A Flathead in Engine Masters?

[Henry Floored]

Well guys you may have seen the new classes for the 2015 Engine Masters competition. If you haven't seem them and are interested there is a "vintage" v8 class open to any 1954 or older American v8 except for the Chrysler hemi. This would probably attract mostly Olds and Caddy engines with a possible Lincoln or two. What if? What if a bunch of Flathead Ford enthusiasts built an all out engine just because? Certainly a side valver couldn't compete right? But the question begs just how well could one do? Flathead Fords were certainly in the thick of things longer than they should have back in those days. Wouldn't it be fun to raise eyebrows if not competing for the outright win? Isn't the Flathead V8 at the heart of our passion? It is for me.

Now before you poo poo the idea, remember that these contests are scored by average torque and horsepower divided by cubic inches as tested on a dyno. How far up could this theoretical engine reach? Where would one start. I'd like to hear from you guys what you think of this. Have some of you ever built a full on Flathead either recently or back in the day? For the sake of discusion and the sheer fun of it lets build the ultimate naturally aspirated Flathead Ford at least on this thread.

I'll go first. My fantasy engine would be just under 300". The heads would be Navarro Hi-domes (complying with the commercially available rule) with the corresponding pistons. The heat riser would be filled and shaped to form a back port wall for them. Exhaust ports would be in standard location but cleaned up and the dog leg removed from the end ports. The induction system is where I think would be a departure. I have always looked at those intake ports and thought they should be lowered. I would love to machine those intake ports partially away and thereby lowering their entrance angle. I have seen this done and in addition an EFI injector was placed under each port aimed at the back of the intake valve. The combination of this with a fixed guide, "ramped" intake pocket and the hi dome heads I think removes a huge percentage of the impedence to the breathing potential of this engine. Now the rest of the engine would be carefully done especially in the camshaft and crankcase areas.

Lets hear your thoughts and have some fun!

[Henry Floored]

Oops here's the link: http://bangshift.com/general-news/en...e-new-classes/

[Lazy Jake]

Your thread brings to mind the flat motor that Dick Landy built that Hot Rod Magazine did a feature article (cover) on a few years back. 800 HP I believe. After I read that I gave up all hope of ever building a bad ass flathead.

[Ralph Moore]

Originally Posted by Lazy Jake

Your thread brings to mind the flat motor that Dick Landy built that Hot Rod Magazine did a feature article (cover) on a few years back. 800 HP I believe. After I read that I gave up all hope of ever building a bad ass flathead.

Is that the one where the intake and exhaust were reversed?
And he was running one carb per cylinder?

[Henry Floored]

The Flatfire engine built by Dick Landy was in fact a reverse port with both the intake and exhaust coming up out of the top. That engine had a centrifugal supercharger with EFI. I don't think relocated exhaust ports would be necessary on a naturally aspirated engine. The question remains, is 1hp per cubic inch possible with an NA Flathead Ford?

[Kahuna]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Yes, it is and more

[KiWinUS]

only with a KiWi-L100 cam ........

[Henry Floored]

Originally Posted by KiWinUS

only with a KiWi-L100 cam ........

Exactly what I was thinking Tony!

[Blownflatheaddeuce]

Originally Posted by kiwinus

only with a kiwi-l100 cam ........

Gold !

[Henry Floored]

Well I must admit I was hoping for some great stories of wild Flatheads some of you may have built or driven over the years. Maybe a little bump of this thread might flush some of you out. Soooo bump!

