Pondering about flathead potentials
Moderator: Team
Re: Pondering about flathead potentials
Now make it in a V-8 configuration and then it will be a modern flathead V-8, IMHO..
pdq67
-
- Pro
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 11:57 pm
- Location: Finland
Re: Pondering about flathead potentials
I glanced a paper that described a research with a laboratory engine setup.
Ravi Teja Vedula: Optical Investigations and Efficiency Measurements of A Dual-Mode Turbulent Jet Ignition Engine Under Lean and High-EGR Near-Stoichiometric Conditions. A Dissertation. Michigan State University, 2016.
Read at least pages 71–75. That's what I did.
Now, what could be the supposed relevance with flathead engines? Unlike HCCI and many other new combustion processes, turbulent jet ignition and exhaust gas recirculation do not rely heavily on the combustion chamber geometry. So, I did a quite straightforward assumption that the combustion process that was described in the paper, could be used in a flathead (usually L-head) engine.
- Compression ratio 12:1
- Lean charges
- Turbulent Jet Ignition
- Exhaust Gas Recirculation
Ravi Teja Vedula: Optical Investigations and Efficiency Measurements of A Dual-Mode Turbulent Jet Ignition Engine Under Lean and High-EGR Near-Stoichiometric Conditions. A Dissertation. Michigan State University, 2016.
Read at least pages 71–75. That's what I did.
Now, what could be the supposed relevance with flathead engines? Unlike HCCI and many other new combustion processes, turbulent jet ignition and exhaust gas recirculation do not rely heavily on the combustion chamber geometry. So, I did a quite straightforward assumption that the combustion process that was described in the paper, could be used in a flathead (usually L-head) engine.
"Adding power makes you faster on the straights. Subtracting weight makes you faster everywhere."
– Colin Chapman, design engineer, inventor, and founder of Lotus Cars
– Colin Chapman, design engineer, inventor, and founder of Lotus Cars
-
- Pro
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 11:57 pm
- Location: Finland
Re: Pondering about flathead potentials
So the engine block would be as simple as in pushrod engines and the valves would be in the head, not in the block. The head could be a two piece construction with a seal between them, to make valve insertion easier. That kind of head would allow more modifications because there would be no need to modify the block if one wished to have better ports etc.
Although I don't know how useful it would be, but there would be a possibility to move valves partially above the cylinder, which is not possible in a conventional L-head.
"Adding power makes you faster on the straights. Subtracting weight makes you faster everywhere."
– Colin Chapman, design engineer, inventor, and founder of Lotus Cars
– Colin Chapman, design engineer, inventor, and founder of Lotus Cars
-
- Pro
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 11:57 pm
- Location: Finland
Re: Pondering about flathead potentials
See this interview in which the engine guy from MAHLE explains their jet ignition. That gadget brings to an engine what the conventional spark cannot.
Unlike a modern engine head with four valves per cylinder, etc. there is plenty of space available on a flathead.
Unlike a modern engine head with four valves per cylinder, etc. there is plenty of space available on a flathead.
"Adding power makes you faster on the straights. Subtracting weight makes you faster everywhere."
– Colin Chapman, design engineer, inventor, and founder of Lotus Cars
– Colin Chapman, design engineer, inventor, and founder of Lotus Cars
-
- Pro
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 11:57 pm
- Location: Finland
Re: Pondering about flathead potentials
I wonder what if anything is going on with Mark Kirby's aluminium flathead V8.
"Adding power makes you faster on the straights. Subtracting weight makes you faster everywhere."
– Colin Chapman, design engineer, inventor, and founder of Lotus Cars
– Colin Chapman, design engineer, inventor, and founder of Lotus Cars
-
- Member
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:25 pm
- Location:
Re: Pondering about flathead potentials
Why couldn’t someone take a big bore block like say a 8.2” deck Ford 302 and simply build plates that bolt to the decks that are a couple inches thick bore down through and install a long sleeve through the deck plates and into the cylinder.
Now the block and deck plates essentially become one piece.
