Exh flow

[mag2555]

Would anybody find a problem with running this ported Exh in a Ford E7TE-PA casting if it peaked in flow at only .400" lift and the Cam to be run was going to hit .600" lift after lash?



The valve this port was tested with is a 1.57" with no back cut yet so the low lift flow numbers will still come up more.
Of course with 164 Exh CFM about 215 cfm on the Intake side is where I would go.

Flow@28"

.050"---.100"---.150"----.200"----.250"----.300"----.350"----.400"---
25.6------54.2---83.5----112.5----141.4----151.8---162.7---164.4

I see where some have yanked over 170 cfm out of one of these E7TE heads with a 1.60" valve , but I kinda call BS since the port wall thickness left from what it looks like to me would not hold up for too long in certain areas!

Thanks in advance!

[frnkeore]

Just to throw this back to the top, I would also like to know the answer or at least have other opinions on it.

There are lots of head porters on here, what do you think guys?

[Carnut1]

Would anybody find a problem with running this ported Exh in a Ford E7TE-PA casting if it peaked in flow at only .400" lift and the Cam to be run was going to hit .600" lift after lash?



The valve this port was tested with is a 1.57" with no back cut yet so the low lift flow numbers will still come up more.
Of course with 164 Exh CFM about 215 cfm on the Intake side is where I would go.

Flow@28"

.050"---.100"---.150"----.200"----.250"----.300"----.350"----.400"---
25.6------54.2---83.5----112.5----141.4----151.8---162.7---164.4

I see where some have yanked over 170 cfm out of one of these E7TE heads with a 1.60" valve , but I kinda call BS since the port wall thickness left from what it looks like to me would not hold up for too long in certain areas!

Thanks in advance!

Mag, I am guessing this is aimed at me. 165 cfm is very good on this head and I think I bettered that by a few cfm when I did the set for D.V..
The thread was Power porting the E7TE or close to that. I looked it up and attempted to get a few pics for you but kept getting kicked off. It may be my old phone having an issue. I think I used a radius cut under the 45 with a burr. I was able to push out the cylinder wall of exhaust port by a good amount and kept the throat at 1.4". These actually flow better if the bowl is kept tight. The roof is raised quite a bit. The cutaway pic in the thread shows how much metal you have to work with.Thanks, Charlie

[Carnut1]

$T2eC16J,!)EE9s2ufWcHBSGzyR,ujQ--60_1.JPG

[CamKing]

My first question would be, were those exhaust flow numbers recorded with or without an exhaust extension pipe ?

[Carnut1]

My first question would be, were those exhaust flow numbers recorded with or without an exhaust extension pipe ?

Without. With a 1 5/8" pipe it was 180 or so.

[Carnut1]

Resized_20170902_190102_2572.jpeg

Looking at the valve job this is not completely finessed but you can get an idea how far I took it.

[mag2555]

Thanks for your reply carnut and I was just throwing the question out for anyone, but thanks for that cut away photo and that of valve bowl !

My flow test was without a tube, so yes the numbers above .300" lift will go up with the right tube offset, but I stopped reworking where I did since my sonic tester is lent out now and I need to not blow thru a port wall.

I also stoped my rework since atleast with these flow numbers plus the port shape and area my velocity numbers are very even at the flange from top to bottom with only a 3 to 4 fps difference and nearly the same in respect to side to side numbers.

Since this is a end Exh port once I took out the freeze plug and took my digital OD gauge I saw that I have some more meat on that outside wall to play with and around the guide, but I wonder how long term it would hold up to 20k miles of heat up and cool down sessions so I left it.

tonight I have to box this head up to sent off to Frank who is part of this thread so he has a reference to do his porting from for his heads , so I will take some pictures later and post them up in the morning for those who care.

What I can say judging from your photo carnut, is my short turn is a good amount different then yours in regards to what can be judged in a 2 dimensional photo.

[CamKing]

My first question would be, were those exhaust flow numbers recorded with or without an exhaust extension pipe ?

Without. With a 1 5/8" pipe it was 180 or so.

Does it still peak at .400" lift, with the pipe ?

[mag2555]

Don't know, I will run that test later today to answer that and get back to you.

[Carnut1]

My first question would be, were those exhaust flow numbers recorded with or without an exhaust extension pipe ?

Without. With a 1 5/8" pipe it was 180 or so.

Does it still peak at .400" lift, with the pipe ?

IMG_3175.JPG

This is from D.V.'s E7 thread. This is without pipe. This exhaust had a similar curve with pipe extension. Thanks, Charlie

[CamKing]

Without. With a 1 5/8" pipe it was 180 or so.

Does it still peak at .400" lift, with the pipe ?

IMG_3175.JPG
This is from D.V.'s E7 thread. This is without pipe. This exhaust had a similar curve with pipe extension. Thanks, Charlie

Sorry, that question was for mag2555

[Carnut1]

Does it still peak at .400" lift, with the pipe ?

IMG_3175.JPG
This is from D.V.'s E7 thread. This is without pipe. This exhaust had a similar curve with pipe extension. Thanks, Charlie

Sorry, that question was for mag2555

Ok, Mike. I thought it was for me.

[mag2555]

Hi all!

Here's the results of the flow test requested.

I used a 1 7/8" ID tube 4 inches long before a 45 degree bend.

The peak airflow level increased from .400" lift to near .500" lift with the lower depression that the tube made and once the test pressure was cranked back up to where it was there was a 6% flow gain , so 164 cfm became 175 cfm.

I did not have time to test out how low in lift the tube helped out the flow numbers, but on this small a darn port I would it had a effect all the way down to .250" lift!

Here are some photos for what they are worth!

My short turn is different then yours from what I can judge carnut, my valve job left in place the factory 15 degree top cut then a had the 45 seat and a really deep 60 that I blended out alot' especially around the short turn.

I have blended out near 70% of that 60 bottom cut and now there is a straight section parallel with the valve inclination angle that's near .240" tall, then my radius out to the flange starts.

My port is also very shuffled over to the cylinder outside from the mid height of the port walls increasing on down to the roof , in fact I leaned it over so much on the outside wall roof that I exceed the header gasket by some .020"

Also note that the back wall of my bowl has not been touched much since I find that helps maintain high levels of low lift flow, but yes it does limit high lift flow so there's where the pain in Ass decision of a trade off / balancing act come into play with these types of small area minimal short turn height ports.

Oh, and also of interest might be the unshrouding work I did on the side of the chamber here produced a flow loss of 3 cfm below .250" lift, so not everything / move we have been told will be a plus is cut in stone, and I did not even unshroud out as far as I could go for the sake of compression!

My guess is its due to the factory 15 degree cut that I had to leave in place to keep the valve up out of the bowl.

[jed]

It is interesting to see/read how two different styles/thoughts on porting produce similar results.