[Kahuna]

Henry
I'm sure there are/were flathead engines capable of more than 1Hp/CI. I think Pete in Washington State has built a few.
The only engine I am personally familiar with was the Ken Kloth XFPro record holding Ford flathead.
It displaced 267 cubic inches and dynoed at 280 HP @ around 5700 rpm. It had 109% volumetric efficiency. The engine was always shifted at 6200 rpm. It was naturally aspirated.
Again, I'm sure there were/are more.
His record still stands after 26 years

[Henry Floored]

Originally Posted by Kahuna

Henry
I'm sure there are/were flathead engines capable of more than 1Hp/CI. I think Pete in Washington State has built a few.
The only engine I am personally familiar with was the Ken Kloth XFPro record holding Ford flathead.
It displaced 267 cubic inches and dynoed at 280 HP @ around 5700 rpm. It had 109% volumetric efficiency. The engine was always shifted at 6200 rpm. It was naturally aspirated.
Again, I'm sure there were/are more.
His record still stands after 26 years

Thanks Kahuna, I would absolutely love to speak with Mr. Kloth and even learn some of his secrets. Two hundred eighty hp out of 267" in a side valve engine is absolutely incredible. I would be fascinated to learn more.

[JWL]

I have met and talked to Kenny K. several times at Bonneville. Hi told us his engine had never been on the dyno and he thought it made around 220 to 240 HP. The one occasion, of which I am aware, the Merc was on a drag strip the power calculation is about 225.

A Flathead engine would not be a viable competitor against similar sized OHV vintage engines.

[Henry Floored]

Originally Posted by JWL

I have met and talked to Kenny K. several times at Bonneville. Hi told us his engine had never been on the dyno and he thought it made around 220 to 240 HP. The one occasion, of which I am aware, the Merc was on a drag strip the power calculation is about 225.

A Flathead engine would not be a viable competitor against similar sized OHV vintage engines.

Hi JWL and thanks. I think if someone dare try a Flathead for the EMC competition it would be more of an individual showcase of skill and ingenuity. It would be very difficult to usurp the inherent advantages OHV's hold in volumetric efficiency. My interest would be how close could one get? This is an average hp,tq/ cu. in. formula. A smaller engine that has better VE will beat a larger engine with lower VE. It would be great to hear from Mr. Kloth, perhaps you could make him aware of this thread that he might feel like commenting. I have only seen a couple pics of his record setting engine and it looks very conventional from the outside. Would love to learn more.

P.S. I recently purchased a copy of your book and thoroughly enjoyed it!

[Kahuna]

It is unfortunate that some people profess to know things and comment without all the information.
I am very sure that Ken would not say that his engine was never on a dyno, because it was and was done in Utah.
Next, and VERY important is the drag strip test:
Car- 4350+ lbs with Ken in car (car gearing NOT optimized for drag racing). 3 runs, as I recall.
No ET's were recorded, but speed was 93 mph. Calculate that, then tell me your theory on HP.

Lastly, folks should keep in mind that many racers keep a lot of what they do to accomplish a Bonneville record very close to the vest. That's why records stand. Ken would never lie. He just won't give anyone all the iformation they might desire.

Henry, a lot of what went into Ken's engine has been published in some magazine's:
Displacement
cam and lifters, etc.
Alot has NOT been published, and yes, the engine looks very conventional

I've known Ken for almost 30 years. He's a very talented machinist and thinker. I'm proud to call him my friend.
Jim

[JWL]

I think O'Ron was present on one occasion that KK said his engine was not dyno checked. In fact, I seem to remember it was Ron who asked him about that. He also said his drag strip speed was 89.

I can agree KK is a very open, friendly, approachable, guy who provides consulting to Bonneville hopefuls and would not knowingly provide false info. Likewise, I do not provide false info. Period.

[Mike51Merc]

Originally Posted by Kahuna

Henry
I'm sure there are/were flathead engines capable of more than 1Hp/CI. I think Pete in Washington State has built a few.
The only engine I am personally familiar with was the Ken Kloth XFPro record holding Ford flathead.
It displaced 267 cubic inches and dynoed at 280 HP @ around 5700 rpm. It had 109% volumetric efficiency. The engine was always shifted at 6200 rpm. It was naturally aspirated.
Again, I'm sure there were/are more.
His record still stands after 26 years

Sorry, but I'm not buying 109% VE on natural aspiration. Something in this story needs a tune-up.

