Flatheads of that time period were very highly developed.

Now as was mentioned earlier that the intake charge on a Flathead Ford has to make a very difficult, almost 360 degree turn to come close to trying to fill the cylinder. It has to go up then bounce off the cylinder head and then down. That IS the flow limiter. How can we reduce this hurdle?

A few key ways like larger bore, relieving the deck, tweaking the cylinder heads, raising the dome ( pop ups), moving the valve. All of these things are possible but as you go along my list you see they become more difficult.

In the advertisement for the Navarro "Hi-Dome" cylinder heads and corresponding pistons you are promised up to 30% airflow increase. While that may seem optimistic I happen to think its not far off. This setup is improving the the charge of fuel/air's angle of attack at exactly where the problem is. I don't doubt for one minute that Mr. Navarro has tested and found those types of increases during his racing heydays. I have spoken to the man on several occasions, sometimes at length. I'm very comfortable in saying he was no bullshitter.

So let's say a truly new Flathead block is developed and brought to market. Should we leave anything in the table in terms of potential? How much would you pay for a block that doesn't help your vehicle go any faster? Shouldn't we start turning over these old stones to see how much we can really do within the basic concept of our beloved little Flatty?

If thousands of crack free blocks were available anywhere I wouldn't have a point and I'd go to my corner and put on my dunce cap which I sometimes wear with pride. But that's not the case. Good blocks are becoming harder to find and thus more expensive. Combine that with the fact that in a new block you could build in modifications that could take many expensive hours to replicate in an original block.

I wouldn't care if this theoretical block was cast somewhere else as long as it was designed right here and machined here by enthusiasts that care. I would love to see Ford themselves through their Performance division have some hand in this. I'm sure Jack Roush would be interested too since he is a big time Flathead enthusiast.

Just my 2c

[Deuce Man]

Flat 32 your coupe is awesome. I was blown away by the induction system. The tall runners, I am sure are there for a reason! Back in the sixties there was a flathead powered 23 t altered running at our local drag strip. This engine had a home made long ram intake manifold that looked almost like a 413 chrysler setup. The manifold looked like it was made out of gently curved sections of aluminum tubing all welded up to a plate that bolted to the top of the block.The carburators were probably 2.5 to 3 feet apart. This car was the wildest sounding flathead I ever heard and ran like the hammers of he--! I think the owners name was Krauss and he lived on Long Island. This car was obviously naturally aspirated and I can almost assure you it was putting out more than 150- 175 hp. I guess induction means a lot with these motors. I would love to see some pictures of this rig if anyone has them. Rich

[Flat32]

The numbers don't mean anything except for comparison to others my engine generated. It's the shape of the curves that I find most useful along with indication of whether my attempts at improving are yielding expected results.

I rather enjoy waving around timeslips, but few understand what they mean.

Not to worry guys, my garage rock beckons. I do lurk almost daily, have been since the beginning.

Flat32

[Mart]

Flat32, I wanted to say I found your photos fascinating. You really have gone above and beyond when it comes to messing with these old flatheads.

Mart.

[38 coupe]

I'll bring this thread back up. Whenever I look into development of flathead engines I see references to Harry Ricardo and his engine development work. Seems to me that a lot of people are aware of his basic flathead "turbulent" head design. However, I don't see a lot of people quoting his actual research. I have found a link to a pdf download of his second edition book published in 1931. The book includes details on subjects like flathead combustion chamber design and spark plug placement. I'm enjoying reading through it now. For any other folks who like reading engineering books on flathead engines (kinda hard to find these days) here is the link:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/gn...cardo+1931.pdf

[Henry Floored]

Originally Posted by 38 coupe

I'll bring this thread back up. Whenever I look into development of flathead engines I see references to Harry Ricardo and his engine development work. Seems to me that a lot of people are aware of his basic flathead "turbulent" head design. However, I don't see a lot of people quoting his actual research. I have found a link to a pdf download of his second edition book published in 1931. The book includes details on subjects like flathead combustion chamber design and spark plug placement. I'm enjoying reading through it now. For any other folks who like reading engineering books on flathead engines (kinda hard to find these days) here is the link:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/gn...cardo+1931.pdf

Thanks 38coupe! Fascinating.

[danliveshere]

Guys what is the latest thinking regarding polishing of the ports? My 8ba motor put together by motor city flatheads has been ported in the intake ports but was left pretty rough. When my late father was racing speedway in the 60&70s all his motors were meticulously ported and polished. I'm not building a race motor but interested in the ways to get the most out of simple techniques thanks dan

[38 coupe]

My understanding based only on reading a lot of other people's findings is that a somewhat rough port wall is best in a carbureted engine. The boundary layer is smaller with a somewhat rough wall and the fuel stays in suspension better.