These plates could incorporate an intake and exhaust valve or maybe even two intake valves and one exhaust. The intake ports would be easy. The exhaust could be channels machined right in the plates and covered by the actual “Flathead” style cylinder heads. Matter of fact it might be easier to do 4 exhaust ports out the bottom like the normal Ford Flathead V8 exits with 3.
Now to make up for the extra 2” of deck height a fella could put up to a 4.25” stroke in there with a longer rod.
Let’s see that’s about a 427 inch Flatty with 5 mains and a standard bore Ford block.
Now the block and deck plates essentially become one piece.
These plates could incorporate an intake and exhaust valve or maybe even two intake valves and one exhaust. The intake ports would be easy. The exhaust could be channels machined right in the plates and covered by the actual “Flathead” style cylinder heads. Matter of fact it might be easier to do 4 exhaust ports out the bottom like the normal Ford Flathead V8 exits with 3.
Now to make up for the extra 2” of deck height a fella could put up to a 4.25” stroke in there with a longer rod.
Let’s see that’s about a 427 inch Flatty with 5 mains and a standard bore Ford block.
-
- Member
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:25 pm
- Location:
Re: Pondering about flathead potentials
Gosh did my last post kill this thread? Lol It was just daydreaming but a fun thought nonetheless.
-
- Pro
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 11:57 pm
- Location: Finland
Re: Pondering about flathead potentials
Something like that could work. Last July I was thinking about the possibility to construct such a side-valve engine. I suppose it would be much easier compared to designing and building a completely new engine block. There are plenty of different blocks. Some of them may be suitable.MichaelThompson wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 9:27 am Why couldn’t someone take a big bore block like say a 8.2” deck Ford 302 and simply build plates that bolt to the decks that are a couple inches thick bore down through and install a long sleeve through the deck plates and into the cylinder.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
"Adding power makes you faster on the straights. Subtracting weight makes you faster everywhere."
– Colin Chapman, design engineer, inventor, and founder of Lotus Cars
– Colin Chapman, design engineer, inventor, and founder of Lotus Cars
-
- Member
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:25 pm
- Location:
Re: Pondering about flathead potentials
Yes Nikolas, I like the 8.2” deck Ford block precisely because the short deck would accommodate the thick plate that could house the valve gear and ports.
This could be done relatively inexpensively with a stock type 5.0 short block. Even a late 80’s 5.0 roller block would work.
I’ll bet you could build a 300 hp five main Flathead Ford with such a setup. Matter of fact I’m picking up a 302 short block tomorrow to play with.
The 8.2” deck with the deck plate would still be very compact and light.
This could be done relatively inexpensively with a stock type 5.0 short block. Even a late 80’s 5.0 roller block would work.
I’ll bet you could build a 300 hp five main Flathead Ford with such a setup. Matter of fact I’m picking up a 302 short block tomorrow to play with.
The 8.2” deck with the deck plate would still be very compact and light.
-
- Member
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:25 pm
- Location:
Re: Pondering about flathead potentials
Just a little follow up on the Ford Flathead thing. If you think about a really stout side valve engine one cannot forget the 308” Hudson six cylinder.
Of course the Hudson has large bores and plenty of displacement for a six cylinder, but let’s not forget that the Hudson like any inline side valve has the advantage of a better point of entry for the intake port being lower on the block.
On the V8 engine you have the intake port in almost a fishhook shape really challenging the flow to reverse direction unnecessarily and abruptly.
A neat experiment would be to fill the intake ports and reshape them so they are fairly straight and at a 45 to the backside of the intake valve.
This would put the intake port in the valley area. A log style plenum in the valley that could tie all the ports together with either a carb in the center or even EFI would really shorten and straighten the intake path.
The most difficult area on a conventional side valve engine is the nearly 180 degree turn the charge must take to enter the cylinder. Things can be done to improve this like valve positioning and pop up pistons. With a drastically simplified intake path like I described could we see a good leap in power? I think so.
I think with some out of the box thinking one could surpass the 200 N/A horsepower mark.
Of course the Hudson has large bores and plenty of displacement for a six cylinder, but let’s not forget that the Hudson like any inline side valve has the advantage of a better point of entry for the intake port being lower on the block.