[Tim Ayers]

Originally Posted by Kahuna

It is unfortunate that some people profess to know things and comment without all the information.
I am very sure that Ken would not say that his engine was never on a dyno, because it was and was done in Utah.
Next, and VERY important is the drag strip test:
Car- 4350+ lbs with Ken in car (car gearing NOT optimized for drag racing). 3 runs, as I recall.
No ET's were recorded, but speed was 93 mph. Calculate that, then tell me your theory on HP.

Lastly, folks should keep in mind that many racers keep a lot of what they do to accomplish a Bonneville record very close to the vest. That's why records stand. Ken would never lie. He just won't give anyone all the iformation they might desire.

Henry, a lot of what went into Ken's engine has been published in some magazine's:
Displacement
cam and lifters, etc.
Alot has NOT been published, and yes, the engine looks very conventional

I've known Ken for almost 30 years. He's a very talented machinist and thinker. I'm proud to call him my friend.
Jim

The Tex Smith flathead book by Ron C. has a cool write up about Ken. I think the article stated he uses some crazy oversized cam with mushroom tappets. The cam journals were oversized and required boring the cam journals to accommodate the larger cam.

Certainly some serious thought, tinkering, plotting and planning has got Ken T. engines to where they are today. Hats off to the man regardless of the HP or ET of his engine.

[scooder]

Kloths was a roller lifter cam, not mushroom, but all else is good.
Low compression, high breathing.
Martin.

[Henry Floored]

I remember reading that Kloth designed the combustion chambers to breathe which reduced static compression. Years ago NASCAR ran 9:1 engines and made up for that by designing camshafts which would effectively increase compression dynamically. There was even a photo of an experimental cyl head which had a low dome but had a passage above the valves to direct the charge over the normal transfer area and down into the cyl. The article stated that he found this did not work. It does however illustrate the thought process.

On some high end side valve engines like the Lycoming V8 and the Packard V12 the valves were tilted dramatically towards the cylinder in order to enhance breathing. The engineers that designed those two engines must have recognized that biggest restriction in an L-head is the hard turn that charge mixture must take as it passes the valve seat.

I am a mediocre engine builder but I think even I can coax 150hp out of a Flatty Ford. The best of the best can build around the 225-250hp. That's not a huge difference. This tells me that the greatest induction systems, ports, camshaft designs and overall building practices are limited by a distinct restriction. It's obvious then that is where new or even old thought should be focused. Barney Navarro was a big believer in high dome pistons. Hi domes as opposed to pop ups go way up into a high chamber but taper down to be flush with the top of the cylinder around the edges. That big high dome is a far less restricted area in which the "charge" can flow into.

There was another article which stated that Karl Orr ran some great times on the salt flats with a Flathead with some unusually modified stock heads. Those heads had the domes completely machined out. Then some steel domes that matched the curvature of the stock pistons were brazed in place much higher up in the head. Then the engine was stroked and keeping the stock pistons they were popped up into those raised domes. This was all done to increase breathing while still maintaining good compression ratios.

[38 coupe]

While we are on the budget is not a consideration, theoretical max power flathead subject, I have a question. Why don't any of the flathead Bonneville racers use a destroked 337 Lincoln motor in the flathead class (max 325 cubes)? Bigger ports, bigger intake valves, bigger main bearings, factory forged crank, huge oil pump volume, larger valve lifter diameter, etc. It looks to me like you could get a bit more power from one of these than out of a stretched to the limit Ford motor.

I know these things are heavy (I've got one), and a lot of parts would have to be custom made, but so what? Bonneville cars get weight added, and custom made parts is the norm for Bonneville flatheads. So why not the big Lincoln?

[Henry Floored]

Originally Posted by 38 coupe

While we are on the budget is not a consideration, theoretical max power flathead subject, I have a question. Why don't any of the flathead Bonneville racers use a destroked 337 Lincoln motor in the flathead class (max 325 cubes)? Bigger ports, bigger intake valves, bigger main bearings, factory forged crank, huge oil pump volume, larger valve lifter diameter, etc. It looks to me like you could get a bit more power from one of these than out of a stretched to the limit Ford motor.

I know these things are heavy (I've got one), and a lot of parts would have to be custom made, but so what? Bonneville cars get weight added, and custom made parts is the norm for Bonneville flatheads. So why not the big Lincoln?

I agree with you 100%. I've only seen inside a 337 one time but it looks like Ford addressed every facet and improved on it over the smaller engines. Would love to get my hands on one. Excellent engine. Saw one in a Muntz Jet once.

[Ronnieroadster]

Originally Posted by 38 coupe

While we are on the budget is not a consideration, theoretical max power flathead subject, I have a question. Why don't any of the flathead Bonneville racers use a destroked 337 Lincoln motor in the flathead class (max 325 cubes)? Bigger ports, bigger intake valves, bigger main bearings, factory forged crank, huge oil pump volume, larger valve lifter diameter, etc. It looks to me like you could get a bit more power from one of these than out of a stretched to the limit Ford motor.

I know these things are heavy (I've got one), and a lot of parts would have to be custom made, but so what? Bonneville cars get weight added, and custom made parts is the norm for Bonneville flatheads. So why not the big Lincoln?

The rules for Bonneville Land Speed Racing specify any production Ford / Mercury pasenger car V-8 flathead 1932 throw 1953 max cubes 325. The Lincoln flathead is not allowed.


Heres my ideas for the engine masters challange if the flathead was included. Start with a new French flathead block the exhaust dog bone issue has been eliminated. Next work towards a half inch valve lift actuated by rollers cam located in a tunnel flooded with oil the intake port shape issues would be greatly eliminated. Using a USA made crankshaft with five main bearings increase stroke to at least 4-1/2 inch. Next the rods would be of a beam type. Oiling changes including proper windage control and piston oil spray bars duplicating the latest technoligy used in any of the new factory high HP V-8's. Igntion crank trigered the spark plugs 3/4 reach with heat ranges adjustable for load required.
Induction would be updated to a computer contoled system for the best air fuel ratios that allow HP and Torque gains. Combustion chamber design would follow the last design developed by Harley Davidson for their racing program in the sixtys. Thats where I would start not sure where I would end.

[Henry Floored]

Originally Posted by Ronnieroadster

The rules for Bonneville Land Speed Racing specify any production Ford / Mercury pasenger car V-8 flathead 1932 throw 1953 max cubes 325. The Lincoln flathead is not allowed.


Heres my ideas for the engine masters challange if the flathead was included. Start with a new French flathead block the exhaust dog bone issue has been eliminated. Next work towards a half inch valve lift actuated by rollers cam located in a tunnel flooded with oil the intake port shape issues would be greatly eliminated. Using a USA made crankshaft with five main bearings increase stroke to at least 4-1/2 inch. Next the rods would be of a beam type. Oiling changes including proper windage control and piston oil spray bars duplicating the latest technoligy used in any of the new factory high HP V-8's. Igntion crank trigered the spark plugs 3/4 reach with heat ranges adjustable for load required.
Induction would be updated to a computer contoled system for the best air fuel ratios that allow HP and Torque gains. Combustion chamber design would follow the last design developed by Harley Davidson for their racing program in the sixtys. Thats where I would start not sure where I would end.

Great post Ronnie! Good ideas. I like the roller cam idea not just for max lift but for the rate of lift. Any Flathead breathes sideways off the valve seat, so low and mid lift specs are even more important. I like it!

[scooder]

Would that frog flathead be allowed in this engine masters thing? It does state American V8, 1954 or older, not including the hemi. A French engine built much later surely don't comply. I know they ain't allowed at Bonneville.
Martin.

[Henry Floored]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Originally Posted by scooder

Would that frog flathead be allowed in this engine masters thing? It does state American V8, 1954 or older, not including the hemi. A French engine built much later surely don't comply. I know they ain't allowed at Bonneville.
Martin.