On the V8 engine you have the intake port in almost a fishhook shape really challenging the flow to reverse direction unnecessarily and abruptly.
A neat experiment would be to fill the intake ports and reshape them so they are fairly straight and at a 45 to the backside of the intake valve.
This would put the intake port in the valley area. A log style plenum in the valley that could tie all the ports together with either a carb in the center or even EFI would really shorten and straighten the intake path.
The most difficult area on a conventional side valve engine is the nearly 180 degree turn the charge must take to enter the cylinder. Things can be done to improve this like valve positioning and pop up pistons. With a drastically simplified intake path like I described could we see a good leap in power? I think so.
I think with some out of the box thinking one could surpass the 200 N/A horsepower mark.
Re: Pondering about flathead potentials
When dealing with the flathead ford working with the port entrance will render some gain but unless you do some judicious work on the choke point where the port enters the bowl the work at the port entrance is less effective. I've done some experimental work cutting off the lip of the intake port that extends over the valley and hand forming a flange and tube that would have attached to a common plenum manifold. Interesting experiment that required grinding into the water jacket and epoxy filling at the choke point to realize the benefits, and it would have only been feasible on a dry block. Overcoming the choke point and still maintaining the coolant passages is a challenge. If one developed a truly modern flathead, thermal analysis should be used to overcome some of the shortcomings of the intuitively designed ford coolant passages; modern casting practices would eliminate the semi- open deck also.
-
- Member
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:25 pm
- Location:
Re: Pondering about flathead potentials
Thanks Ks, I think we are on the same page.
I guess if we think of it like this......imagine a section of cheap garden hose laying on a workbench. If you took that hose and bent it to a “J” shape that dang hose is gonna want to kink at the apex of the bend.
Well the Flathead Ford intake port sort of mimics that in what you call the choke point. Like the cheap garden hose the Ford port chokes off right at that critical apex point just like you describe. The modification that I was talking about would require some fancy machine work.
I’ve thought about this a lot and the best I can come up with is either boring into the block and pressing in an intake tube or completely machining away the two intake ports as far as possible, with consideration given to the valve guide, and replacing that area with a block of steel or aluminum in which one could carve a more optimum port.
I don’t know what sort of water sealing issues that would create till I actually make those cuts.
The thing that would really be great is a new edition cylinder block with nicer intake ports built in. There have been attempts but so far no mass marketable piece.
I guess if we think of it like this......imagine a section of cheap garden hose laying on a workbench. If you took that hose and bent it to a “J” shape that dang hose is gonna want to kink at the apex of the bend.
Well the Flathead Ford intake port sort of mimics that in what you call the choke point. Like the cheap garden hose the Ford port chokes off right at that critical apex point just like you describe. The modification that I was talking about would require some fancy machine work.
I’ve thought about this a lot and the best I can come up with is either boring into the block and pressing in an intake tube or completely machining away the two intake ports as far as possible, with consideration given to the valve guide, and replacing that area with a block of steel or aluminum in which one could carve a more optimum port.
I don’t know what sort of water sealing issues that would create till I actually make those cuts.
The thing that would really be great is a new edition cylinder block with nicer intake ports built in. There have been attempts but so far no mass marketable piece.
-
- Member
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:25 pm
- Location:
Re: Pondering about flathead potentials
Same page Michael, only I didn't cut the block back as far as you have described. Theoretically you could cut it back in a mill to a point just before the goofy little water passage on the manifold side of the block and do the plate deal; sealing the lifter galley with a plate joining the left and right side on the bottom of the plates. You can invest a butt load of hours just doing some semi conventional modifications and I never wanted to invest the time to do any more than I did on the junk block. Thanks for bringing up the Hudson; that one and the Chrysler Spitfire were my favorites. The valve centerlines were closer to the bore centerline so their transfer area was much smaller. They never got the support the ford did from the aftermarket because the O.H.V. was becoming king; bigger valves (I've done 2.02 on a Hudson) and better ports at least gave more potential. Lots of things tried on the ford (some good, some bad) but when N/A the ports were always the biggest work- around problem.