Yeah I'll bet the French Flatty would probably be deemed illegal. I would like to see what could be done with ancient Henry iron anyway. I hope the final rules don't allow the OHV's aftermarket heads as well since they were never available pre-'54.

[Mike51Merc]

Originally Posted by Henry Floored

Yeah I'll bet the French Flatty would probably be deemed illegal. I would like to see what could be done with ancient Henry iron anyway. I hope the final rules don't allow the OHV's aftermarket heads as well since they were never available pre-'54.

I can't understand how people call them "Ardun Flatheads". No, sorry, it's not a flathead anymore. Very cool and valuable, but not a flathead.

[Henry Floored]

Originally Posted by Mike51Merc

I can't understand how people call them "Ardun Flatheads". No, sorry, it's not a flathead anymore. Very cool and valuable, but not a flathead.

I think the Ardun should be allowed because they were available at the time. What I meant was I don't think an Olds or Caddy should be able to use some modern interpretation of their heads in aluminum. I'd like to see how these old engines really compared. The Arduns were a true option and actually were part of the scene back in the day.

[V8COOPMAN]

Originally Posted by Henry Floored

I think the Ardun should be allowed because they were available at the time. What I meant was I don't think an Olds or Caddy should be able to use some modern interpretation of their heads in aluminum. I'd like to see how these old engines really compared. The Arduns were a true option and actually were part of the scene back in the day.

Do you have any background on the Duntov Brother heads? They were not Ford-produced options. They were aftermarket, like Edelbrock and Navarro, etc. DD

[Henry Floored]

Originally Posted by V8COOPMAN

Do you have any background on the Duntov Brother heads? They were not Ford-produced options. They were aftermarket, like Edelbrock and Navarro, etc. DD

I think you misunderstand me. In 1949 Edelbrock, Navarro and Ardun heads were available for the Flathead Ford. There were no Edelbrock, AFR or Dart heads available for any Olds, Caddy or Chevy V8 for that matter. I would like to see a comparison of what was available hot rodders back then. I would like to see just how good these various engines could be as they were utilized and raced in the 40's and 50's. Bolting today's technology onto a vintage block wouldn't be a fair comparison and wouldn't give a clear picture of the actual potential of the various engines as they stood back then.

[Ol' Ron]

I'm late getting here because after reading the firs few threads, I didn'yt think it was a viable project. The OHV's are just too good. I was supprised to read about Ken Kloth's engine. Yes I was with John when we talked to him and was surprised he didn have the engine dynoed. I was impressed at his knowledge and the performance of the car And a very nice guy to boot. The best power I ever got from an engine on a dyno was 175 @ 4800. I was surprised at the amount as I wasn't after HP but torque. The engine in question was 284ci and was replacing a 258ci engine that went substantially faster. But it had never been dynoed. This was in a 1936 Hydroplane. Wish I had it back, them little fellows got power. Have no idea why we build big engines.

[Henry Floored]

Originally Posted by Ol' Ron

I'm late getting here because after reading the firs few threads, I didn'yt think it was a viable project. The OHV's are just too good. I was supprised to read about Ken Kloth's engine. Yes I was with John when we talked to him and was surprised he didn have the engine dynoed. I was impressed at his knowledge and the performance of the car And a very nice guy to boot. The best power I ever got from an engine on a dyno was 175 @ 4800. I was surprised at the amount as I wasn't after HP but torque. The engine in question was 284ci and was replacing a 258ci engine that went substantially faster. But it had never been dynoed. This was in a 1936 Hydroplane. Wish I had it back, them little fellows got power. Have no idea why we build big engines.

Ron one of these days I'm going to build something different. I want to remove (as much as possible) the roadblocks to power in a Flatty. I doubt I could outsmart anybody when it comes to traditional building practices. I do think however think the intake tract could be rethought. On a Flatty the relationship between the location of the intake valve and the piston needs improvement in my humble opinion. The air/fuel charge enters the combustion chamber and wants to go straight up. That tells me the combustion dome needs to go up. In addition if there were some way to move the intake valve closer to the cylinder I think it would be a big help. I mean if think about it an angled valve opening over the cylinder would have to be a better flowing situation. The question is, can it be done?

[Ol' Ron]

Well, what you need is a flow bench. I made a home made one that worked quite well. I used it before I wrote my book and included the results. About 10 years later I had adigital flow bench given to me on loan, which proved my original flow system was very accurate in many cases. The down side of the flow benches is::: Uou get hooked on them looking for the HLY GRAIL of flow. Well after a year or so I couldn't find it. I did however discovered how I could increase the flow of a port in 15 minutes with a carbidr on a die grinder about 10%. But if you spend a few days in the same port, you're not going to get much more. Now if you could move the valves over the cylinder in a Hemispherical area with big valves and direct ports, you'd have something worth while. good luck.

[Bored&Stroked]

Okay, I know this is 'FordBarn', not 'FlatheadBarn', so excuse the following post

Too bad they don't allow us vintage boys to run blowers - we'd give them a run with the FlatCad (or at least have some fun!):

EngineBlowerDriveMockup4.jpg

EngineBlowerDriveMockup101.jpg

This is a 1940 Cadillac flathead engine, bored to 3.552 and stroked to 4.625 - about 366 cubes. Took us about 18 months to design/build the engine.

Actually, if it was a flathead only class, then I would run the Flathead Cadillac engine, due to the factory port arrangement (all up top). This shows the heavily ported block and the intake/top-end girdle.

IMG_0351 copy.jpg

We've proven it can take some abuse and the EMC challenge doesn't care about weight, so it could be fun. The downside is that it is very expensive and time consuming to build these one-off engines - as everything is 'custom' . . . only the 'block' is stock in the end.

But, we made 550 reliable HP on Gas and about 650 on Alky!

We can't wait to get back to Bonneville this year . . . has been a long wait!

B&S

[tubman]

I've always been impressed with what you guys have been able to do with these old "tank engines". I know the exhaust comes out the top of these engines (unlike Ford flatheads). It looks like the ports (from to back) are :

E-I-I-siamesed E-I-I-E.

Looks a lot more efficient than a Ford. Those ports are relatively HUGE. I see how you think a blower would probably work well on these.

[Bored&Stroked]

Originally Posted by tubman

Looks a lot more efficient than a Ford. Those ports are relatively HUGE. I see how you think a blower would probably work well on these.

They didn't start out that way . . . I think I had 10 lbs of cast iron up my nose by the time I was through! I put about 120 hours into porting and relieving that block - as there are four different intake and four different exhaust designs . . . so your sphincter tends to pucker a lot more than on a flathead Ford!

It does have far better breathing than any flathead Ford - unless you spend an insane amount of money on welding and Frankensteining the block (like FlatFire).

Anyway, fun conversation in general. I do believe that a flathead has no chance to win this category if it has to go against OHV setups. Now, if we're allowed to put OHV conversions on our Flatheads, then things become a lot more equal. But, we have to remember the HP levels they are able to achieve with Chevy/GMC 6 cylinders with aftermarket heads - way more than we can achieve with even the FlatCad.

Also, think about the first Olds Rocket engines - plenty of bad-ass combinations and later heads that can make a lot of HP. Yep - trying to compete with ANY flathead would be pretty much impossible (dollar for dollar, HP for HP).

[saltracer]

from the HAMB, a picture of the Jimmy Stevens built flathead motor that went over 300 mph. Seems to be dry deck, or completely filled, all cylinders seemed to be sleeved. ports rerouted out the top.

[V8COOPMAN]

Don't ya just love grass-roots ingenuity? DD

[tubman]

After seeing these last two examples, it would seem to me that running the exhaust out the top of the block would be a necessity for anyone wanting to make max HP from a flathead Ford. Does anyone know what they do with the conventional exhaust ports? Do they just run them as is, or are they plugged? Running them would give the exhaust a lot of places to go, but might mess up the flow characteristics.

BTW, the "spellchecker" on this site flags "flathead" as a potential misspelling whenever I post; has anyone else noticed this? Seems a little odd to me.

[saltracer]

spell it Flathead (capitol F)

[tubman]

Originally Posted by saltracer

spell it Flathead (capitol F)

That's the proper name for a native American tribe. I was using the generic term for 32-53 Ford V8 engines.

[Ronnieroadster]

Originally Posted by saltracer

from the HAMB, a picture of the Jimmy Stevens built flathead motor that went over 300 mph. Seems to be dry deck, or completely filled, all cylinders seemed to be sleeved. ports rerouted out the top.

Since the original exhaust ports are not used with this conversion Jimmy Stevens pumped cooling water into the original flathead exhaust ports. He also machined iron round stock into valve pockets with integral valve seats for the exhaust ports. He then cut into the sides of these new valve ports from the top of the intake deck. The engine details were written in the Bonneville Racing News. A bunch of forward thinking pretty much the best back yard hot rodding you can find when it comes to modifying a Ford flathead block for all power.

[Henry Floored]

Originally Posted by tubman

After seeing these last two examples, it would seem to me that running the exhaust out the top of the block would be a necessity for anyone wanting to make max HP from a flathead Ford. Does anyone know what they do with the conventional exhaust ports? Do they just run them as is, or are they plugged? Running them would give the exhaust a lot of places to go, but might mess up the flow characteristics.

BTW, the "spellchecker" on this site flags "flathead" as a potential misspelling whenever I post; has anyone else noticed this? Seems a little odd to me.

I don't think running the exhaust out the top is a necessity. Makes for a complicated induction system. To run exhaust out the top you're forcing it to make yet another 180 degree turn. The stock Flathead Ford exhaust ports angle down and gently away from the valve pocket area. On any side valve engine exhaust flow naturally wants to go down and away from the valve pocket area while on the other hand the intake flow travels through the port and "UP" into the combustion area. Ford had it right.

[tubman]

Notice I said "max HP". Looks to me that on a stock exhaust, it has to make a 270 degree turn. There has to be a reason for these guys to spend all of the time and effort to put it in. I don't see much "complication in the induction system either.

[Ol' Ron]

I can believe this helps a blown engine very much. Un blown somewhat.

[Henry Floored]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Originally Posted by tubman

Notice I said "max HP". Looks to me that on a stock exhaust, it has to make a 270 degree turn. There has to be a reason for these guys to spend all of the time and effort to put it in. I don't see much "complication in the induction system either.

In a supercharged engine you are doing to the intake flow what any piston engine does naturally to the exhaust flow. It pushes it through mechanically. On a naturally aspirated Flathead we have to be sure that our intake tract is flowing enough to warrent major reconstruction on the exhaust side. The exhaust stroke happens when the piston travels upward and slams the gases out of the port. In stark contrast on a naturally aspirated engine during the intake stroke the piston draws down pulling the charge into the cylinder. This process is subject to all sorts of impediments and restrictions. Sort of like drinking water through a straw and getting a lemon seed stuck. Pretty hard to get a drink with any restriction in the line.

Now am I saying to ignore the exhaust ports? He'll no! I have never built a Flathead Ford without cleaning out rough edges and sharp turns in the exhaust passages. Even for stock rebuilds. I'm just saying that I think the intake process is the main obstacle to gaining power in a Flathead Ford. In my humble opinion I say until the intake system is improved upon enough to overcome the capability of the exhaust side you don't need radical exhaust modifications. When you supercharge you are essentially "fixing" the intake problem and then at that point the emphasis must shift to the exhaust side.

There are photos on the Internet of Flathead Ford blocks with the decks machined away and into the exhaust port passages. Except for the entrance and exit points the ports are smooth and beautifully designed. The center ports in the heat riser area is most concerning to me. In an all out engine I say that heat riser chamber should be filled to a point where it forms a back wall to those center ports with a small and smooth deflector directing the exiting gasses down and out.